Author Archives: Derek A. Olsen

The Daily Office in Lent

The Fore-Office

The Angelus, should you use it, is said through Lent into Holy Week.

The ’79 BCP provides 5 opening sentences. They should be used sequentially, the first serving the partial week following Ash Wednesday and the Week of Lent 1,  changing to the second sentence on Lent 2 and so on.

The Confession of Sin should be a more regular feature during Lent; daily use is ideal.

The Invitatory and Psalter

The use of “Alleluia” after the opening versicle is dropped.

There is one Invitatory Antiphon appointed for Lent, “The Lord is full of compassion and mercy: O come let us adore him.” which should be used for the whole period except on the three Holy Days. The Feast of St Matthias uses the antiphon for Major Saint’s Days without the Alleluias; the Feast of St Joseph and the Annunciation both use the antiphon for Feasts of the Incarnation.

The Daily Office Lectionary appoints Psalm 95 as the Invitatory for Fridays in Lent. Alternatively, the full Psalm 95 may be used throughout Lent rather than the truncated version of the Rite II Venite.

When “Alleluia” appears in the psalter during Lent it is omitted.

The Lessons

Year Two preserves the ancient tradition (as recorded in the 7th century Ordo XIII) of reading through Genesis and Exodus during Lent. Year One’s readings move through the prophet Jeremiah perhaps due to the soul-searching and personal suffering so eloquently described by the prophet. After a flirtation with Hebrews during the Week of Lent 1, Romans is read in Year One through chapter 11. 1st Corinthians is read through chapter 14 in Year Two, omitting chapters 15-16 on resurrection, then moves briefly into 2nd Corinthians before Holy Week. A new Gospel begins in Lent, John in Year One and Mark in Year Two.

Of all the Office elements, the canticles are most impacted by Lent. The Te Deum is usually suppressed during Lent and the Benedictus Es used in its place, save the three Holy Days. The Suggested Canticle Table brings in the Kyrie Pantokrator following the first reading on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays and the Gloria in excelsis is replaced by the Magna et mirabilia after the second reading. Alternatively, some uses, like that of the OJN, use the Kyrie Pantokrator as the invariable first canticle through the season, the three Holy Days excepted.

The Prayers

Anglican tradition from the English 1662 BCP through the American 1928 BCP appoints the Collect for Ash Wednesday to be read following the Collect of the Day from Lent 1 to Palm Sunday. While this option is not mentioned in the ’79 BCP, it seems a good practice in keeping with this book’s heightened emphasis on the seasons of the liturgical year.

The Great Litany should be used more frequently during Lent, Wednesdays and Fridays being most appropriate.

The first and simplest conclusion is best when the Great Litany is not used.

The Marian Anthem throughout Lent is the Ave Regina Caelorum which is used into Holy Week.

The Kalendar in Lent

Overview

Lent is a 40-day period spanning 46 days.  Sundays are excluded from the calculation and, in the Book of Common Prayer, are technically referred to as Sundays “in” Lent rather than Sundays “of” Lent.  Nevertheless, they share common liturgical traits and themes with the Lenten ferias.

Lent begins on Ash Wednesday. Despite being a Holy Day, Ash Wednesday is a ferial day and thus the day liturgically begins at midnight—there is no “First Vespers” of Ash Wednesday and it is technically incorrect to anticipate it on Tuesday night.

The ending of Lent is a matter of controversy due to how one construes Holy Week and Triduum. Ritual Notes (11th ed.) ends Lent just before the Mass of the Easter Vigil (p. 262); the BCP does not say; the Roman GNLY ends it at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Maundy Thursday (GNLY 28).

Due to the variability of Easter, the dates of Lent vary from year to year. The earliest Lent can begin is February 4th; the latest that Lent can end is April 24th. Thus, there is a 79 day period within which Lent will fall. No matter when it begins and ends, the days between March 10th and March 21st will always fall within Lent.

There are always six Sundays within Lent. They are numbered consecutively until the last which is officially entitled “The Sunday of the Passion: Palm Sunday.”

Historical Treatment

Lent is the season most affected by the changes of Vatican II. In the pre-conciliar period, Lent was, in essence, a graded season. the Pre-Lenten period proceeded it (starting at the 9th Sunday before Easter), liturgical Lent began at the First Sunday of Lent although the full penitential practices began a few days earlier on Ash Wednesday, and penitence was intensified at Passion Sunday which occurred on  the Fifth Sunday of Lent. Passiontide encompassed the last two weeks of Lent, the last week being Holy Week, concluding with the Triduum. (I will treat Holy Week and Triduum separately from Lent.)

In the immediately pre-conciliar Roman kalendar, the Sundays of Lent were of the first class, meaning that no observances or commemorations were permitted—the liturgical focus was entirely on Lent. The Sundays were (SBH):

  • Invocabit: First Sunday (or Quadragesima)/Lent 1
  • Reminiscere: Second Sunday/Lent 2
  • Oculi: Third Sunday/Lent 3
  • Laetare: Fourth Sunday/Lent 4
  • Judica: Passion Sunday/Lent 5
  • Palmarum: Sixth Sunday/Palm Sunday

The Fourth Sunday, Laetare (Rejoice), was the Rose Sunday, a day of penitential lessening before the on-set of Passiontide.

