Author Archives: Derek A. Olsen

++Rowan Sends Letters

++Rowan has sent ’round the world this morning two letters–one for Advent and one for Christmas. Ever the liturgical snark, my first instinct was to wish he had sent the Christmas one later than the Advent one if even only by a day or two…

There will be lots of talk about these letters and their contents. I may weigh in on them–I may not. But I do want to suggest that the Advent letter be analyzed with two entirely different questions in mind:

  1. Does this letter reflect the Anglican understanding of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury? How well does it go about being faithful to our Anglican ways of relating to each other?
  2. How should the Episcopal Church respond–in so far as we are able to respond in any kind of unified way?

Again, I want to stress that I see these as two entirely different questions that will help us gain a better sense of where we ought to be moving in response to this missive.

On the Avatar and Liturgy

Michelle at Heavenfield was asking about avatars. And I’ve been intending to get back to talking about early medieval liturgy. Sorry, but putting together a pedagogically helpful structured sequence of posts that lay everything out in good order is more than I can muster at the present time. Rather, it’ll be bits and pieces that perhaps I’ll try to connect logically at a later date. I mention these two things (avatars and liturgy) together because they’re related…

My avatar avatar is, in fact, a liturgical symbol.

Early medieval sacramentaries are books for the Mass used by the priest. They’re different from missals because missals include more material—they have stuff that the priest wouldn’t pray given a full liturgical crowd. A sacramentary only has the priest’s parts. (On this way of structuring liturgical books and its theological implications see this piece of mine at the Cafe.)

Sacramentaries have material that can profitably be classified in two parts: ordinaries and propers. Ordinaries are those prayers or elements that are used all year long. Preeminently, this means the canon of the Mass. Propers are material that change whether seasonally, weekly, or daily. The bulk of a sacramentary is taken up by “mass sets.” These are collections of a number of prayers—anywhere from four to six or so—that provide the “proper” elements for the occasion, that is, the things that change. The full Eucharistic prayer is not complete until these items are plugged into their proper place.

Major days may get these six proper elements:

  1. An opening collect that goes at the beginning of the service after the introit,
  2. An offering prayer (also known as the secret as it was said inaudibly) [typically marked as sub obl or secreta]* wherein the bread and wine to be consecrated are offered to God,
  3. A proper preface [often marked as Praefat] which follows the introductory dialogue (sursum corda) at the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer,
  4. A prayer at the conclusion [marked Ad Comp] of the Eucharist,
  5. a prayer over the people [marked Ad Pop/uli],
  6. and a benediction [marked Benedict].

*Rubrics are at all the whim of scribes, different books may use different designations. For solid guidance on this matter generally look to Andrew Hughes which is essential for understanding manuscript layout—just be warned he covers sources from 1250 and later…

Mass sets for non-major days—especially weekdays—tend to just have numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5. These days don’t get their own proper preface and, properly speaking, only a bishop should give a benediction and these are often relegated to their own separate book. (I work a lot out of the Leofric Missal which was written for a bishop and thus has them…)

So—what does this have to do with my avatar? Because these prayers are designed to be inserted into pre-existing prayers, there is common transitional material. Since everyone knew what this was, these transitional phrases weren’t written out but were merely abbreviated with signs. My avatar is one of these. What looks like an odd ‘W’ is actually the joining of a V, a D, and a cross to abbreviate the standard phrase that begins proper prefaces: “Vere dignum et iustum est… (It is right and proper that we…)”

This one is taken from Cod. Sang. 342, a manuscript from the monastery of St. Gall and is a proto-missal that contains, in addition to a sacramentary, a Gospel lectionary and the earliest survival noted gradual. It was probably written by Hartker, a monk of St. Gall, who is a major figure for the study of early chant.

As to why I selected it—because I’m a liturgy geek. Was there really any question about that?

(And now I want LP and Lee to explain why they picked theirs…)

Anglican Affairs

I suspect all who care know that the Diocese of San Joaquin voted to disassociate from the Episcopal Church this weekend. Every time I come back to study this event and my reaction to it, I always come away with the same feeling—this is another link in a long chain of events that reek of personal aggrandizement and power politics from both sides of the fence than the sweet savor of Gospel truth. (So sorry, but give my experience with Anglo-Catholic parishes and clergy, the idea that this Anglo-Catholic diocese split because of homosexuality is laughable; furthermore, given the way that many “pragmatic liberals” trumpet “full inclusion” yet act as they will when they will makes me question the purity of their intentions.)

That’s all I have to say on the matter—but I have two thoughts from others to commend to you:

1) More on the split from Fr. David at Ayia Iluvatar.

