Author Archives: Derek A. Olsen

New Breviary Upgrade is Here

The latest version of the St Bede’s Breviary is now up. This new release includes a number of features that people have been requesting:

  • cookie support—if you go to the “Preferences” page, you can now save your Office-praying options and they will stay set whenever you return to the site.
  • additional sanctoral kalendars—In addition to the kalendars as printed in the ’79 BCP and the extended Holy Women Holy Men, it also includes the Church of England’s Exciting Holiness, the current Roman Catholic kalendar, the ordines of the Order of the Holy Cross and the Order of Julian of Norwich, and the kalendars from the Anglican and English Missals.
  • improved aesthetics—including a layout which functions for handheld devices; I’ve been praying the Offices via Blackberry with it
  • additional information on the sources of the material
  • some brief catechetical material included in the preferences page.

Quite a lot has also changed under the hood in the way that it calculates dates, but—hopefully—no one but me will know that…

It’s still in beta, so I’m not promising that it’s bug-free, but this does represent a big step forward towards the goal I’m trying to fully realize here.

As always, it’s your breviary as much as it is mine, please feel free to send in thoughts, questions, comments, and new feature requests. As to the latter, I’ll let you know that the NRSV readings are in the works as is a build-out to include the Prayers and Thanksgivings on BCP pp. 810-841.

On Picking Prelates

The slate of candidates for the next Bishop of Springfield has been announced and what a large field it is—14 nominees in all. With a field that large it’s no surprise that there are some familiar names; one is even a commenter here.

I clicked into the responses for several of them; I appreciated that the one of the questions that nominees had to answer queried them about their personal Rule of Life. Bishops are, in theory, at the spiritual center of the dioceses. Yes, I imagine you’d want a capable administrator, but I’d very much want a person of prayer as well, especially one grounded in our Anglican tradition. I saw one commonality in their responses, that I’d like to lift up.

I had no idea that so many senior clergy have such a steadfast devotion to the Daily Office.

Because, in all honesty, I fail to see signs of it in our church at large.

Indeed, I’d think that if such a large sampling of senior clergy showed so many so devoted to it, there would be more evidence of it in the parishes and in the dioceses where they serve now. But there’s not.

With such a wonderful opportunity, though, to inquire of regular users of it, if I were at the walk-abouts, I’d have one question for each of the nominees: “So, in light of your Rule of Life, I was wondering if you could tell us what canticles you like to use on Wednesday mornings, and why?”

Come to think of it, it’s a question I wouldn’t mind putting to the whole House of Bishops…

On the Eucharistic Fast

Here’s a piece, lightly excerpted, written for a different context, but which may be of interest here…

What is the Eucharistic Fast?

The Historical Practice

The Eucharistic fast, stated most simply, is the practice of not receiving food or drink before the reception of the Sacrament. Exactly how long this fast should be is a matter of discussion and of personal piety relating to changes within broader catholic custom.

When the practice began in the Church is lost in the mists of the first few Christian centuries. Tertullian, writing around 200, appears to make an oblique reference to the practice in To his Wife 2.5. We can say with certainty, however, that by the fourth century, the reception of the Eucharist fasting was widespread. In his Letter 54, St Augustine writes to Januarius to clarify how different practices of liturgy and piety should be followed; in his discussion of Maundy Thursday practices mentions that the Eucharistic fast is a custom of the universal church (Ep. 54.6.8). A confirmation of this practice is found in canon 41 of the Council of Carthage from 419 which appears to be replicating decrees from earlier councils held in 393 and 397:

That the Sacraments of the Altar are not to be celebrated except by those who are fasting, except on the one anniversary of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; for if the commemoration of some of the dead, whether bishops or others, is to be made in the afternoon, let it be only with prayers, if those who officiate have already breakfasted.

As a result, the custom of the Churches both East and West from as early as we can determine was to receive the Eucharist fasting, defined, in this case, as neither eating nor drinking from the preceding midnight after Mass. The eastern churches still follow this custom, but with differences in practice on exactly when the fast begins; some start at midnight, some start at Vespers or at sundown on the day before.