Leaving Holy Week aside, the ferial days of Lent were liturgically of the third class, meaning that they outranked any third class feasts; feasts would be commemorated rather than celebrated. First and second class feasts would be celebrated but the feria would receive a commemoration.

The prior Pian kalendar rules from the turn of the 20th century, still observed by those who use the Anglican Breviary, legislated that weekdays in Lent were Greater Non-Privileged Ferias meaning that they superseded Simple feasts. While the ferias gave way to feasts from Semidoubles on up, a commemoration of the feria was required.

Thus the temporal days within Lent fell into the following categories; rank/order of precedence is per Ritual Notes:

Rank Class Days
6 Sundays, 1st Class The Sundays of Lent
7 Feria, 1st Class Ash Wednesday
22 Feria, 3rd Class Weekdays in Lent

Current Status

Vatican II and the ’79 BCP put a very heavy emphasis on Lent’s early function as a preparation for Baptism. Theologically, the “grading” qualities of Lent were abolished. Liturgically, this meant the Pre-Lenten period disappeared, and Passion Sunday was collapsed into Palm Sunday.

The ’79 BCP does not differentiate the Sundays in Lent from other Sundays except to say that they may not be superseded by local feasts of dedication, patron, or title. Ash Wednesday is placed within Class 3 (Holy Days) and is one of two officially appointed fasts. The notes indicate that “Feasts appointed on fixed days in the Calendar do not take precedence of Ash Wednesday” (p. 17). The ferias of Lent are found in Class 4 (Days of Special Devotion). This is properly an ascetical category rather than a liturgical one; the instructions state: “The following days are observed by special acts of discipline and self-denial…Ash Wednesday and the other Weekdays of Lent…except for the feast of the Annunciation” (p. 17). The liturgical impact of these dates is not addressed.

The motu proprio on the kalendar following Vatican II, General Norms for the Liturgical Year (GNLY), make the Roman position a bit more clear.  As in the ’79 BCP, the Sundays of Lent have precedent over any other solemnity or feast (GNLY 5) which are equivalent to the BCP’s Classes 2 and 3. Ash Wednesday has precedence over any other celebration which could fall on this day (GNLY 16.1). All of the other weekdays of Lent have precedence over obligatory memorials (GNLY 16.3) which are equivalent to the BCP’s Class 5.

The order of precedence established in the GNLY 59 is:

Rank Class Days
2b I The Sundays of Lent
2c I Ash Wednesday
9c II Weekdays in Lent

Liturgical Days within Lent

Holy Days

There are 2 Holy Days that may fall within Lent and 1 that will always fall in Lent:

Date Class Feast DL Notes
Feb 24 Major Feast (3b) St Matthias the Apostle f Usually falls in Lent; may be in occurrence with Ash Wednesday
Mar 19 Major Feast (3b) St Joseph A Always falls in Lent
Mar 25 Feast of our Lord (3a) The Annunciation g Almost always falls in Lent

The Annunciation is the only feast excepted from the ascetical requirements of Class 4.

The Feast of St Matthias is the only one of the three that may be in occurrence with Ash Wednesday. When this happens, St Matthias should be transferred to the Friday.

In each case, the feast should be kept and, if commemorations are used, the feria should be commemorated. If the feast falls on a Sunday it should be transferred to Tuesday unless this would place it into Holy Week.

Days of Optional Observance

The BCP is not clear on what happens during Lent with Days of Optional Observance (Class 5). As noted above, all weekdays of Lent appear in Class 4, however, this class seems to be more ascetical than liturgical. Lesser Feasts and Fasts, however, includes collects for each day of Lent and states that:

“In keeping with ancient tradition, the observance of Lenten weekdays ordinarily takes precedence over Lesser Feasts occurring during this season. It is appropriate, however, to name the saint whose day it is in the Prayers of the People, and, if desired, to use the Collect of the saint to conclude the Prayers.”

Roman practice concurs based on the precedence of Lenten weekdays to memorials.

Ritual Notes, 11th Ed. states that third class feasts receive no commemorations on Sundays in Lent; on weekdays they receive commemoration only at Matins and low Mass. (p. 283)

There are a few significant Days of Optional Observance that should be mentioned:

Date Feast DL Notes
Varies Ember Days n/a The Wed, Fri, & Sat after Lent 1
Mar 1 David of Menevia d Patron of Wales
Mar 2 Chad of Lichfield e
Mar 12 Gregory the Great A sent missionaries to England
Mar 17 Patrick f Patron of Ireland

The Spring Ember days always fall in Lent. Under the old rules they were ferias of the second class taking precedence over the weekdays of Lent; according to the ’79 BCP they are Class 5 but are not recognized in the weekdays of Lent section within Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

The other saints listed my either be patrons of dioceses or regions or may be saints of title. If so, patronal festivals or feasts of title may not displace the Mass of the Day on a Sunday. They may, however, be observed on a Saturday or any other open day as a Local Feast of the first class/Class 3. Alternatively, they may be transferred outside of Lent.