2) On intemperate blogging from the Morning Office (being myself under the word of judgment):

     

Psalm 52
       
   

1

   Why boastest thou thyself, thou tyrant :
  that thou canst do mischief;
         
   

2

   Whereas the goodness of God :
  endureth yet daily?
         
   

3

   Thy tongue imagineth wickedness :
  and with lies thou cuttest like a sharp razor.
         
   

4

   Thou hast loved unrighteousness more than goodness :
  and to talk of lies more than righteousness.
         
   

5

   Thou hast loved to speak all words that may do hurt :
  O thou false tongue.
         
   

6

   Therefore shall God destroy thee for ever :
  he shall take thee, and pluck thee out of thy dwelling, and root thee out of the land of the living.
         
   

7

   The righteous also shall see this, and fear :
  and shall laugh him to scorn;
         
   

8

   Lo, this is the man that took not God for his strength :
  but trusted unto the multitude of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness.
         
   

9

   As for me, I am like a green olive-tree in the house of God :
  my trust is in the tender mercy of God for ever and ever.
         
   

10

   I will always give thanks unto thee for that thou hast done :
  and I will hope in thy Name, for thy saints like it well.

Mind the Trolls

I’m in a northern mood today probably brought on by a sudden temperature drop and the pines and ravens on the way to work this morning…

In any case, I was musing that we’re entering troll season…

Culturally, Celtic traditions have made a certain impact upon American pop spirituality. I’m thinking of Halloween in particular here; that’s the time when “ghouls and goblins” come out due to cultural connects with the Celtic Samhain and the Christian response with All Saints and All Souls (which, as far as I can tell, seems to have early support if not origins in Anglo-Celtic regions—Alcuin was a big earlier promoter).

In Scandinavian traditions, however, the thin time when unnatural critters abound is not the autumnal equinox but the winter solstice—Yule. Quite a number of the beast tales in the thattr tradition are set in midwinter or Christmas. In fact, several Christmas courts of the early kings cower in terror of a trollish beast ravaging the countryside awaiting a hero (often bear-kin, of course) to dispatch it.

No real point—just a passing thought.

Categories of Liturgical Sources in Anglo-Saxon England

The place to begin in discussing A-S liturgical minutae is with the state of primary sources—what are they and how may they be categorized? How will I know where to find what items?

The most comprehensive resource I know of is a 1985 article printed in a festschrift for Peter Clemoes: Helmut Gneuss, “Liturgical books in Anglo‑Saxon England and their Old English terminology,” pages 91-141 in Learning and literature in Anglo-Saxon England : studies presented to Peter Clemoes on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, edited by Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

What makes this article invaluable is that Dr. Gneuss has laid out the major types of books according to liturgical use, then categorized every surviving A-S liturgical sources known to him within his typology. Here are his headings from page 99:

BOOKS FOR THE MASS
A Missal and Sacramentary
B Gradual
C Troper
‑ Mass Lectionaries ‑  
D Gospel‑Book and Gospel Lectionary
E Epistolary
BOOKS FOR THE OFFICE
F Breviary
G Collectar
H Psalter
J Antiphoner
K Hymnal
‑ Office Lectionaries ‑  
L Bible
M Homiliary
N Legendary
O Books with special offices
BOOKS FOR THE CHAPTER OFFICE
P Martyrology
Q Regula S. Benedicti and Chrodegang’s Regula canonicorum
EPISCOPAL BOOKS AND RITUALS
R Pontifical
S Benedictional
T Manual
OTHER BOOKS
U Consuetudinary
W Prayer‑Books and Private Prayers
X Liturgical Calendar
Y Confraternity Book

This set of typologies is incredibly helpful for thinking through different kinds of liturgical materials. The danger in seeing a typology like this, however, is assuming that since these categories exist epistemologically that they exist in reality—that each section represents a kind of book one might find in a monastic library. This is not the case… Inevitably, certain kinds of material travel together. For instance, it is quite common for a “Psalter” to be much more than Gnuess’s category H. Indeed, most physical psalters contain H (the Book of Psalms) but this is preceded by X (a liturgical kalendar) and followed by K (a hymnal).

Nevertheless, Gneuss’s categories are a great place to begin for learning about the range of early medieval liturgical materials.

I’m Dune with That…: the what spice are you test

Your Score: Spice Melange

You scored 75% intoxication, 75% hotness, 100% complexity, and 75% craziness!

You are Spice.

You’re not from around here, are you? You’re extremely valuable. While you resemble mundane cinnamon, you are much more interesting. People fight wars over you, but your giant worms protect you.

You enlighten people; make them aware, prescient, even clairvoyant. Your pure essence can reveal people’s true selves, if they survive their encounter with the real you. You’re addictive, dangerous, seductive, and above all else, necessary for space travel.

