Author Archives: Derek A. Olsen

Anglican Gradual & Sacramentary Revisited

Prompted by some of my thinking on the place of the Lesser Propers in Anglican worship and due to a thread on the Ship, I took another look today at the Anglican Gradual & Sacramentary,

I come away with three convictions on the matter:

  1. The author put an awful lot of hard work into it.
  2. It is (as the author/editor states) an idiosyncratic work. Were I to have done it I would have made some different choices and would have followed them through in a different manner. Nothing necessarily against the work there—I’d just do it different.
  3. The one overt critique I will make is, the format chosen is a serious issue. While I recognize the desired output, a set of Word/PDF docs is simply not the technology to use for this kind of project.

Brief Reading List for Anglican Laity

There was Discussion below on a reading list for clergy. I thought that it would be fitting to begin where it’s most proper—a brief recommended reading list for laity.

Bible, BCP, and Hymnal go without saying…

Then:

1. Augustine, Enchiridion

2. Luther’s Large & Small Catechisms

3. Athanasius, On the Incarnation

4. The Rule of St. Benedict

5. Michael Ramsey, The Anglican Spirit

6. Luke Johnson, The Creed

7. Martin Thorton, Christian Proficiency

8. Luke Johnson, Living Jesus

9. Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline

Most of these are pretty self-explanatory. Of the modern works, the Ramsey and the Thorton give the primary introductions to Anglican thought and Spirituality; the Johnson books are the best I know at laying out biblical Christology and the creedal core of the catholic faith that fall neither into scepticism (a la Borg and Crossan) or fundamentalism. The Foster has a tendency to get protestant, but is a good introduction to the basic Christian disciplines.

Early Medieval Monastic Libraries

In filling out a footnote in the diss, I ran across a new and fascinating study by one of the current Great Masters of Anglo-Saxon Studies, Michael Lapidge’s The Anglo-Saxon Library. Here’s his conclusion on page 127 of the content of monastic libraries:

Evidence of various kinds indicates that Anglo-Saxon libraries were not large, at least in comparison with ninth-century Continental libraries, as we know these from surviving inventories, or with later medieval cathedral and monastic libraries in England, as we know these from the catalogues printed in CBMLC. . . . The typical Anglo-Saxon monastic library probably owned fewer than fifty volumes, all of which could be housed in a simple book-chest.

To judge from the combined evidence of inventories, surviving manuscripts, and citations, as set out in the Catalogue below, the typical Anglo-Saxon library housed a small core of staple patristic texts, scarcely exceeding twenty titles:

  • Gregory, Dialogi [Dialogues—book 2 being the life of Benedict], Hom. .xl. in Euangelia [The 40 Gospel Homilies], Moralia in Iob, and Regula pastoralis [Pastoral Care];
  • Isidore, De ecclesiasticis officiis, De natura rerum, Entymologiae [His 20 volume encyclopedia], and Synonyma;
  • Jerome, Epistulae [Letters] and possibly the Comm. in Euangelium Matthaei; and
  • Augustine, De civitate Dei [City of God], De trinitate, Enarrationes in Psalmos, Enchiridion, and the Epistulae and Sermones in selections.

To these works of the four major patristic authors (at least as suggested by the Anglo-Saxon evidence), one may add several individual works: Cassian, Conlationes [Conferences] and Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, as translated by Rufinuis . . .

[Needless to say, the patristic material would also be filled out by the homiliaries which are essentially patristic anthologies.]

His discussion continues from here, but this is the section that particularly caught my eye. I find this list fascinating because, when I ponder what books and what ecclesiastical learning is most needful, this list isn’t too different from what I’d pick—certainly as the core of a patristics section. The one major change would be the Isidore block. Isidore was the major encyclopedist of the early medieval world and the items included here would be more properly replaced by modern rather than medieval reference works: Hatchett, the Anchor Bible Dictionary, etc.

Rule Resource

Don’t miss today’s reading from Speaking to the Soul at the Episcopal Cafe. It’s from Margaret Guenther who, IIRC, was a professor of spirituality and spiritual direction at General. The topic is on the proper form of a rule of life. From the snippet, it looks like it’d be a good resource.

Confirmation and Catechesis

There have been discussions recently—here on the site, at home, around the diocese—concerning Confirmation, especially as found within the ’79 BCP.

I’d summarize the standard Western view as “confirmation completes Baptism.”

M’s response, and that of others, is that in the ’79 BCP Baptism doesn’t need completing; it’s already a complete act in and of itself. If this is the case, then it completely changes many of the assumptions that we’ve held about the nature and timing of Confirmation.