Potential Issues

  • When does liturgical Lent start? At Morning Prayer of Ash Wednesday or at the First Vespers of Lent 1? I would suggest that since Ash Wednesday and the other initial days of Lent no longer fall under Pre-Lenten rules, Lent should begin liturgically on Ash Wednesday.
  • Should Days of Optional Observance be kept during Lent? I would say that the Ember Days have precedence, but that the ferias should be commemorated. In other cases, if they are not patrons or titular saints, the day is of the feria and the saint is commemorated. In the case patrons, the feast is celebrated and the feria commemorated (Gregory the Great is one of the patrons of the St Bede’s Breviary). If commemorations are not utilized, the saint is omitted.
  • How long is Passiontide? According to both Episcopal and Roman rubrics and practice, Passiontide and Holy Week are identical.

Holy Women, Holy Men at the Cafe

I’ve got a new piece up at the Cafe that looks at the guiding principles of the new sanctoral supplement, Holy Women, Holy Men, in light of the old rules as passed in 1994 and subsequently included into Lesser Feasts & Fasts.

I owe a big thank you to my readers here as conversation partners and especially to some recent correspondence with a reader who brought the ’94 rules to my attention.

Some of the links didn’t get into the body of the piece; I’ll talk to Jim et al. about getting them in, but in the meantime I’ll reproduce them here as well:

The 1994 General Convention Resolution (A074a) can be found in full here.

Here are the principles of revision from Holy Women, Holy Men which begin on pg 131 of the PDF from the Blue Book

Prayerbook Appreciation: Core Principles

Building on my previous post and the 3 axioms stated there, I’d like to talk out loud about how to maintain a consistent and coherent method of using the BCP.

I’ll confess, not everybody needs to do this… For some this may well be a very simple exercise—do what the book says. For me, as for many Anglo-Catholics, it’s not so easy. We know the richness and depth possible in the Western liturgy. At the same time, the BCP is supposed to be a reformed and streamlined version of the Western liturgy, a revolt against the flowering of excesses that required great and arduous study to perform a theoretically simple liturgy. We don’t really want to go back there—but neither do we want to miss out on what a properly reformed, patristic, catholic, Scriptural  liturgy could be. So, that’s the heart of the problem: can/how do we accomplish that within the bounds of the BCP and in coherence with its intentions?

The first principle must be:

1. Do what the book says when the book says you have to. No omissions, no substitutions.

This is pretty straight-forward. There are a number of items that are simply not optional. Morning Prayer proper starts with some variant of “Lord, open our lips.” Period. Unqualified items printed to be said and direct rubrics should be followed.

You can’t put in your own Creed or Eucharistic Prayer.

You can’t substitute the Confiteor for the Confession of Sin. (dang…)

2. Order matters, and the current shape of the rites should be respected. This especially goes for interpolations.

Furthermore, there’s an order concerning what things must follow what other things. That’s just the way it is—respect it. I’m guilty of offending this one…

As it currently stands the St Bede’s Breviary (hence SBB) interpolates the hymn in its pre-Vatican II place before the antiphon on the Gospel Canticle. However, this offends the shape of the ’79 Daily Office in three ways. First, it disregards that there is a place appointed for the hymn—after the Collects. Second, it interrupts the pattern of reading/canticle/reading/canticle by turning it into reading/canticle/reading/hymn/versicle/canticle. Third, it messes up the parallel structure with Evening Prayer since in the evening it’s reading/hymn/versicle/canticle/reading/canticle.

I think I’ve persuaded myself to put the hymn and accompanying versicle where the book says they ought to be. Which is OK. Having the hymn before the Gospel canticle made a lot of sense in the pre-Vatican II Offices—but it doesn’t function the same way in our Office and even putting it there now doesn’t make it serve that function.

3. The BCP contains intentions about its use;  some of these are explicit, some are apparent, some are only evident through study. Explicit intentions not directed by the rubrics should receive primary consideration. Apparent and the more concealed should be carefully weighed among the other options.

The point here is that not everything in the BCP is presented as law. Some are options or suggested recommendations. A case in point concerns the canticle tables on pp. 144-5. These are explicitly labeled as “Suggestions” but these suggestions reveal some clear intentions about the use of the BCP. For instance, I find these three principles at work:

  • Canticles generally move from OT to NT to Church Compositions. We’ve discussed this plenty on other posts.
  • More Scripture is the general rule… Again, we’ve discussed this before (along with the pros and cons thereof).
  • …But, the more traditional options are engaged on Sundays and Feasts. This should be noted. The tradition appealed to is that of the ’28 and earlier BCPs and thus indirectly to Sarum/pre-conciliar practice. The Benedictus and Te Deum are appointed but reversed from their traditional order more in accord with temporal movement noted in the first point.