Pope Pius XII

In the liturgical revisions that led up to the Second Vatican Council, though, changes were made in the legislation of the Roman Catholic observation of this practice. In 1953, Pope Pius XII penned the Apostolic Constitution Dominus Christus that revisited the practice of the Eucharistic fast. The constitution is marked by both a reverence for the tradition and a realization that the practice could jeopardize frequent reception of the Eucharist given the structuring of time in the modern world. Indeed, the first canon confirms the traditional practice altering only the status of water:

I. The law of the Eucharistic fast from midnight continues in force for all of those who do not come under the special conditions which We are going to set forth in this Apostolic Letter. In the future it shall be a general and common principle for all, both priests and faithful, that natural water does not break the Eucharistic fast.

The second through the fifth rules allow non-alcoholic beverages if necessary, but prevents priests from drinking one hour before beginning a Mass. Not until the sixth rule is there a significant change; in this rule, evening masses on days of obligation (or any day in mission territories) are allowed and in regard to those only, the priest and faithful are required to abstain from food and alcohol for three hours and from other beverages for one hour.

In 1957, Pius XII returned to the topic again at the insistence of the bishops. In the Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem, he extended the new rules to all Masses:

2. Priests and faithful, before Holy Mass or Holy Communion respectively, must abstain for three hours from solid foods and alcoholic liquids, for one hour from non- alcoholic liquids. Water does not break the fast.

3. From now on, the fast must be observed for the period of time indicated in Number Two, even by those who celebrate or receive Holy Communion at midnight or in the first hours of the day.

4. The infirm, even if not bedridden, may take nonalcoholic liquids and that which is really and properly medicine, either in liquid or solid form, before Mass or Holy Communion without any time limit.

We strongly exhort priests and faithful who are able to do so to observe the old and venerable form of the Eucharistic fast before Mass and Holy Communion. All those who will make use of these concessions must compensate for the good received by becoming shining examples of a Christian life and principally with works of penance and charity.

Once again, the former fast is upheld as an ideal, but the changes are promulgated for the sake of continuing Eucharistic devotion in the new post-war world and economy.

The Second Vatican Council

In the broad changes across the liturgical board that occurred in Vatican II, three changes in quick succession altered the custom of the Eucharistic fast. In January of 1964, the means of calculating the fasting period was equalized—for both clergy and laity the fast was to be calculated according to when they would receive the Eucharist within the Mass. In November of the same year, Pope Paul VI announced a concession:

In view of the difficulties in many places regarding the Eucharistic fast, Pope Paul VI, acceding to the requests of the bishops, grants that the fast from solid food is shortened to one hour before communion in the case of both priests and faithful. The concession also covers use of alcoholic beverages, but with proper moderation being observed. (Documents of the Liturgy, 272, 2117)

Finally, the instruction Immensae caritatis from 1973 on reception in special circumstances allowed a fast of a quarter-hour for the sick and those who are in the act of ministering to them.

Why Follow the Eucharistic Fast?

Having discussed what it is, we now consider what it means. The first step is to state what it is not; the Eucharistic fast is not a penitential fast. In a penitential fast—as during Lent—we deprive the body of food as we remind the soul to abstain from sin; we deny the body in order to more perfectly discipline our members according to Christ’s will; we abstain from the pleasures of food and satiety as an act of contrition for sins committed, vices indulged, and virtues forgone.

But none of these are the purpose of the Eucharistic fast. Indeed, this penitential fasting is, by long-standing Church law, not permitted on Sundays, all of which are celebratory feasts of the Resurrection.

Now we turn to what the fast is. The proper purpose is proved by Augustine in the aforementioned Letter 54. He reminds Januarius:

…for from that time [of the earliest Church] it pleased the Holy Spirit to appoint, for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom referred to is universally observed. (Ep. 54.6)

According to Augustine, this practice makes literally true what we believe to be spiritually true. The Eucharist is the first and greatest sustenance for Christians; it is to be preferred above all other means of nourishment, physical and spiritual. Through the Eucharistic fast our priorities are demonstrated physically as the Eucharist becomes the first food of the day for us. In Augustine’s context of daily Eucharist, then, the practice presented a great symbol to the Church: for the faithful, their “daily bread,” the first food that passed their lips each morning, was their spiritually-first and greatest meal, the very bread of angels. The Eucharistic fast, therefore, was a practice that honored the place of the Eucharist in the life of faith and promoted the proper ordering of Christian priorities: the intimate union between Christ and his faithful in the Eucharist should hold pride of place in our hearts and in our days.

