Category Archives: Anglican

Pluralism, Christianity, and Separate Truths

There’s an article by Stephen Prothero at BU on the topic of religious pluralism that’s been making the rounds. This really is an important topic that we need to wrestle with especially as it relates to how societies negotiate pluralism and how open-minded Episcopalians comprehend and enact evangelism. I doubt much that I write here is new. Lee and others far more read in the topic than I will, I suspect, be able to trace what I write here to certain figures in the modern debate. I have no doubt many have been filtered to me by various teachers and texts. In any case…

In the main, I agree with what Prothero writes and the perspective that he takes. One of my early mentors who encouraged my academic investigations of Buddhism and Asian religion impressed upon me that if all religions are simply a path to the same thing that there was no reason for us to talk. That is and remains a fundamental principle of mine and is an important core around which to form an understand of pluralism as it exists in modern America.

Where Prothero doesn’t go is into the specifics of how Christians understand salvation and I think the specific nature of Christian salvation is what’s key. To say more, I have to back up a few steps, though.

Glancing over the comments at the Cafe, I think George Clifford makes a useful distinction (but I, no doubt, take it in some different directions from where he does). That is, human brains seem to be wired to expect and experience something beyond empirical materialism. There is an ultimate reality. I believe that we are biologically wired to experience glimpses of it and even to participate in it, but I do not believe that we have sufficient capacities to comprehended it in the fullness of what it is. In an effort to move towards comprehension, though, human societies use social constructs called religion.

Every human society that I know of has religion which, if we get reductionistic about it, tends to join notions of transcendence and experiences of the holy—those glimpses of ultimate reality. Within this group, I see two rough categories, one of which ties transcendence and holiness into ethics or some form of personal behavior which aligns humanity with transcendence and holiness, and those that do not. (Do note that under this means of describing things, a “secular humanist” does indeed fall into the first category; I do see that as a faith system even if it is a non-theistic or athiestic one.)

Furthermore, of the major ethically-connected religions, it seems to me that many of them describe ethical paths with remarkably similar outcomes. That is, the major faiths teach messages of compassion and love and avoiding unnecessary violence and exploitation. Framed another way, they encourage virtue and seek to restraint of vice in individuals and society. Framed broadly, this works. When we start looking at specifics like, oh say, sexual behavior, there may be sharp disagreements between different systems about what constitutes vice and virtue.

Within most religions, though, the ethical outcomes are the ancillary or secondary principles that derive from the primary principles which relate to deities or ultimate human purposes. Thus in Christianity, morality flows out of who we believe the Trinity to be. In Buddhism, morality flows out of an understanding of the human condition. I’m not at all using secondary to mean unimportant; rather I’m using it to designate the fact that there are other first principles from which these notion flow.

What complicates things is the principle of revelation. Most faith systems (whether theistic, nontheistic or atheistic) root their primary principles in the belief that there is a substantive shape/form/direction in/of ultimate reality that the reality itself has communicated or mediated to humanity in some way. In a less qualified means of expressing myself, [God/the gods/the universe itself] communicate(s) with us; our primary principles are rooted in this communication.

Interreligious dialogue is entirely necessary and proper—as regards secondary principles. We should talk with others to learn about the attainment of virtue, paths and practices that move us personally and as societies towards compassion, non-violence, and human flourishing. But we must be honest to ourselves and to our faith systems. Interreligious dialogue is genuine when first principles are not compromised.

Moving specifically to what Prothero writes, he approaches the question from a slightly different direction than I do. That is, he starts from the premise that religions agree that things are screwed up and that religions try to answer the question of how people and societies move to/don’t participate in the state of screwed-upness:

What the world’s religions share is not so much a finish line as a starting point. And where they begin is with this simple observation: Something is wrong with the world.

I think he oversimplifies this (and that’s likely related to his venue and audience rather than full-blown imprecision on his part); I think he’d agree that what he’s saying is that the world’s religions agree that the quotidian human engagement with the world is wrong. (That is, some think that there’s nothing wrong with the world, just with how humans engage it and act within it…)

I come from a different angle. I do prefer to start from the finish line: how do we connect to and participate in ultimate reality?