One of the consistent push-backs from Anglo-Catholic parishes is a half-way adoption of the morning table. That is, the first option is taken, the second is rejected and the Benedictus takes its place as the invariable second canticle in recognition of its foundational place in the pre-conciliar Office of Lauds and as affirmed in its place in the Liturgy of the Hours.

This, then, is one way that the intentions of the BCP have been honored, but where the Historic Western Liturgy has won out. We do have freedom in this matter, and the chosen policy described here is an accommodation of both the suggestion and long-standing practice.

But that brings me to the second canticle table. I’ve never liked this one, but I may be changing my mind. What’s changing my mind has nothing to do with the shape of Evening Prayer in the ’79 BCP but the recognition that this book (at last) includes Compline. As we recall, the classical form of Anglican Evening Prayer/Evensong was formed by the aggregation of the secular Sarum Vespers and Compline. The Magnificat was the invariable canticle for Vespers while the Nunc Dimittis was the invariable canticle for secular Compline (not monastic, I’ll note, which does not employ a canticle).

The change in the ’79 Book is that it is the first American BCP to contain Compline. (The English Deposited 1928 had it as well but no authorized English BCP has contained it either.)

Whither the Nunc Dimittis? If the rule of prayer laid down by the ’79 BCP is to pray all four Offices: Morning, Noon, Evening, and Compline, then it seems fitting that, if four readings are used requiring two canticles at Evening Prayer, it makes sense to utilize the very same adaptation as above: use the first canticle from the table and use the Magnificat as the invariable second canticle, reserving the Nunc Dimittis for its more appropriate place at Compline. (But what to do on feasts and Sundays—put the Nunc first?)

To back up a little, I’d like to emphasize a few things here about these decision-making processes and what they mean for use of the principles. First, parishes make decisions about their practice. Where there is suggestion rather than legislation, the intentions of the BCP are given a primary place but are balanced by other factors that matter to the parish, in this case Anglican practice and the traditions of the Historic Western Liturgy.

4. Where the intention of the BCP is not clear, if the liturgy in question is Rite II, a liturgist’s first recourse should be to the liturgical documents proceeding from Vatican II, particularly the General Norms on the Liturgical Year (PDF), General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours. More general principles are found in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the declaration on the liturgy from Vatican II.

We’re obviously not Roman Catholic  and these documents are not binding on us. But as far as Rite II is concerned, it makes sense to recognize the relationship between Vatican II and the ’79 BCP. Again, I’m not necessarily saying we need to incorporate elements from these rites into our liturgy where the BCP does not have them, rather, these rites lead us to the intentions that may well be present in the BCP.

5. Actual elements to be added should privilege traditional Anglican, pre-conciliar Roman and specifically Sarum sources over Vatican II items, however.

This may seem a little counter-intuitive after the previous principle. The point here is that as much as the liturgical theology of the ’79 BCP participates in the same world-view as Vatican II, this council is not actually part of our Anglican heritage. Pre-Reformation Roman rites are part of our heritage, most specifically the Sarum Rite.

That having been said, this heritage principle must be balanced with what we’ll call the living tradition principle: Sarum’s great but it hasn’t been actually used in worshiping communities for centuries. Those who use it now (or embrace elements of English Use) are not in organic continuity  with Sarum practice. Sometimes continuity with present Roman tradition is a good thing. Clearly when both pre- and post-conciliar uses coincide, (or largely do), then it’s for the best.

Furthermore, when old Anglican and pre-Conciliar Roman materials are used they must be adapted for the current context. Specifically, anything dealing with the liturgical year must factor in the absence of the pre-Lenten season and the reality of the Revised Common Lectionary.

The obvious issues here would be the Minor Propers and the antiphons for the Gospel Canticles. The second is the easier of the two—since the whole point of the antiphon is that it picks up a line from the appointed Gospel, then a new sequence is required. As for the first, well, that goes back to the whole argument over the degree to which the Minor Propers are connected to the readings… I still haven’t made up my mind but am leaning towards using the Propers as determined by Vatican II.

6. Additions/interpolations to be added into the BCP liturgies should be added where directed, added consistently, added following the intentions of the rest of the liturgy, and should, ideally, come from a single source. If not a single source, then the sources to be used should be identified with a clear hierarchy of use.

For instance, page 935 allows the use of psalm and Gospel Canticle antiphons drawn from Scripture. How to go about implementing this?

The most obvious answer is to go back to Roman resources; the problem is that our Offices use the psalms differently. That is, we read through all of the psalms in Morning and Evening Prayer whether you use the new lectionary or the monthly method.  The Roman Little Hours tend to group several psalms under a single antiphon meaning that many of the psalms have their own antiphons but not all. So what’s an Anglican to do? Fill in the missing sections, groups psalms under antiphons (like A Monastic Breviary) or use a new sequence under a different guiding principle (like the English Office)? In the case of the SBB, I chose the latter.

