Author Archives: Derek A. Olsen

More Rumors from Rome

Technically, from Australia—but pertaining to Roman doings…

NLM is passing along a report from The Record that:

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided to recommend the Traditional Anglican Communion be accorded a personal prelature akin to Opus Dei, if talks between the TAC and the Vatican aimed at unity succeed, it is understood.

This isn’t the first time that we’ve heard this, of course, and it may well not be the last, but hearing this in such close proximity to action in regard to the SSPX is intriguing.

Let’s be clear on what the whole SSPX thing is about. It’s not fundamentally about 4 bishops. Yes, the bishops are the key to it, but I think it’s more about the people. B16, it seems to me, is doing part of what the church ought to be doing—engaging in the ministry of reconciliation—and is working to repair rifts.  (And, of course, I’m sincerely hoping that he exercises his episcopal role to discipline at least one if not more of the said 4 bishops if and when full reconciliation occurs.)

Looking at it from this perspective, it’s not hard to see the TAC in the same way.

If these rumors were to be true, if this were to be accomplished, it might well open the door for a mass (npi…) return of traditional Anglo-Catholics from outside the TAC. As we’ve noted in the past, while American Anglo-Catholics have grabbed on to this Gafcon/FOCA thing, that’s not the case in England and elsewhere. Even now there are rumblings that even within those Americans who drafted documentation for Gafcon, there are some who may choose to swim the Tiber and return to Rome rather than remain in the FOCA.

Just a Thought

…I might actually produce some posts of substance soon.

These have been few are far between recently for a number of reasons. One of which being many of the posts I draft that contain actual content end up being sent to Jim for the Episcopal Cafe.

However, I’m having a hnkering to write down some theses for debate concerning Anglican/Episcopal Liturgy that might draw some discussion.

Inbox

It took me a moment to decode an email subject line…

“Presale: Lamb of God at Tabernacle”

Theological treatise or concert announcement?

Answer: concert announcement…

For Fans of the New Roman Missal

(Ok—since it’s me I’ll clarify: “new” in this case doesn’t mean Trent, I mean the Vatican II revision…)

Word of the availability of this version of the missal is leaking out slowly because the hosts don’t want the server over-run. Nevertheless, it’s a wonderful resource, and people should know that it’s available. I’m shooting for balance here; I’m letting you know it’s there but to reduce googability I’ll not mention it by name…

The pdf I’ll be linking to contains:

  • The full Novus Ordo mass in both Latin and English (yes, all four Eucharistic Prayers)
  • Square notation chants for the Latin of the mass—not the English
  • The Sprinkling rite with the Asperges Me and Vidi Aquam
  • Chants for the Ordinary of the Mass according to 18 settings, identified as to when and for what they ought to be sung
  • 6 Credos
  • Propers through the year with the chant from the Gradual; English translations without the chant; the lectionary readings on the three year schema

Whether you’re Roman, Rome-leaning, or just a liturgy/chant nut, this is a great volume to have. And it can be found here.

(And for those who did think I was referring to the Tridentine Mass, it can, of course, be found here…)

New Cafe Post

I’ve got a new post up at the Cafe. It’s the penultimate piece in the “7 Dates that Derek Thinks That Anglicans Really Ought to Know” series. The timing is appropriate here, coming at the end of the Week of Christian Unity as the date at hand is 1054 and the topic the Great Schism…

I have to say, this is the piece that I feel most nervous about. Yes, it falls in my sphere historically but not topically. Thus, I tried to stick more with generalities knowing that dealing with nuances would draw fire from a variety of sides… Let me know if you spot any howlers but I tried to be fair all around. Just to clarify, here’s the rest of the series to this point:

587 BC, and why it matters

AD 70 and why it matters

AD 325 and why it matters

AD 525 and Why It Matters

AD 597 and why it matters

AD 1054 and why it matters

Traditional and Contemporary Revisited

Donald Schell has a piece up at the Cafe that sounds a whole lot like what I posted a bit back. These were written completely independently of one another and I’m amazed at the similarity of themes that run through them. Especially when one considers the very real difference that exist between Donald and myself.