Prothero and I agree that Christians have a unique answer to this drawn from our first principles. He writes:

It might seem to be an admirable act of empathy to assert that Confucians and Buddhists can be saved. But this statement is confused to the core, since salvation is not something that either Confucians or Buddhists seek. Salvation is a Christian goal, and when Christians speak of it, they are speaking of being saved from sin. But Confucians and Buddhists do not believe in sin, so it makes no sense for them to try to be saved from it. And while Muslims and Jews do speak of sin of a sort, neither Islam nor Judaism describes salvation from sin as its aim. When a jailer asks the apostle Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), he is asking not a generic human question but a specifically Christian one. So while it may seem to be an act of generosity to state that Confucians and Buddhists and Muslims and Jews can also be saved, this statement is actually an act of obfuscation.

The conventional expression of this is the belief that good people will “go to heaven” even if they’re not Christians.

The problem is that this conventional sense is a fundamental misconstrual of Christian salvation as taught by the Church. I’ve talked about this before in a Cafe article (one of my favorites, actually), a bit of which I’ll quote here:

Being a Christian isn’t about getting to heaven. Being a Christian is about participating in new life, in divine life, sharing in the very life of God. In baptism we have been—in my favorite phrase from Paul—“hid with Christ in God.”

This is both the point and the purpose of Christian salvation. It’s not about waiting around to go somewhere or existing in some state after we die; it’s about participating in the life of God both now and later. Life is the point. Opening our eyes to and taking hold of what God has done for us in creation, in incarnation, in the crucifixion and the resurrection—that’s the point. The purpose is no less clear. It’s to live that life and to share it, to help it expand to others.

It’s to live a life hid with God in Christ.

This post also attempts to encapsulate it in a concise statement. That’s how I understand how Christians comprehend ultimate reality: we are joined in the sacramental, mystical, and eschatological Body of Christ within which we participate in the life of God. When viewed from this perspective, is this something that a Buddhist desires? Or a Muslim? I can’t imagine they would…

Can I say without reservation that because of this Buddhists and Muslims cannot connect into ultimate reality? That’s harder.  This is the classic: do all religions “go to the same place”/”shoot for the same goal” question, I suppose. My sense is that most religions do have a sense that we need to engage ultimate reality but we all do a have a different sense of what this is and how we do it. Ultimately, I think our answers to this relate to how we understand the human capacity to grasp and comprehend ultimate reality. Expecting it and experiencing it are not the same as comprehending it.

My Christian first principles tell me that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that none come to the Father but through him. Or, to use the language that I’ve been using up to this point, Jesus Christ (and therefore incorporation into his sacramental, mystical, and eschatological Body) is the only means for participating within ultimate reality. I’m also told that my incorporation comes wholly through God’s grace and that the channel of this grace is normatively expressed in the sacrament of Baptism. The Tradition of the Church admits exceptions to this rule; Aquinas’s discussion on the issue shows some open doors and many Christian thinkers far better and wiser than I have wrestled with the fate of those to whom the Gospel has not been proclaimed.

One answer is that a Buddhist or Muslim may encounter ultimate reality and that the agency is Jesus Christ whether the unbeliever knows it or not, recognizes it or not. Personally, I think this leads to a road that cannot be traversed with certainty due to our human inability to comprehend the scope and nature of ultimate reality. Because here I think we run into the problem of dividing and separating that which is authentic divine revelation from what is not. Buddhists, Muslims, disagree with my grasp of first principles because of their conflict with the other believers own first principles. I think mine are right and that theirs may be a faulty human construction that miusconstrues the true nature and state of ultimate reality. Or, on the other hand, can those apparently alternate and contradictory notions be resolved a=on a plane for beyond my comprehension?