One of Bede’s compositions was an abbreviated Psalter where he took a line or two from each psalm; in the SSB, I use those as the psalm antiphons when the antiphon is ordinary. Psalm antiphon propers come from the Tridentine breviary.

The Gospel Canticle antiphons required a similar decision, I use a modern Roman version for the Sunday antiphons that match with the RCL. Festal antiphons come from the Tridentine. Propers of the Season I compiled myself based on the Little Chapters of the pre-conciliar Office and appropriate lines from the most seasonally appropriate canticles.

7. Once a decision has been reached, use it for at least a season before changing it.

Liturgy must be lived with. When I say season, I don’t mean a set time. Jumping willy-nilly from option to option makes no sense for a community and isn’t that great for individuals either. So, explore the options, think them through, discuss them—especially if you’re going to be foisting them on other people in which case discuss it with them, then be prepared to live with them for a while before going on to the next great thing.

Ok—that’s all I can think of for now. What are your thoughts?

Prayerbook Appreciation: The Fundamentals

Scott once referred to this blog jokingly as the ’79 Prayer Book Society and it does have a certain truth to it. As much as I love my medieval liturgies, I pray from the ’79 BCP at least twice a day (or at least intend to…).

For Episcopalians, the ’79 BCP is the book that we have. It’s not perfect, it’s not the prayer book of my dreams, but it’s Pretty Darn Good. Furthermore, it’s in the canons. As Christopher and bls have pointed out, having a set text may seem boring to some, but it is also a contract and a form of protection for the laity. Respect for the BCP on the part of the clergy is a act of respect towards the people in the pews. Endless clerical tinkering and liturgical innovation—particularly those changes done in the name of inclusivity and egalitarianism—are simply new expressions of the old disease of clericalism. If the sign out front says “Episcopal,” then the liturgy celebrated inside should be found within the book. This is our liturgical text—period.

However…that period isn’t quite as solid as it sounds. For a number of reasons, most of them good, the ’79 BCP is a very gracious and permissive book, allowing quite a number of options within its core liturgies. “May” and “or” are frequently used words.

If consistency and coherency are to be honored as an act of honoring the whole congregation, of providing what the laity have come to expect and aiding in the process of liturgical formation, are there fundamental principles that we can use to determine which options we select and how we fill in these blanks the the BCP allows? Yes and no.

On one hand, No—there’s no one size that fits all. The generosity is there for a reason. Given the three great traditions within the Episcopal Church and the myriad subgroupings therein, one set of rules for all completely defeats the purpose of the book and would, in any case, be roundly ignored anyway.

On the other hand, Yes—in the name of consistency and coherency, I believe that it is incumbent upon congregations to develop a sense of themselves and their patterns in and with this book. Congregations, their constituent members, and like-minded comrades should have a sense of how they regard the book, how they understand its options, and why they make the choices they make.

What I propose, then, is to think through some fundamentals in regard to the use of and formation in and through the ’79 BCP. I’m a layperson myself, so there’s obviously nothing official in these thoughts; they’ll be directly actionable only in that they reflect what I’m hoping to embody in and through the St Bede’s Breviary and related materials. I’m not trying to set anybody straight or to come up with one rule to rule them all—as the foregoing statements ought to make clear.

All that having been said, I’ll begin with a few axioms concerning what the BCP is that we can return to for guidance along the way.

  • Axiom 1: The 1979 American Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church is a legitimate heir of the Western Liturgical Tradition especially as read through the reforming work of the Roman Catholic Second Vatican Council.

That is, somebody didn’t just sit down and make up the BCP. It stands in organic continuity with the wider Western (and preeminently catholic) understandings of what the Mass, Office, and other liturgies are and contain. While there is a family resemblance between the texts of the current BCP and the classical Western liturgical texts, the similarities are closest between this BCP and the liturgies as reformed by Vatican II. Indeed, both the Vatican II liturgies and the ’79 BCP (and a host of other recent protestant liturgies including the now superseded Lutheran Book of Worship, the current PCUSA Book of Common Worship, and the United Methodist Hymnal and Book of Worship) all drew from the ecumenical Liturgical Renewal Movement. Whatever one thinks of Vatican II—and I think a number of things, not all flattering—Roman Catholics must recognize it as an authoritative Council and, pragmatically, its changes are magisterial teachings implemented in all but the most recalcitrant Roman parishes today.

  • Axiom 2: The 1979 American Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church is a legitimate heir of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer tradition rooted in the original prayer books of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and mediated by such notable ancestors as the 1637 Scottish (Laudian) BCP, the 1662 English BCP, and the American 1928 BCP.

Yes, there are changes, yes, Cranmer would be less than thrilled at our current Daily Office Lectionary, but nonetheless, there’s no doubt that this volume is, in fact, a Book of Common Prayer.

This axiom both builds on and says something different from the one before it. On one hand, Anglican is an acknowledged subset of the great Western Liturgical Tradition. On the other, there are distinctive Anglican practices and theologies (a “patrimony” for lack of a better word…) embedded within it.