I actually believe that we have similar philosophies here but there are very real differences in how we put them into practice and would wager that the central difference is what we here the Spirit calling us to do.

But where do you go from there? Do you argue that one is hearing the Spirit right and not the other? Or do we suggest that the same Spirit is calling us in different directions based on our different social/spiritual locations? Certainly I prefer the latter to the former but–let’s face it–that raises as many questions as it solves…

However it continues, I think that the whole relation of “tradition” and what we do with it to our liturgy/public worship is an essential discussion and will have implications on our future shape.

What Father Are You?

You’re Origen!

You do nothing by half-measures. If you’re going to read the Bible, you want to read it in the original languages. If you’re going to teach, you’re going to reach as many souls as possible, through a proliferation of lectures and books. If you’re a guy and you’re going to fight for purity … well, you’d better hide the kitchen shears.

Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

(h/t Texanglican)

How amusing I should get this response with this verbiage… Since I’m finishing up a PowerPoint presentation for a lecture I’m doing at a local church tomorrow…

Epiphany Hymns Note

Several of us at various points have noted the interesting Gospel Antiphon for Second Vespers of the Feast of the Epiphany:

We keep this day holy in honor of three miracles: this day a star led the Wise Men to the manager; this day water was turned into wine at the marriage feast; this day Christ willed to be baptized by John in the Jordan for our salvation, alleluia.

What I had never quite realized until last night is that this seasonal understanding is further reinforced by the Office hymns: Iesus Refulsit Omnium and Hostis Herodes Impie (known in these latter days in the Urbanized hack-up version Crudelis Herodes).

Thus in Iesus Refulsit Omnium, stanzas 2 and 3 discuss the arrival of the magi and their gifts to the Babe, stanzas 4-6 deal with the Baptism of our Lord, and stanza7 recalls the miracle at Cana.

In Hostis Herodes Impie, stanza 2 presents the magi, stanza 4 the Baptism of our Lord, and stanza 7 the miracle at Cana. Furthermore stanza 5 points to other miracles that take their place within the old lectionaries Epiphany season by noting “he healed sick bodies and revived corpses”.

Crudelis Herodes is similar but the versions in my Liber and ’62 Missal contain fewer stanzas; in this case stanza 2 is the magi, stanza 3 is the Baptism, and stanza 4 is the miracle at Cana.

Suddenly I find myself wondering the chicken and egg question—which came first: did the antiphon produce the hymns, the hymns the antiphon, or do they all derive from an earlier common source?

New Cafe Piece

I’ve got a new piece up at the Cafe. A little background—this one came directly albeit obliquely out of on-going conversations that I’ve been having with Donald Schell (yes, that Donald Schell)  about liturgy, faith formation, and the place of tradition in our reflection.

Christopher will also recognize some key items on liturgy and tradition that we’ve been discussing together for quite some time…

Too often discussions about liturgy and worship fall into a set of stale rhetorical traps that pit binaries against each other: traditional/contemporary; Spirit-led/rubric-driven, spontaneous/over-planned, etc. The simple fact is that these are not helpful as blanket categories any more (if ever). What I’m expressing here is a understanding of Christian theology and liturgy that is a contemporary appropriation of traditional materials rooted in a pneumatology that understands the spread of human history as the playground of the Spirit. “Listening to the Spirit” doesn’t just mean cocking your ear now—although that’s an undeniable part of it.  Furthermore, while liturgy’s principle aim is the praise and worship of God, we must also attend to its secondary purpose of communal Christian formation.

The bottom line is that if our corporate worship is not playing a major role in our transformation into the mind of Christ than there’s a problem. And the problem isn’t necessarily the liturgy, either—sometimes it’s us!