Where things become dicey, therefore, is when we start examining the line between revelation and human construction. What are the fundamental truths that [God/the gods/the universe itself] has bequeathed to us and what are human constructs built upon and around this revelation? Obviously the issue here isn’t just religions talking to one another. The proliferation of Christian denominations is intimately related to how this question is answered, into how and where we draw the lines between the divine and the human which is further blurred by the belief that God inspires humans and societies towards the fulfilling of his will and purposes.

In the clearest for-instance I can drag up, the Young Fogey and I absolutely agree that the distinction between our systems of belief rests in the principle of infallibility. The Young Fogey believes that the Church as a whole has been granted the capacity to rightly discern the fundamental divine teachings of revelation from the human constructs built upon them that may be altered. (I believe that’s a fair statement and I know he won’t hesitate to correct me if it’s inaccurate…) I have less faith in the Church as a whole. I believe that the Church as a whole is not able to infallible determine and discern the fundamental divine teachings from human constructs. I believe that the Church as a whole is on the right path and that in the great majority of things the Tradition of the Church has judged rightly,  but I do not, cannot, and will not use the word infallible to speak of the human institution of the Church. As a Body of believers we still stumble from one age to the next, sometimes correcting misapprehensions from earlier ages, sometimes creating new ones as we go. The Spirit directs us and clarifies but always through the inspirations of humans whose wiring does not have the capacity for complete comprehension due to the dual issues of material limitation and sin.

To complicate matters even more, I think that our tradition presents clear warnings against a clear and easy distinction between what is divine and what is human. Consistent wrangling on the nature of Christ and the Trinity seems to always come back to the fact there there are two distinct natures—the divine and human—which subsist in their entirety within Jesus Christ. To my unsystematic mind, this means that we recognize that there are these two different states [imprecise word, I know] but that the act of trying to separate them out from one another is fundamentally problematic.

My solution a sa an admitted unsystematic kind of guy who believes in the humani inability to fully comprehend the  divine is to throw up my hands and to retreat to ascetical theology. Thus, I say that I understand Christianity as the proper path to ultimate reality, the Triune God, as taught in the Scriptures, Tradition, and practice of the Christian faith. I really cannot say what happens to those who are not baptized, not being privy to the God’s deliberations and expressions of grace. I do know that I have been charged to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that [Jesus] has commanded [us]” and that part of being a Christian means doing this.

Another part means fussing around the dividing line of what is divine revelation and what is human construct, all the while knowing that I can never know if I’m really right but knowing that life in God and the formation of virtue are my truest guides through the mirk.

This is how I closed out the Cafe piece referenced above and, since it’s still where I come down on it, I’ll end this post that way too:

[The Christian purpose] to live a life hid with God in Christ.

And I’d tell you exactly what that phrase means, except that I’m not sure myself.

Oh, I have some ideas. One revolves around how much the New Testament uses the word “abide” as an activity that God does with Jesus and Jesus does with God and that we do with Jesus and therefore we can do with God and so on and so forth. Abide. Sometimes I think it means just lying in the presence of God in prayer and sometimes I think it means walking in love as Christ loved us and sometimes I think those are just two small parts of the fullness of what it really means. I’ll keep working on abiding…

Another idea has to do with our good ol’ Anglican worship. It’s how certain moments catch me and throw me—sometimes in church or sometimes days later—and give me a taste, a moment, that I can put my finger on and say, “Wow—that definitely connects to the life of God.” Worship doesn’t just fit us for the life of God but gives us moments and examples with which to see the slow yet steady spread of the lushness of God’s life and God’s will into our life that twines around the pillars of our hearts and with its soft, seeking roots cracks through calcified compassion.

In short, I’d tell you—but I think it’s got to be lived not told.

This Easter enjoy life, embrace life, share life, and live out a life hid with Christ in God.

Vidi Aquam at the Episcopal Cafe

My new piece is up at the Cafe. I thought I’d do a piece on one of the liturgical texts of Easter and settled on the Vidi Aquam. For a long time it’s been one of my favorite Easter texts precisely because so much biblical and theological material is packed into such a small space. So, I took a moment to unpack it.