  • Reception of the Eucharist is not dependent upon Confirmation: I note that this seems to me to be a bit of Eastern influence, especially as they commune after Baptism as well (I’m thinking particularly small children here). Is there an Eastern corollary to Confirmation? I’m ignorant…
  • Esp. if Reception is not an issues, what about age?: M and I emphatically agree that Confirmation is not a rite of passage based on age. Yes, bar/bat mitzvahs are and they did evolve out of catholic Confirmation practices—but that doesn’t mean that Confirmation is or should be a rite of passage. We also agree that Confirmation is about a “mature public affirmation” of faith. Mature is not 10. Or even 15. We’re thinking that 20’s and 30’s is when “mature” really starts to hit.
  • Catechesis: What’s appropriate and proper? This is where I see the ideal of a 3 year catechumenate making some connection with our context. Not three years, but a decent enough amount of time to give a person a suitable grounding in the faith
  • Sacramental Status: If Baptism is completed in Baptism—which appears to be a clear departure from the current Roman Catholic catechism (“the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace”) does Confirmation remain a Sacrament or sacramental rite? Is there an indelible spiritual mark (section 1304) impressed at Confirmation? Despite the place and authority of the current Roman Catechism, it seems to me there’s quite a bit of waffling going on in this text itself due to both the issues raised by the Liturgical Renewal and the inclusion of non-Latin Rite Christians within the papal fold…

What do you think?

Home Again, Home Again…

  • I’m back from K’zoo. The presentation went quite well, I thought. As I was only on site 1 day, I didn’t get to see nearly the folks I had hoped including Michelle, theSwain and the reclusive H.E. On the other hand, I presented in the same session as B. Hawk and ran into Dr. Nokes in the book room.
  • The book room was quite nice—not as grand as the one at the combined AAR/SBL (shall we see its like again?)—but nice. I picked up volumes 1 and 2 of de Lubac’s classic Medieval Exegesis and started reading it one the drive home. I’ve dipped into it from time to time but have never actually sat down and read it cover to cover as it deserves. Such an amazing work.
  • I’ve become enamoured of XML. All of the major text encoding projects in the Humanities use it. I guess it’s finally time to look a little deeper. I am fascinated by its ability to manipulate a text while still keeping it in a textual format (unlike other databasing options).
  • While I was gone the Cafe ran a piece of mine on salvation.  I’m becoming increasingly frustrated in the ways that we both do and don’t teach the faith. As I note in this one, we tend to cede important framings of the debate to others and therefore either lose or make ourselves irrelevant apparently by choice.
  • We need to rethink catechetics. More on this later.
  • bls has located another great text, this one a discussion of the Sarum Gradual’s procession from the Roman Gradual by Blessed Frere.
  • The bishop-elect of N. Michigan has put out an explanation which I’ve not read but has been measured and found wanting by several colleagues. I feel no need to comment further…
  • Fr. Reid of St Clement’s has a great post on lessons learned in his London parish which should be read by all who belong to or have an interested in city churches.  Smokey Mary already does something like this but this model has great potential for churches in non-residential areas whose numbers and vitality have ebbed in recent years. (And of course gutting the place is never a help…)
  • I finally got off my butt and called a wonderful priest in the area (Fr. Former Priest for those who know) whom I’m hoping will become my spiritual director. I was pleasantly surprised that he remembered me  and we’re looking forward to getting together and talking.

“Anything” Doesn’t Go

Fr. Owen correctly notes that Episcopal laity are also bound by vows when it comes to our comprehension of the faith:

I’ve written before about the problem of clergy setting aside the vow to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church. And while it is true that laypersons have not taken that vow, all Episcopal Christians – lay and ordained alike – have made a promise in the Baptismal Covenant that commits us to living within the limits and boundaries of acceptable belief:

Celebrant Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship,
in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?

People I will, with God’s help.

The Book of Common Prayer, p. 304

The language about “the apostles’ teaching and fellowship” is not merely nice sounding words on paper. It entails a substantive content. And in this particular liturgy, that content is laid out in the first half of the Baptismal Covenant in response to the questions of trust that precede the five questions of promise. Those questions are:

  1. Do you believe in God the Father?
  2. Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
  3. Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?

The answers to these questions take the form of the Apostles’ Creed. So when we promise to continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, we are making a solemn commitment to persist in adhering to the doctrinal content of the articles in the Apostles’ Creed. We are affirming that the faith of the Church articulated by this creed (and, I believe, by extension and amplification in the Nicene Creed) is the norm of belief against which our own personal, individual beliefs are measured and found more or less adequate. And we are promising to conform our believing to this creedal norm.

We really shouldn’t have to say this. Given some of the rhetoric in our church of late, however, it seems that we do.  And I’m glad Fr. Owen has.

Radio Silence: K’zoo Edition

I’ve not written a lot in past days; I’ve been staring down some serious deadlines at work (which I met) and I’m now trying to finish off my K’zoo presentation. M is coming too and it should be fun, but it’ll be a whirlwind trip. Between financial and baby-sitting concerns, we’ll be driving out Wednesday, I’ll present on Thursday, then we’ll drive back on Friday.  It won’t give us much hanging out time, but hopefully I still get to see a few folks and ratchet up my covetousness to new heights in the splendor of the book room…

If you’re going to be there on Thursday, stop by and heckle me.

Some of the academically and liturgically inclined readers—especially those in the Northeast—might find this of interest: the call for papers from this year’s Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Studies conference at Villanova. Note this bit:

The PMR committee this year makes a special invitation to scholars from all disciplines in these fields to address our plenary theme : Ora et Labora. Pray and Work.