In today’s Episcopal context it is very rare to find a parish that offers daily morning Masses where this symbol may be enacted. Even though our culture and its structuring of time prevents us from honoring the Eucharist in this way, the fast still provides an opportunity for recollecting that the Eucharist is our primary means of nourishment as Christians. Even when evening Masses are held and a full day’s fast is untenable, an afternoon’s abstinence can call to mind the importance and pre-eminence of the Sacrament; recollecting the bread of angels to be had that evening, a mid-afternoon snack may be deferred as we prefer the “bread that satisfies” over a nutritionally and theologically transient bag of pretzels or can of soda.

Best Practices for the Eucharistic Fast

Given the history and theology of the Eucharistic fast, we may note a few points. First, present Catholic Custom obliges us to fast for one hour before reception of the Sacrament. This represents a minimum rule enacted for the sake of maximal participation in the Eucharist—that all who are called to the supper of the Lamb may come. Second, in honor of the sacrament, however, a more robust practice may be recommended. Pius XII’s Dominus Christus seems to hit the best note given our cultural situation. That is, whenever possible and medically appropriate, the traditional fast ought to be kept. In the case of evening Eucharists, the three hour rule seems reasonable. This method gives pride of place to the traditional practice, yet understands the scheduling issues with which our patristic forebearers did not have to contend. Third, the fast is maintained for the glory of and preparation for the Eucharist. It should never be a legalistic or pharisaical tool to put down others. Like many worthy Anglican practices, no one should be compelled to follow it, but all should be invited to understand and participate in it.

Kalendars and Ecclesiologies

As part of the forthcoming upgrade to the breviary, I’ve been tinkering with the way that I generate my liturgical dates. I did have a system where I had to sit down and figure everything out for each year for each kalendar. Needless to say, this took a fair amount of time and caused a certain amount of duplicated work (which programmers hate).

I’m moving to a rule-based system that determines the temporal date, checks for major BCP occasions, then adds in any Days of Optional Observance based on the preferred kalendar. In order to make the magic happen, I’ve been sorting through a whole bunch of liturgical kalendars:

  • the BCP
  • Holy Women, Holy Men
  • the current Roman system
  • the Order of the Holy Cross
  • the Order of Julian of Norwich
  • Exciting Holiness (the CoE’s)
  • the Knott/English Missal
  • the Anglican Missal (functionally the Roman ’62)

All told, this makes 806 liturgical observances.

There are a lot of overlaps between the kalendars (i.e., some observances are celebrated in all 8, many are in at least 3 or 4), nor does this reflect the number of saints within these various kalendars (given that some observances celebrate no one—like days within the octave of the Nativity—and some celebrate several—like the feast of Basilides, Cyrinus, Nabor, and Nazarius or, a personal favorite, Ursula and the 11,000 virgins…)

Having all of this data collected in one table opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities for looking at it and reflecting on it. While I haven’t even begun to do that, some very general observations do come to mind:

  • The people we pray with and about have an awful lot to do with how we construct our own mental ecclesiology. If one of the things that a sanctorale does is to remind us of who all is contained in the communion of the saints, then different kalendars end up giving us very different answers and, as a result, sketch different pictures of who the church is.
  • Holy Women, Holy Men—which I’ve bashed many times in the past for a variety of offenses—takes on a new light when placed in relation to the Exciting Holiness, the ordo of the OHC (particularly the one in the monastic breviary that clearly predates HWHM), and the Knott Missal. This doesn’t necessarily mean that this new light becomes a favorable light, but adding in these relationships does help me see where some of the commemorations are coming from and why they are placed on the dates that they are.
  • That having been said, a very interesting diagram could be made mapping two different axes, the genetic relationships and theological intentions of the kalendars. Of course, two more kalendars would have to be added in first: a “pure” pre-conciliar kalendar, most likely the Pius X revision, and the Sarum kalendar…
  • The one major factor that immediately comes to my mind is the place of the martyrs. Within the big list, 213 of the 806 observances are of martyrs (26%). When we parse individual kalendars or groups of kalendars distinct patterns emerge. The highest martyr count goes without a doubt to the Anglican Missal and this is not solely due to theological grounds but rests partly on logistical grounds: this kalendar is one of few that includes commemorations and thus can—and does—have multiple observances within a single calendar day. (Which , yes, is in and of itself a theological decision…) That having been said, of the Anglican Missal’s 339 discrete liturgical observances, 138 are of martyrs (41%). By way of comparison, of Holy Women, Holy Men’s 272 discrete observances, only 39 are identified as being occasions celebrating martyrs (14%). One factor here is chronological—on the balance, HWHM has more observances from and relating to the modern era than the AM (no firm breakdown on this yet, but that can be obtained…) and thus far fewer individuals from the era of Roman persecution, but this sends a major theological and ecclesiological message.  The church sketched by the Anglican Missal is a church composed in large part by those who died rather than alter their faith. However, the church sketched by Holy Women, Holy Men with both its lack of early martyrs and its many modern entries sketches a church made up of more “ordinary” people in “regular” (to us) contexts embodying their faith.
  • There’s quite a lot more to be said here in relation to these few issues that I’ve raised and the additional material contained within this data. I’m thinking a decent-sized journal article could easily come out of all of this…

On Auricular Confession in the Anglican Churches

This is a snippet from a forthcoming article that M and I wrote; feel free to pile on any other thoughts on Confession:

The Anglican Exhortation and its understanding of confession and reconciliation stand squarely within the tradition of Omnis utriusque sexus and the Augsburg Confession. Two Exhortations stand before the Eucharistic liturgy in the 1549 book. The first exhorts the congregation to search their souls and gauge their readiness before receiving the Eucharist. The second is to be used when the congregation is negligent to come and receive. Indeed, its very purpose is to encourage congregants to come and receive and to do anything necessary that would enable them to come. It states in part:

And yf there bee any of you, whose conscience is troubled and greved in any thing, lackyng comforte or counsaill, let him come to me, or to some other dyscrete and learned priest, taught in the law of God, and confesse and open his synne and griefe secretly, that he may receive suche ghostly counsaill, advyse, and comfort, that his conscience maye be releved, and that of us (as of the ministers of GOD and of the churche) he may receive comfort and absolucion, to the satisfaccion of his mynde, and avoyding of all scruple and doubtfulnes: requiryng suche as shalbe satisfied with a generall confession, not to be offended with them that doe use, to their further satisfiyng, the auriculer and secret confession to the Priest: nor those also whiche thinke nedefull or convenient, for the quietnes of their awne consciences, particuliarly to open their sinnes to the Priest: to bee offended with them that are satisfied, with their humble confession to GOD, and the generall confession to the churche. But in all thinges to folowe and kepe the rule of charitie, and every man to be satisfied with his owne conscience, not judgyng other mennes myndes or consciences; where as he hath no warrant of Goddes word to the same.[i]

Following both Omnis utriusque sexus and the Augsburg Confession, this exhortation connects the rite of reconciliation directly to purification for the reception of the Eucharist. Unlike Omnis utriusque sexus and in line with certain Reformation understandings, it considers a general confession and absolution sufficient for the church’s role in purification.[ii] Further, in line with Reformation teaching, aural confession is recommended in the case of the disquieted conscience. The definitive statement, then, is that none must undergo the rite, but it is available for those souls who require it for the quieting of the conscience.

[i] 1549 Book of Common Prayer. Online: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/ Communion_1549.htm. Accessed Nov 28th, 2007.

[ii] Despite their insistences to the contrary, the Lutheran churches moved to general confessions rather than retaining individual examination and confession. While it has been revived in certain times and places, the practice of private absolution has fallen into disuse in Lutheran circles.

The Costs of Communion

One of the Fathers asked Abba John the Dwarf, ‘What is a monk?’ He said, ‘He is toil. The monk toils at all he does. That is what a monk is.’