  • Axiom 3: Adherence to the BCP is a spiritual discipline intended to form those who pray it into certain liturgical, theological, and devotional patterns that express the Christian life as Anglicans have received it. It offers a rule of life simple enough for all Episcopalians to embrace it.

The point is for the liturgy to change you, not for you to change the liturgy. Don’t mess with what you don’t fully understand—and there aren’t many Episcopal clergy I know who I’d say fully understand this stuff. (And, oddly, you won’t catch most of them trying to make changes to it either. Hmmm…)

Next: A set of Principles moving from the Axioms

Jerome: On the Illustrious Men

There’s really no text that lays out who the Fathers of the Church are better than the catalog of ecclesiastical authors by Jerome and Gennadius, On the Illustrious Men (De Viris Illustribus).

Jerome wrote around 392 and Gennadius added on around 480. So—if one wished to follow Lancelot Andrewes’s dictum concerning the sources of Anglican theology, Gennadius’s addition pretty much covers it. Too, this was the main source of data for medieval authors on who the Fathers were. All in all, it’s a key text.

Here’s my version. It’s not pretty, but it gets the job done. Pretty may come later…

Scripture Interpreting Scripture

A number of things have floated across recently including this discussion of English Mass Propers at PrayTell, the appearance of this classic set of Anglo-Catholic Minor Propers and Gospel Canticle Antiphons materials at NLM, and the discussion below and attending link.

Particularly in terms of the discussion at the last link, at Fr. Gregory’s blog, one way to construe the discussion is as the Office either/or; a protestant approach tends to privilege the encounter with Scripture, while the catholic approach tends to privilege the encounter with interpretation. My research indicates that it’s not an either/or but polarities on a sliding scale.

Psalm and Gospel Canticles in the Offices and the Minor Propers in the Mass occupy a particular position  that splits the difference. (We could also throw in Matins responsaries, particularly those of the Temporale but as these are less familiar to most moderns, I’ll leave them aside for now…) That is, these materials are predominately scriptural and yet their function is interpretive.

I’ve suggested before that there are three fundamental mechanisms by which interpretation occurs within the liturgy. Here’s how I’ve spoken about that elsewhere:

I’d like to focus today on three major methods through which the liturgy interprets Scripture: discursive analysis, selection, and pregnant juxtaposition. Discursive analysis appears in composed liturgical texts like prayers, gospel antiphons, proper prefaces, hymns and homilies. This is where a liturgical text explicitly makes an interpretive move—often applying some point from a Scriptural text to the congregation in a moral or typological sense. Examples of this  include the Proper Preface and Benedictions from the Leofric Missal:

From the Proper Preface for Lent I:

…through Jesus Christ our Lord who, for a period of forty days and nights, dedicated this fast—but without hungering. Afterwards he did hunger, not for the food of humans, but their salvation; nor did he lust after dishes of worldly foods, but desired more the sanctification of souls. For his food is the redemption of the people, his food is the complete devotion of a good will. It is he who teaches us not to work for bread alone from which one receives transitory sustenance but it is he himself from which one receives the lesson of the divine Scriptures. Through whom…

(Missal of Robert of Jumièges & the Leofric Missal)

From the Benedictions for Lent I:

May the Omnipotent God bless you (pl.), he who consecrated for the fast the number forty through Moses and Elijah and likewise our mediator [Christ], and grant you (pl) accordingly to steward this present life like the denarius received from the master of the household as a reward, traversing through to the forgiveness of all sins and to the glorious resurrection with all of the saints. Amen.

And may he give you (pl.) the spiritual power of the invincible weapons [cf. 2 Cor 6:7]—which is the example of the Lord—that you may mightily subdue the exceedingly keen temptations of the ancient enemy. Amen.

In him in whom a man may not live on bread alone, but in all the words that proceed from his mouth receive spiritual food, through the observation of this fast and the example of other good works, may we be worthy to attain to the imperishable crown of glory. Amen.

(Leofric Missal)

Homilies clearly fall into this category even though we don’t always consider them as textual elements of liturgies.

Selection is a broad category that ranges from highlighting individual verses—say, for use as Little Chapters at Vespers or Lauds—to identifying large chunks of text as particularly suitable for certain occasions—like selecting Gospel or Epistle texts for Mass. Isolating a single verse out of a text highlights. And even more so if that verse gets repeated for the whole rest of the liturgical season! For instance, the two little versicle and response pairs  from Ps 90 are repeated daily until Mid-Lent.

Versicle/Response following the Lauds Hymn daily until Mid-Lent:

R: He shaded you with his wings; V: And under his pinions you shall trust. [VgPs 90:4]

(Portiforium of St Wulstan)

Versicle/Response following the Vespers Hymn daily until Mid-Lent:

R: God has commanded his angels concerning you; V: That they will keep you in all your ways. [VgPs 90:11]

(Portiforium of St Wulstan)

The effect is that these two verse snippets become an integral part of the monastic experience of Lent. So, whether big or small, selection makes a difference and alters, sometimes subtly, sometimes profoundly, how a monastic would encounter that same passage again whether inside or outside of the liturgy.