Link: The Which Spice Are You Test written by jodiesattva on OkCupid, home of the The Dating Persona Test

h/t Rev. Dr. Mom

More on Gendering God

This started as a comment on this post but ballooned out of control.

Yes, bls, you’re right—we started gendering God quite a long time ago; now the question is what to do about it and why. The last is probably the place to start…

The Scriptures and the Tradition have shown a repeated preference for metaphors that are male (Father and Son). I also think there’s no debate that the Scriptures and Tradition were produced by patriarchal cultures and that the theological authorities were overwhelmingly males and, for much of the Christian era, celibates to boot. (I think the last point is significant; in some—though certainly not all—monastic/hagiographical literature there’s an inclination to see women as the enemy out to destroy the man’s purity… The stories of Aquinas’s early days come to mind.) Furthermore, one Person of the Trinity does have physical gender—by all accounts Jesus became incarnate as a man, thus increasing the potential for literalization of the metaphors of Father and Son.

But what’s our goal–to fix metaphor or to transcend metaphor?

I’m speaking in very broad strokes now…

Mother Laura’s approach moves towards fixing the metaphors by balancing them, male and female and neutral.

Fr. John-Julian’s approach seeks to transcend metaphor by cutting through human language to spiritual realities.

I see Doug trying both to fix metaphor and transcend metaphor through a re-energizing of the metaphor. Yes, bls, Doug’s connection of mother language with Jesus rather than with the First Person of the Trinity is a contradiction and that’s the point… Using female language of the one Person who may legitimately be called gendered and male serves as a paradox—hopefully as a Zen-like koan, even—that assists us to retain the metaphors of both “Son” and “Mother” yet points to transcendence in the gap between the two.

As much as I’d like to transcend metaphor (a la my “trial shot“) I don’t think most congregations will reach that point en masse. So—some kind of fix has to occur. I’m just not sure what, but I dislike an unreflective knee-jerk changing of metaphors (which is not at all what I see you doing, Mother Laura).

Now, I fully recognize that I’m classic “oppressor” material–a straight white male from the educated class upholding, on the surface at least, the way of speaking and think that has kept me and mine on top. I’m conscious of all that—and yet… I do feel that re-energizing the traditional language is still spiritually and theologically useful; I’ll give two quick examples without all the nuancing and hedging that I’d normally prefer for lack of time:

1) I worry that sometimes (though certainly not all) when “Mother” is used for God it is used because it is the word for a female parent and not because it is engaging the metaphor of “Mother”. That is, “Father” as a root metaphor means something different from “Parent” and “Mother”. All three carry different social, cultural, and emotional freight. Yes, I realize I’m splitting hairs here—but I keep sensing that they’re important hairs for the discussion.

2) As I tell my students, theology is an integrated science; we can’t change one part without affecting (and effecting) other things. “Father” as a metaphor for God cannot—to my mind—be abstracted from a host of meanings that tie deeply to our sacramental theology among other things. A professor in college once told me that God was not male in Scripture since he lacked the primary marker for male gods in the Ancient Near East—a consort: there’s no Mrs. YWHW. But upon study and reflection, I believe this dear mentor was wrong. Mrs. YHWH is the pilgrim people of God, Israel and the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ and the Blessed Virgin is the pre-eminent sign and type of the Church. (Yes, there’s an oedipal thing there we won’t go into now…) And this matters deeply when we talk about our Eucharistic and Baptismal theology and therefore also ties into our doctrines of salvation. Changing the metaphor profoundly changes the relationship (in ways I’d never really thought through before—interesting…)

I think this topic is an important one because of its many implications both pastoral and theological. Mother Laura and Doug are thinking through these issues but so many I’ve seen in seminaries aren’t—they’re appropriating the dominant model (whether patriarchal or not)—without applying thought and sussing out the implications and that bothers me.

Changes

I make it a policy not to talk about my day job here. I mention it now to say that I’m changing jobs to a short-term contracting position that will assist us financially and give us flexibility about where we go at its end.

Posting may well become lighter…

On the other hand…

I’m still racing to get the dissertation finished up. I’ve tried several things that haven’t necessarily helped. My director has told me that writing even a few sentences a day will help move me through a dry spell to some productive writing. Furthermore, Dr. Nokes has made a call for more medievalists to actually post on medieval stuff. Too, Dr. Drout, working on recording the Paris Psalter has mentioned the need for more awareness of liturgical issues among Anglo-Saxonists. Pulling these together, I’m thinking I may work out some sections of some of my chapters here.

Parts of my dissertation work with Benedictine Revival Anglo-Saxon liturgical practice to illumine how these liturgies impact Scripture interpretation; since my dissertation’s readership is primarily New Testament scholars and Anglo-Saxonists without specialized liturgical training, I’m including some introductory portions to orient my readers. I may post some sections here to help move things forward.