Then Jesus said to all, “If any would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.” (Luke 9:23-24; compare Matthew 16:24-28 and Mark 8:34-9:1)

“He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:37-39; compare Luke 14:26-27)

I must draw your attention to two things. First, the comments by BSnyder at the end of this thread are very much worth reading. BSnyder taps into something important and muchly overlooked it seems to me. Receiving the Eucharist isn’t just about whether or not a visitor’s feelings get hurt which seems to be one of the major lenses for this conversation; rather it’s about binding yourself to the life of God which may have dramatic and even negative consequences for your health and well-being. Of the first thirteen who partook of the first Lord’s Supper in that Jerusalem upper room, tradition informs us that only one died of old age. The others, without exception, suffered a violent death for their expression of faith.

There are consequences to this faith.

Second, Christopher has written a very engaging post on this topic which again addresses the broader implications and, like BSnyder’s comments, connects reception of the sacrament to the realities of our existence and our spiritual travails:

Can CWOB at its best be practice of assurance in the same way as Baptism done? What does it mean to nibble at the edges and never take the plunge? Or to eat frequently and be drawn into a leap of trust? Can I fall back on Communion in the same way I can always fall back on Baptism when the Tempter whispers lies that I am other than God’s in Christ? To my mind, CWOB precisely because of the nature of Holy Communion to be ongoing may imply rather the very thing the likes of Maurice and Ramsey after found troubling in certain positions on Baptism, that somehow we can fall out of God’s irrevocable adoption. The singular nature of Baptism, on the other hand. In darkest night, I do not cry out, “I am communed.” I rebuke, “I am baptized.”

God’s give-away of grace, I trust will not be spurned by those who receive Communion and never come back. I need not protect God’s grace, but I do need to take care that others understand that grace and its power and implications for their lives. God’s works through God’s means. While CWOB implies a high Presence of Christ in Communion, does it properly warn of God’s wrestling grace?

Read and ponder as you consider CWOB and what it means for us.

CWOB and Jesus

You know that state where a pond is almost frozen and all it takes is a single snowflake to start the thermal reaction that freezes the whole thing over? I’m getting the sense that at least the chatterers of the Episcopal Church (myself among them) are at that point concerning Communion without Baptism. Following discussion here and some off-line conversations with Donald Schell, Donald posted a piece at the Cafe that’s getting some major and sustained attention.

There’s no doubt in my mind that this topic may well be our next biggest theological battlefield. And it will be a big one as our Eucharistic practice has major implications for our liturgical practice and our sacramental theology as a whole.

There’s one particular piece of the puzzle that jumps out at me because of my own weird angle on things… There’s a direct line from the principal arguments for Communion without Baptism that rest on the work of Norm Perrin. For those who aren’t familiar with Norm, he’s a New Testament scholar who stands in a very interesting place historically. The drive-by version is that the First Quest for the Historical Jesus was closed off by the one-two punch of Wrede’s work on the messianic secret and Schweitzer’s Quest for the Historical Jesus—so, in the first decade of the twentieth century. Then there was a vestigial Second Quest in the mid-twentieth century that’s connected with Bultmann’s Christian encounter with Existentialism and is most specifically exemplified in Bornkamm’s Jesus Christ. Right after that point came Perrin. In one sense he’s a transitional figure between the Second and the Third Quest. I tend to see him more as the father figure of the Third Quest.

I see three significant points on Perrin and CWOB. Point one. Perrin was self-consciously undertaking historical work. I’ve mentioned this before in other discussions but it’s important enough to be worth repeating: a major facet of the case for CWOB is that it attempts to base itself on the practices of the historical Jesus. Thus, this opens two immediate lines of investigation. First, it means that the theology and practice are based in a historical reconstruction. This assumes and presumes that the reconstruction is correct. Second, what is the alternative to the historical Jesus? It’s the canonical Jesus… By using the selective focus of a 20th century reconstruction of what the historical Jesus did, what aspects of the canonical Jesus are being left out or deliberately ignored?

