Musically, it’s a Garden of Arcane Delights kind of morning.

Liturgically, I’m wondering about canticles… M suggested—wisely—that periodically we do the Offices from Rite II just to maintain currency with that way of doing things. My basic principle is that when I do Rite I, I follow the rubrics as interpreted through the 1662 book; when I do Rite II, I follow the intentions of the editors of the ’79 book. Thus, for MP, I use the table in the Additional Directions section (I just can’t bring myself to use it for EP, though…).

Anyway, in reading through it the past few mornings, I’ve been wondering why we have the canticles that we do. As you recall, the original intention of MP is that it is Cranmer’s collation of the Night Office (Matins + Lauds) + Prime—so, the first three Hours. Matins on Sundays and feast days always ends with the Te Deum; Lauds always incorporates the Benedictus. Hence, these are the master canticles for MP. The 1662 rubrics direct the use of the Te Deum outside of penitential seasons for the first reading and the Benedictus daily. Thus, this is fully in line with the original intention. During penitential seasons, though, the Benedicite is utilized. Now—where did this come from? In the old system, an OT canticle was said daily at Lauds slipped in between the fourth and fifth (and final) psalm. The Benedicite was the canticle for Sundays. So, the canticles retained in the 1662 book for MP mirrored certain selected elements of Sunday practice.

To complicate things a little, there were, in the old system, two forms of the Lauds office—one for penitential days and one for non-penitential days. The Benedicite was (if I remember right) the Sunday canticle in the non-penitiential; the one in the penitential version was the Benedictus es. Flip to Rite I for a second…yep, there they are… So, even the ’79 book through the influence of earlier books retains the elements of the old system.

Now, the major difference between Rite II and all predecessor rites is the great multiplication of options. Clearly this appears in the canticle options. I understand the desire to include more biblical materials and I have no problem with that. But…why not go back to the original source? Why not bring in the canticles from  Lauds 1 and 2 in the old system? Hatchett (the main commentator on the ’79 book) gives no insight here.

I’m really not against liturgical change—but if we are going to change something and there’s a good historical precedent that accomplishes what we’re trying to do, why not use it?   

There’s been quite a lot of hullabaloo over on T19 about the omission of 6b from the Scripture reading (John 14:1-6a) from President Ford’s funeral. For the record, the President and his family selected all the readings…On a completely unrelated matter relating to my day job I googled the preacher and found the following from his blog about General Convention. Note in particular one of the bullets towards the end where he specifically affirms verse 6… All in all, he gives not a bad list.

I have four main objections that I will list moving from the least important to the most…