Back to Basics

Christopher has a statement up for consideration in light of other statements to be presented at General Convention.

Here’s the heart of it:

Therefore, rather than a program for persuading the Church to a particular point-of-view on matters of justice or on matters of ecclesiology, we recognize that our unity is founded in and maintained by Jesus Christ through Whom in the Holy Spirit we are all children of a merciful Father.

It then goes on to reaffirm the fundamentals:

  1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
  2. The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
  3. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s Words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
  4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
  5. The Book of Common Prayer as authorized in this Church in General Convention as the normative standard of worship in this Church.
  6. Service of the needs of our neighbors and the world in the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

These are the basics of who we are as Anglicans. Please—read it and, if you agree with it, sign it.

Liturgical Renewal: Mass Propers

In the Roman Use

One of the major emphases in the current Roman “Reform of the Reform” is the move to replace the Chant Propers into their correct place. A quick review is in order here. Following the handy “Division of the Mass” in my (1962) Roman Missal, there are nine variable parts or propers in the Mass:

  1. The Introit
  2. The Collects
  3. The Epistle
  4. The Gradual
  5. The Gospel
  6. The Offertory Verse
  7. The Secrets (offering prayers over the gifts just before the Canon)
  8. The Communion Verse
  9. The Postcommunion prayers

I’ve bolded the sungpropers. Note: there are no hymns in this line-up. Classically, hymns weren’t sung at Mass—they belonged in the Office. Thus, the items sung at Mass were the chant propers. After Vatican II, the use of the chant propers diminished and vernacular hymnody was introduced. The Roman Gradual (where these propers are found) was never officially translated into vernaculars that I know of. Certainly, there has never been an authorized English translation. This was a kiss of death in the post-conciliar years. As a result, many Roman Catholics today don’t know that these exist and are the normative forms of music to be used at Mass. Hence the efforts by the Reform of the Reform.

I want to make two points here:

  • The Chant Propers have always been and are now part of the historic Western liturgy.
  • The Chant Propers for the Temporal cycle are all drawn exclusively from Scripture.   (I don’t know if that’s the case for the Sanctoral cycle)

In the Anglican Use

Clearly the early BCPs simplified the Roman Mass. However, of these four sung propers, only one—the Gradual—was dropped by the 1549 BCP. The others were transformed:

  1. The Introit was a whole or a section of a psalm (rather than the Antiphon/Ps Verse/Antiphon/Gloria Patria/Antiphon pattern of the Roamn Rite) appointed for all Sundays and major days along with the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel.
  2. The Offertory was no longer “proper” and a list from which one to be chosen was given. These were now exhortations to give money, rather then Scriptures for meditation tying in with the meaning of the season or mass.
  3. The Communion also became a list of Scriptural sentences from which one was to be chosen. These too tended towards moral exhortation.

The 1552 book dropped all but the Offertory sentence. While Elizabeth’s 1559 book allowed the rite to start with a hymn or metrical psalm, none were appointed. The concept of the introit was preserved; the texts were not.

The High Church party would sometimes smuggle the chant propers back in when they could and, sure enough, inclusion of the chant propers, is one of the key points of the Anglican Missal and its relatives.

The American BCPs and the current book do not include these propers. However:

  1. We have a “hymn, psalm, or anthem” opening the service
  2. The Psalm in the RCL and the “Psalm, hymn or anthem [which] may follow each Reading” serve as the Gradual and the Alleluia with verse/Sequence
  3. The Offertory sentence is retained and the option given of “some other sentence of Scripture.” Furthermore, “During the Offertory, a hymn, psalm, or anthem may be sung”
  4. “During the  ministration of Communion, hymns, psalms, or anthems may be sung”

In short, then, the rubrics of the BCP give space for the retention of these classic parts of the historic Western liturgy that would give our congregations yet more exposure to Scripture…

Points to Ponder

  • If many of our great liturgical stride over the past decades have been ecumenical in nature, isn’t this something to keep our eyes on?
  • It’s permitted, it’s classical, and it’s Scriptural; what’s not to like?

A few of my scattered thoughts:

Pro

  • See bullets one and two above
  • Furthermore, it opens more (and more interesting) musical options
  • I know of at least one Chant Gradual (Fr. John-Julian’s) that uses the RCL psalms for precisely this purpose

Con

  • Yes, it’s historical and all—but how much of this is about recovery and revitalization and how much of it is Romish affectation?
  • Using the Roman cycle raises exactly the the same problem that we currently have with the collects. What is the true shape of the Temporal cycle: is it a one-year cycle or a three-year cycle? Given the rotation of readings it seems to be three; reintroducing another one year pattern would reshape the answer. Not necessarily a bad thing, but one to be intentional on.
  • Hymns are part of our heritage. Granted, most English language hymnody is not strictly Anglican, but hymns at Mass are what American Episcopalians are familiar and comfortable with. Where would this scheme leave room for hymns?

Obviously, I’m not in any way suggesting that chant propers be made mandatory. I don’t even see them being included in the next BCP. Rather, I’m offering food for thought. Is a recovery of the sung propers even something to be interested in?