Point Two. The points from Perrin seem to rest on the reconstruction of a particular kind of “Jesus meal”—the meals that Jesus ate with “sinners and tax collectors.” There are, however, at least four kinds of meal material that need to be considered from the Gospels alone: yes, the “meals with tax collectors and sinners”, but then there’s also the Last Supper, the feeding miracles, and the discussions about meals. All four of these need to be engaged. Of course, when we do that then I suspect we cut immediately to one of the big issues with most “historical” Jesus reconstructions—the automatic jettisoning of Johannine material. Returning to the canonical Jesus and discussions of meals means that John 6 is back on the table…

Point Three. As Father John-Julian reminded me a while back, evidence from earliest Christian (including some questionable Christian) literature suggests that the fundamental paradigm for the Eucharist was the feeding miracles—not the meals with outcasts. What happens when we inject this factor into the conversation?

So—I think that the biblical and theological root of the current case for CWOB bears some much closer investigation. What’s worth remembering, though, is that most people—even those taking part in the debate—-fundamentally don’t care about the biblical and theological roots. Instead they fall for the simplistic framing of CWOB being about “inclusion” or “justice”. Which it’s not. This canard reflects a self-perpetuating failure of sacramental catechesis. As a result, any form of reasoned discussion around the issue must be two-pronged. Always attend to the first point first: “inclusion” and “justice” really isn’t the issue here—we’re willing to baptize just about anyone! Only after disposing of that can you move to the real theology…

On Transference

There are two major reasons why feasts are transferred according to the Book of Common Prayer; Holy Days are transferred if they fall within the two week period that encompass Holy Week and the following Easter week, or they may be transferred if their fixed day falls on a Sunday.  The use of “may” in the second case is used advisedly. A transference must occur when a Major Feast falls on Sunday in the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Easter, or Lent, or when a Feast of Our Lord falls on a Sunday in Advent, Easter, or Lent. When a Holy Day falls on a Sunday in the Ordinal times after Epiphany and after Pentecost, it may be observed on the Sunday rather than transferred.

Transference due to Season

In the case of the Holy and Easter Week “blackout” period, only four feasts may be affected however: The Feasts of St Joseph, the Annunciation, St Mark, and Sts Philip and James. The first two and the second two are grouped together, the first set around Easter’s earliest dates, the second two around its latest.

These transferences may be charted as follows. These charts are based on two key principles:

1)      Since all Holy Days receive Eves the first open day in a week is a Tuesday so that the Eve is not impeded by a Sunday Evening Prayer. Likewise, the dates of St Mark sometimes fall after Sts Philip & James so as to avoid the Eves of either days being impeded by the other.

2)       Following the directions on BCP, p. 17, feasts are transferred in the order of their occurrence, not in order of their dignity.

Date of Easter Feast of St Joseph The Annunciation
3/22 3/31 4/2
3/23 4/1 4/3
3/24 4/2 4/4
3/25 4/3 4/5
3/26 4/4 4/6
3/27 3/19 4/5
3/28 3/19 4/6
3/29 3/19 4/7
3/30 3/19 4/8
3/31 3/19 4/9
4/1 3/19 4/10
Date of Easter Feast of St Mark Feast of Sts Philip& James
4/18 4/27 5/1
4/19 4/28 5/1
4/20 4/29 5/1
4/21 5/3 5/1
4/22 5/3 5/1
4/23 5/3 5/1
4/24 5/3 5/5
4/25 5/5 5/6

Transference due to Sundays

The next set of charts would follow a basic straight-forward pattern but for the case of the Christmas season. Three Major Feasts follow the Feast of the Nativity one after the other. Unlike Feasts of Our Lord in Christmas (i.e., the Feast of the Holy Name), Sundays in Christmas have precedence over the Major Feasts. Thus, when a Sunday falls on any of the three days after Christmas, it transfers the feasts in order. Because they always fall back to back, there are no Eves for these feasts, so they may be moved to Mondays rather than the first open Tuesday.

Otherwise, the charts follow the Dominical Letter of the year. When a Leap Year occurs, the proper procedure is to jump from one letter to the next letter in the sequence. Thus, for the year 2012, the first two months of the year follow the chart for Dominical Letter A, the remaining months follow the chart for Dominical Letter g.