1. Many folk think that this is a good idea because it’s what Jesus did. See the post above—it’s not. The Seder liturgy as we know it does not date from the early first century period.
2. More often than not, doing a “Christian Seder” is disrespectful of Jewish beliefs. In essence, it can simply be an exercise in “playing Jewish” rather than attempt to honor and engage a related tradition; how would you like to hear about a Muslim “Easter Vigil”? I remember reading once—I can’t remember where—a statement by the rabbis on whether gentiles or outsiders can/should attend Jewish festivals. The answer was something to the effect of “If they have not mourned with us, neither should they rejoice with us.” In other words, if you’re going to do a Seder, why not also a Yom Kippur, or the fast commemorating the destruction of the Temple? Picking and choosing liturgical observances skews your sense of a tradition and what the celebration means (topic for later post: the modern insistence on the celebration of Sunday as a weekly remembrance of the Resurrection and the concomitant suppression of Friday as a weekly remembrance of the Passion. It seems to me you can’t/shouldn’t have one without the other…) The only way to do a Christian Seder with integrity is to do it in conjunction with a local synagogue. Their rabbis and leaders can make sure that the right things are taught/done/etc. LP—didn’t your former congregation do this? Even this, however, is problematic because I suggest that if the Jewish traditions and theology are properly honored, then—necessarily—the Christian ones are not.
3.  The point of a proper Jewish Seder (as I understand it and I’m open to correction if this is wrong) is the celebration of the Exodus. This is the Passover ritual. As a result, the meal remembers and celebrates the community’s salvation and liberation from Egypt and its formation as the freed people of God. What’s the point of Maundy Thursday, though? In the Christian tradition it serves as the first service of the Triduum—essentially a three day liturgy that begins on the evening of Maundy Thursday and that concludes with the first Mass of Easter. The celebration of the community’s liberation and salvation does not occur on Thursday for Christians, but Sunday. Some of the Easter Vigils that I’ve been to conclude with a big blow-out feast with a menu very reminiscent of a Seder; I think Anastasia’s church does/did this. That’s appropriate. But for us, a Thursday Seder celebration simply doesn’t work on the theological level. Consider for a second one of the major chronological differences between the gospels: the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) have Jesus’ arrest after the Passover meal; John’s has it before so that the crucifixion coincides with the slaughtering of the Passover lambs. Historically, the Synoptics are probably right; theologically, John is.  
4. The practice of a Maundy Thursday Seder is symptomatic of a liturgical theology that I find very troubling because of its implications. It’s the notion of re-enactment. My students who advocated this practice were rather confused at my insistence that liturgy is not about re-enactment. Re-enactment suggests that we are trying to replicate something that happened in the past. The logic here is fundamentally historical—we are remembering a past event because the importance lies in the past. I was and am emphatic that liturgy is not about the past—it’s about the present and the future. We don’t re-enact, rather, we enact. We don’t celebrate the Eucharist because we are doing something from the past, but because in and through the Eucharist Christ is made truly and really present here and now in our very midst. While our celebration of Holy Week and Triduum is rooted in historical particularities, these particularities are not the principle focus. Rather, the present and future implications of those acts are what we experience and celebrate. Because Christ died, once for all time, we have been and are reconciled to the Father; because Christ rose, once for all time, we have the hope of resurrection and—indeed—experience foretastes of that resurrection even in our own flesh. These are not events that should be shoved into the past and re-enacted, but enacted and celebrated as breaking forth in our own time and place.  

This is prompted in part by a student paper from my mass of grading I’m slowly coming out from under…since I think my grades are due today…

If people complain that the Trinity isn’t in the Bible, they ought to complain even more about the Economic Trinity: “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier.” The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with it, especially in its current liturgical use. This formulation is—as far as I know—a construct of liberal protestant theology without particularly deep roots in Christian practice, especially in the ways it’s coming more and more into use. My reading of medieval sources in particular is often at odds with it in several key respects and highlights the dissonances within it for me.

Increasingly, the Economic Trinity is gaining favor as a liturgical substitute for the classical Trinitarian of “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”; functionally, people seem to map the terms with the various parts of the Godhead: Father=Creator, Redeemer=Son, Sanctifier=Holy Spirit. I don’t know if this was the original intent of the folks who constructed it or not but it’s certainly the way it’s playing out in our faith communities. And as strict equivalencies—they don’t work. Medieval catechetical documents lift up Christ as creator in ways at odds with this construction. And, when the dissonance is probed, the New Testament evidence—John, the Pauline group, the Petrines—comes down much more on the medieval side than the modern side. The same is true of disassociating the Father for the Redeemer;  who is it that leads out his people “with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm”?

Professional theologians have the learning and leisure to sit around and discuss how Christ is functioning in the Exodus narrative or in Creation and how the economic terms neither precisely limit nor delineate the persons of the Godhead—but most other folks don’t. I suggest we think real hard about the theological problems of replacing one with the other before making it an unreflective liturgical change. It’s the unreflective changes that seem like a good idea at the time that can lead not only us but our fellow believers into trouble…

And yes, that last post would have been an opportunity to use one of Lil’ G’s favorite words—that isn’t a word. She’s quite good with language and is still working through the intricacies and rules of English use. Recently, she’s begun using the word “amn’t” (especially in defenses of her behavior or other denials) that functions in the same way as isn’t and aren’t. We’re attempting to persuade her that such a word really doesn’t exist. Linguistically, though, I am’nt sure why it doesn’t… My guess would be that the vowels I and a elide more naturally into “I’m” (hence the more standard “I’m not”) rather than the m and n.