This principle of selection is the starting place for the third and final interpretative method found in the liturgy. Pregnant juxtaposition starts with selection, but kicks it up a notch by putting two or more selections in relation with one another. That is, the liturgy may take two passages from two entirely different parts of the canon but by placing them next to each other has created, in essence, a new Scriptural concept or narrative. Some of these juxtapositions are smooth—like this one:

Responsory for the Night Office

R: Hide your alms in the bosom of the poor and [the alms] will pray for you to the Lord. For just as water quenches fire, so alms quench sin. [Sir 3:33]
V: Honor the Lord out of your substance, and out of your first fruits give to the poor. [Prov 3:9] For just as water…

We have two gnomic statements on the same theme and they flow into one another without a hitch. Others are more challenging and take on the character of a fundamentally under-determined text. That is, you have two concepts intentionally placed together but with no discursive direction as to how they relate. The under-determined character requires the reader and the whole reading community to actively participate in the process of meaning making by creating comprehensible connections. The second example gives a flavor of a more under-determined juxtaposition:

The Introit for Lent I

Ant: He called upon me and I will hear him, I will deliver him and glorify him. I will fill him with length of days. [VgPs 90:15-16]

Ps: He who dwells in the help of the Most High will remain in the protection of the God of heaven. [VgPs 90:1] Glory be…

Ant: He called upon me… [repeated]

Therefore I modify this connection with “pregnant” because the connection between texts is loaded with potential meaning, but the liturgy leaves it in a potential state, not making it quite explicit.

So—these are three major mechanisms through which Scripture interpretation happens in the early medieval monastic liturgies: discursive analysis, selection, and pregnant juxtaposition.

Christopher mentioned below the possibility of a fuller set of antiphons for the Gospel Canticles within the BCP tradition. Obviously, I’m all for that and, alongside traditional resources and current offerings like The English Office and A Monastic Breviary have sought to include both psalm and gospel canticle antiphons in the St Bede’s Breviary.

If we’re going to talk about these antiphons, though, we might as well include the Minor Propers within the discussion as they are perfectly analogous to these antiphons albeit appearing in a different liturgy—the Mass rather than the Office.

I’d love to see a supplement—whether authorized or not (and I’m guessing that “not” is much more likely at the current time)—that is rooted in both the historic Western liturgy (i.e., Sarum and Roman sources) and is sensitive to the Post-Vatican II realities of our present liturgies that offers interpretive Scripture to enrich the BCP. I believe that there have been some useful starts towards this but nothing that fully embraces this scope.

What are your thoughts? Is it even worth the effort to proceed on a project of this magnitude?

Breviaries and the BCP

Fr. Gregory has a quite thought-provoking post here on the different formation issues between the Anglican Breviary and the BCP. It’s one we’ve discussed at points here and a tension I also feel.

The issue is that the Daily Office Lectionary offers Scripture; the breviary offers concrete guidelines for interpreting the Scriptures—by patristic example. How, then, to do both?

I’m still of a mind that the best way to do it (in addition to a proper round of psalm and gospel antiphons which—classically—were themselves interpretive) is an expanded utilization of the Noon Office.

At Smokey Mary, the slot in the Noon Office is occupied by a reading from the Fathers; in the more expanded versions of the St Bede’s Breviary I’ve put in the daily portion from Benedict’s Rule. In practice this mirrors the post-Vatican II Office of Readings which is the retread of Matins, now removed from the middle of the night and stuck at a time where people who sleep can actually pray it.

I don’t know enough about the Office of Readings to know where to find the lectionary of patristic texts… Do any of you know?

Tradition: Between Synthesis and Historicity

“Tradition” is one of the more frequently used words in Anglican debates. It gets utilized constantly on blogs like this one. Due to its use and importance we have to look at it just a bit more carefully: “Tradition” is a cipher. That is, it is not a word with a stable meaning. When writers (including me) invoke “the Christian Tradition” or even “the Anglican Tradition,” they invoke an intellectual construct consisting of what they consider to be the chief teachings, practices, and devotions through the ages. We may both say “Tradition” but what I mean by it and what you mean are inevitably different. Too often this reality remains not only unstated but uncomprehended.

That’s not to say, however, that there’s no such thing as “Tradition” or even that there’s no such body of material as “Tradition”—and that’s where things get really tricky. We have to acknowledge and agree up-front that when we church people (and anyone else who uses the term, actually) throw out the word “Tradition” what we are appealing to is very rarely actual teachings written in actual texts by actual people at actual times. Instead, we are referring to a synthesis which has, in theory, amalgamated actual teachings from actual people into a more-or-less coherent body of teaching, practice, and devotion.

This synthesis then becomes “Tradition.”

When we fight over “Tradition,” we are far more often fighting over our syntheses that we call “Tradition.”