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is A:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Feast of the Holy Name 1/1 The feast supersedes the Sunday
St Joseph 3/22 Always falls in Lent; see above for additional transference in case of Holy Week
St Barnabas 6/11 or 6/13 The feast may supersede a Proper Sunday but never Pentecost or Holy Trinity
Transfiguration 8/6 The feast supersedes the Sunday

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is b:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Sts Philip & James 5/3 Always falls in Easter; see above for additional transference in case of Easter Week
St James of Jerusalem 10/23 or 10/25 The feast may supersede the Sunday
The Feast of the Nativity: Christmas Day 12/25 The feast supersedes the Sunday

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is c:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
St Mark 4/27 Always falls in Easter; see above for additional transference in case of Easter Week
Independence Day 7/4 The feast may supersede the Sunday; if not celebrated on the Sunday, the feast is not transferred
St James the Apostle 7/25 or 7/27 The feast may supersede the Sunday
St Mary 8/15 or 8/17 The feast should supersede the Sunday
St Stephen 12/27
St John 12/28
Holy Innocents 12/29

*Note: Years when Easter falls on April 11th or leap years when Easter falls on April 10th and the Dominical Letter is c, the Feast of St Matthias will be transferred to 2/26. This won’t happen again until 2066…

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is d:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Confession of St Peter 1/18 or 1/20 The feast may supersede the Sunday
Conversion of St Paul 1/25 or 1/27 The feast may supersede the Sunday
Visitation of the BVM 5/31 or 6/2 The feast may supersede a Proper Sunday but never an Easter Sunday  or Holy Trinity
St Luke 10/18 or 10/20 The feast may supersede the Sunday
All Saints’ Day 11/1 The feast supersedes the Sunday
St John 12/28
Holy Innocents 12/29

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is e:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Feast of the Presentation 2/2 The feast supersedes the Sunday
Sts Peter & Paul 6/29 or 7/1 The feast should supersede the Sunday
St Bartholomew 8/24 or 8/26 The feast may supersede the Sunday
Feast of the Holy Cross 9/14 or 9/16 The feast should supersede the Sunday
St Matthew 9/21 or 9/23 The feast may supersede the Sunday
St Andrew 12/2 The feast must be transferred as  the Sunday will either be Last after Trinity or Advent 1
St Thomas 12/23
Holy Innocents 12/29

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is f:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Feast of the Epiphany 1/6 The feast supersedes the Sunday
St Matthias 2/24 or 2/26 The feast may supersede a Proper Sunday but never the Last after Epiphany or a Lenten Sunday
St Michael & All Angels 9/29 or 10/1 The feast should supersede the Sunday

Feasts falling on Sundays when the Dominical Letter is g:

Feast Celebration Date Notes
Feast of the Annunciation 3/27 Always falls in Lent or Easter; see above for additional transference in case of Holy or Easter Week
Nativity of John the Baptist 6/24 or 6/26 The feast should supersede the Sunday
St Mary Magdalene 7/22 or 7/24 The feast may supersede the Sunday
Sts Simon & Jude 10/28 or 10/30 The feast may supersede the Sunday

Since over half the Sundays of the year fall into Ordinal time, there are a number of may’s and should’s here that reflect the permissions in the BCP to celebrate Holy Days on Ordinal Sundays. The decision as to whether a feast or the Sunday should be celebrated ought to be decided before the start of the liturgical year and be applied consistently. As all other decisions of this sort, the choice is a theological one and will have theological implications for the parish.

Celebrating the feasts of the biblical saints—and all of the Holy Days are either Feasts of Our Lord or celebrate biblical saints—provides an opportunity to express liturgically what the church teaches  about our ecclesiology and, ultimately, our Christology. The Christian message is not fundamentally a literary endeavor; it is not solely encapsulated in the words of the Bible. Rather, the Bible reaches its fullest expression when it is embodied in the lives of those who saturate themselves in it. Pointing to the  examples of the saints and martyrs who first spread the word of Jesus, his resurrection, and his offer of living into the divine life of God is a means of proclaiming this message. Personally, I find feasts like Sts Simon and Jude and St Matthias to be pedagogically useful—even the Scriptures don’t say much about them—and, in that sense, they reflect the largely anonymous mass of saints who have aided in the spread of the Gospel through the centuries.