This work is the kind of thing I love to do—demonstrating how Scripture, liturgy, hermeneutics, sacramental theology and ritual practice combine in one apparently throw-away text. And yet, so much of our liturgy is like this, deep and thickly textured.

Initial Breviary Stats

Looking Back

When I set up the page code for the St Bede’s Breviary, I decided that it was important to track general—not individual—usage information. Thus, one of the tables gathers style, kalendar, and rite selections. Again—I don’t capture any user or computer data and am using this only to get a sense of what features are being used to better accommodate those who choose to use it.

I tapped into the table the other day and pulled down data that has been accumulating since December. Because I’m not tracking individual data, I can’t pull out the many times I’ve accessed it to test out various features. Too, due to the way the table is populated, there are some situations where data is not returned and blank fields are entered. I’ve not messed with these resulting in a margin of error equal to the blanks. That having been said, here are the breakdowns for various categories for the 6,376 visits logged:

Despite my preference for Rite I, breviary users are evenly split between Rites I and II. I’m pleased to see this as it indicates to my mind that advocates of both rites are well represented here.

I found at least two items in this data set of interest. First, the data seems to reflect my own difficulties. In trying to fit the offices into a full life with children, I find I’m more regular with Morning Prayer than Evening.  As over half of all offices prayed are Morning Prayer and Evening is roughly half of Morning, it seems I’m not alone… :-) Second, I note that the Little Offices (Noon Prayer and Compline) share an equal though low percentage (7%). I don’t know if this means that those who do Noon Prayer are also those who do Compline but it’s a likely conclusion.  At the end of the day it seems clear that the two principal offices—Morning and Evening—are indeed what people are coming to the site to pray.

This slide indicates that the breviary is serving its primary function. I specifically coded the breviary for flexibility—I wanted Anglicans of all stripes to be able to find a means of praying the office that fit their spirituality best and I consider this data set to be a vindication of that decision.

This data set indicates an almost filibuster proof preference for the BCP kalendar.

Going Forward

Ever since it’s been up the Breviary has had the tag “Beta test” which is entirely necessay. I’m trying to move it out of beta status though. There’ll be several sets of changes required to make that happen and given my schedule it won’t be complete anytime soon. However, I do have some concrete plans for next steps. These include:

  • finally getting around to implementing the BCP rubrics on the placement of the gospel readings—i.e., morning in Year 2 (thanks for the reminder, Bill)
  • inserting NRSV readings into Rite II
  • re-doing the guts in ways that (hopefully) no one will notice on the client-side but will streamline the server-side and under-the-hood functionality
    • chiefly this means moving from a table-based daily calculation system to a rule-based system
    • consolidating kalendar tables which will enable me to roll out the other kalendars that I’ve had on ice for a while
  • fixing innumerable design issues and irritants
  • providing music for the hymns (square-notation at first, modern notation perhaps later based on some promised assistance, sound files are but a hopeful dream at this point)
  • integrating the breviary into a more coherent web presence

I can say that one major undertaking on the horizon after these are incorporated includes provisions for sung offices. No ETA on that, however.

As always, I’m open to your suggestions and corrections. On that note, let me conclude with a big thank you to Richard and Ron, my faithful entirely voluntary proofreaders who mercilessly call to my attention every error they see in Rites I and II respectively. Thank you for your assistance and persistence!!

On Eves, Vigils, and First Vespers, II

On the Value of First Vespers

Having reviewed a bit of the pre-Reformation and pre-conciliar practice regarding First Vespers Offices, we move to the practical question of how to define and utilize a First Vespers within the prayer-book tradition.

The first question to be tackled, of course, is: who cares? And indeed, the ’79 BCP itself seems to be raising that question. To sketch briefly, the 1662 BCP allowed First Vespers, the American 1928 BCP recommend First Vespers, while the 1979 BCP permits and appoints them but then turns around and relegates them to a back-shelf.