That’s far too easy, though—let’s complicate things a bit…

In fact, most of us—especially the more invested of us—don’t just bring a synthesis to the table, we bring a metasythesis which is composed of quite a mix of interlocking and sometimes contradictory syntheses all mashed together under the solitary label of “Tradition.”

Think of it this way. When I make an appeal to “Tradition”, I’m making an appeal to my understanding of Christian teaching, practice, and devotion as filtered through and privileging insights from the Church Fathers, early medieval monasticism, the English Reformation, the Caroline Divines, and Anglo-Catholicism with a side-order of the Lutheran Confessions.

Now—every single one of those labels represents a synthesis. How I mash them all together into something even vaguely coherent is my metasynthesis.  We all do this. I’m lucky in that I’ve had the opportunity to think and read a lot about this and to have an awareness that that’s what I’m up to.

Everybody has a synthesis, but most people both receive them and deploy them unconsciously or subconsciously. We acquire them from our rectors, our teachers, our liturgies, from conversations, from study, from blogs…the list goes on and on.

At this point I’ll stop working on this line and restate my central thesis to this point: When church-folk speak of “Tradition,” we refer to a usually  subconscious synthesis of the Church’s past teachings, practices, and devotions.

Turning to the syntheses and metasyntheses themselves, some are better than others. To evaluate these, I would say that the three major criteria would be:

  • how compelling a synthesis is
  • how comprehensive a synthesis is
  • how historically grounded a synthesis is

This is where we get into muddy territory. I believe that there are quite a lot of syntheses floating around out there that are quite compelling but which are severely limited in terms of their comprehensiveness and especially their historical grounding.

Ground Zero here is the Vincentian Canon: “Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” As Caelius noted in highly memorable and quotable fashion, this canon fails through irony; its original purpose was to discredit the writings of Augustine on grace, claiming that they were a novelty. In essence, this canon is a one-sentence synthesis stating that what the Roman Catholic Church teaches now is what it has always taught, no more, no less. Very compelling for its clarity and its simplicity. In terms of historicity and confirmability—it works far better as a rallying cry than an effective synthesis. Indeed, if one were to attempt to utilize this synthesis in practice, where would you begin?

I truly love Thomas Ken’s words but see in them a similar problem: “I am dying in the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith professed by the whole Church before the disunion of East and West; and, more particularly, in the Communion of the Church of England, as it stands distinguished from both Papal and Protestant innovation, and adheres to the Doctrine of the Cross.” Again, a classic rallying cry—but historically speaking, what texts, what liturgies do we appeal to? If we ask the simple question, “How does one fast in Lent?” this Tradition can not and does not give us one clear answer; instead it gives us a range. If we’re looking for a single answer, this synthesis cannot give it to us. We must choose amongst the available options on the basis of other criteria, other syntheses. Furthermore, this construal of Tradition hacks off how many centuries (i.e., nothing after the “disunion”)? One must assume that it picks up again at the establishment of the mentioned “Church of England” but when and where—especially given Ken’s own rocky relationship with his church?

Without going into specifics, I think that it is fair to say that most of the current Anglican culture warriors are operating with syntheses that may well be compelling but that fail on the criteria of both comprehensiveness and historicity. Of these last two, I place a heavy emphasis on the second. A synthesis that cannot be verified by reference to particular documents from particular times falls more into the realm of politically malleable myth than authentic expression of the historic Christian faith.

So, to summarize and restate: A good synthesis must be compelling, comprehensive, and be built on fact. Statements about what Christians have believed in the past must be rooted in documents, liturgies, and actual evidence. We have to be honest about what’s there, what’s not, and the degree to which other considerations govern our choices.

Too, attention to actual fact reminds us of the importance of comprehensiveness. Specifically, I’ve read too much history and too much theology to say that the Tradition is truly univocal on many things. Because of comprehensiveness, I recognize that my synthesis cannot be hegemonic. That is, I recognize that I have sub-selected strands within the Tradition that I think best proclaim the Gospel to me and my people at this time. I recognize that there are other strands within the Tradition that are not only different from but that disagree with other strands—including mine. (I.e., some Reformation, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox strands simply do not play well with one another; some strands of monastic and Scholastic don’t play well; Gaulish monasticism and St Augustine; etc ad nauseum…)

At the end of the day, very few people will do the work of creating a synthesis or metasynthesis for how they understand and embody the Christian Tradition.

And that’s perfectly fine.

What’s crucial, though, for thinkers and leaders in the Church, is that we have an awareness of what syntheses are out there, how they collide and clash with one another, and how they rank in terms of being compelling, comprehensive, and historically-grounded. I believe that part of the task of Church historians is the creation of effective syntheses that start with historical fact and theological truth that are compelling for our clergy and congregations. I’d suggest that this is the real value and power of a work like Martin Thornton’s English Spirituality—not that it teaches everything anyone needs to know but that it presents a clear, compelling, and factually grounded synthesis of how the Church has taught and lived.

And we need more like it.