Let me explain that a bit…

Going by strictly BCP materials, there are only two items at Evening Prayer that indicate the liturgical observance: the Collect and the Lessons. Since 1662, using the Collect of a Sunday or Feast on the evening before has been approved. The American 1928 goes a step farther and provides proper Lessons for Eves in the Fixed Holy Days table (pp. xliv-v). The American 1979 provides Eves for a few Feasts in its own table of Holy Days (pp. 996-1000) but places most of them after the table itself in a lump titled “Eves of Apostles & Evangelists”. Comparing the ’79 to the ’28 there is a clear minimization of proper Lessons for Eves and the logic behind this is probably correctly captured in Hatchett’s discussion of the Daily Office Lectionary rubrics:

One of the frequent criticisms of earlier lectionaries in the Prayer Book was that sequential readings were often interrupted by proper lections for saints’ days and their eves, lections which contributed little or nothing to the congregation’s knowledge of the saint being commemorated or of sainthood in general. The reading of John 11, the story of the raising of Lazarus, for example, was frequently interrupted by lessons for the feast day (and/or eve) of Saint Matthias; none of these lections mentioned Matthias. In the 1979 Book, a general permission is given, when a major feast interrupts the sequence of readings, to lengthen, combine, or omit some of the appointed readings in order to secure continuity or avoid repetition. (Hatchett, CotAPB, 592)

Or, to restate more simply, the Daily Office Lectionary should be as continuous as possible for it to achieve its catechetical function.

While I agree with the premise as restated above, I disagree with Hatchett and am disappointed in how the ’79 Lectionary has changed to make these charges more credible.

First, let’s consider the catechetical aspect. We must recognize that when we discuss the liturgy in general and the Office in particular, we’re never dealing with just one “goal”; instead, we’re operating within an economy of catechetical goods—some of which come into conflict with each other. I would identify some of the catechetical goods from daily recitation of the Offices as:

  • An increasing awareness of the presentation of the Gospel through the patterns of the liturgical year
  • An awareness of the Communion of the Saints through liturgical celebration of those who intercede on our behalf
  • Saturation in the Scriptures through yearly repetition
  • Saturation in the Psalter through monthly repetition
  • Formation into key evangelical principles in the daily repetition of the Gospel Canticles
  • Formation into key interpretive principles with twice-daily repetition of the Apostles’ Creed

Hatchett is identifying a conflict between two of these goods: repetition of the Scriptures and acknowledgment of the saints. There are three problems, however, with the way that he constructs this.

The first is the nature of the conflict. I don’t see this as being a conflict between the Scriptures and saints. Rather, we are dealing with two different means of encountering the Scriptures. All of the feasts that have readings appointed for First Vespers are either Principal Feasts, Feasts of our Lord, or Major Feasts—all of which are Scriptural in nature. All of these people and events celebrated are specifically called out in Scripture. Thus, I think that Hatchett is setting up a false dichotomy.

The second is scope. Yes, the lessons for St Matthias will impede part of John 11—-in some years. But not others. Hatchett’s criticism makes sense if we are going to go through the lectionary cycle once. But if it is to be repeated year after year, then this charge does not make sense. Christian formation is a process measured best in decades. In a similar fashion, if I miss the Daily Office for an entire day, I regret not having said those psalms but have confidence that I’ll get them the next month. Perhaps that’s lackadaisical, but I’ve found that my spiritual health is greatly improved when I balance scrupulosity with a long-view approach to my holy habits.

The third is that, when Hatchett mentions “avoid[ing] repetition” at the end of the passage, he refers to a problem of the ’79 BCP’s own making. Repetition for Holy Days is not a credible charge when the American ’28 lectionary is concerned; each Holy Day has its own distinct readings for the Eve and the Day. Six readings with no overlap in the table. Look at the ’79, though. There is no overlap in what is presented in the table, but all Eves of Apostles and Evangelists are grouped together with two readings provided for them all. Now there’s repetition!

Not only that, but due to this way of proceeding, feasts not in the ’28 table (and even some that are) are now Eve-less: St Joseph, Independence Day, St Mary Magdalene, St Mary the Virgin (!!), St Michael and All Angles (!!), St James of Jerusalem, and Thanksgiving Day. Yes, we can stretch the definition of “Apostle & Evangelist” for St Mary Magdalene and St James of Jerusalem, but no reading for the BVM or St Michael?! You’ve got to be kidding me!!  Oddly, four readings are presented for Evening Prayer on these days, providing enough readings for a First and Second Vespers but the sets are not specified for use at either.

In other words, in comparison to the ’28 BCP, the ’79 BCP has made a hash of the Eves of Holy Days under the guise of simplification.

I disagree with Hatchett and, presumably, whoever compiled the Daily Office Lectionary tables. There are two ways to celebrate a First Vespers in the Prayer Book tradition: with the Collect alone or with the Collect and Appointed Lessons. My sense is that the first is appropriate for Sundays, the second is appropriate for Principal Feasts and Holy Days. The interruption of the continuous reading of Scripture is unfortunate but it is occasional (31 days sprinkled throughout the year), and is not consistent over years. No Scripture will be permanently impeded due to these occasions.

The benefit is that a First Vespers puts emphasis on those days, those events, those concepts, and those individuals who truly are important as examples, intercessors, and signs of the Christian life. No, Matthias is not mentioned in the readings on his day as Hatchett notes. He’s only mentioned in one pericope of Scripture which is appointed for his Mass. But, like other of the apostles, his significance is in his life and witness. His importance in our faith rests not on how many times he appears in Scripture but that he was a called and consecrated apostle. Indeed, most of us will be far more like him than Peter and Paul, not large in the annals of the church but nonetheless the faithful workers through whom the Gospel also flourishes.

First Vespers play an important role in marking out liturgical time and structuring our year. They need to be observed because of the emphases and counter-point that they give to the liturgical seasons.

Sunday Morning Prayer in Parishes?

I usually receive an email a week or so from a reader or from someone who happened upon the blog concerning proper protocol for the Daily Office. Not infrequently, those who write are in parishes that can no longer financially sustain full-time clergy. As a result, Morning Prayer has once again become a regular Sunday service despite the best intentions of both prayer book and parish.  With the unintentional suppression of Morning Prayer with the advent of the ’79 BCP, though, not all of the lay leaders in this situation have a lived tradition to fall back upon, and the clergy who do assist them may not either.

Are there enough readers in this situation or enough interest in this topic to warrant setting up a Morning Prayer Q&A page?

If so, what sort of content would be most helpful to those in this position? What questions need to be answered?

On Eves, Vigils, and First Vespers, (Digression)

Some comments on the last post prompt me to say a little more about the pre- and non-Reformation systems for dealing with kalendars. Let me say right off the bat that this is not an area where I consider myself an expert; I’ll be grateful for additions here from more informed readers.

One of the reasons I start off that way is because of the situation in the time of my main focus. In the early medieval monastic period, there are few clear surviving written records concerning how rules of precedence and such were ordered (observe for a second the number of caveats there: “clear”, “surviving”, “written”!) If you go to the seminal piece on liturgical books in Anglo-Saxon England,* the only text for dealing with such issues is item U: Consuetudinary. When you go to the text itself, Gneuss gives only a brief note:

The ordinal contains instructions concerning the texts and performance of the liturgy of mass and Office, either for the whole church year or for certain parts of it. In the consuetudinary (or customary) such liturgical instructions or ordines are combined with rules relating to the life and customs of a monastic community or a collegiate church. Such ordinals and consuetudinaries may vary considerably, according to the time and place of their composition and use. I have chosen the heading ‘consuetudinary’ because the pertinent Anglo­-Saxon (and early Anglo‑Norman) texts whose editions are listed below do not deal exclusively with liturgical matters. As will be seen, all these texts were intended for use in English monasteries and cathedral priories in the tenth and eleventh centuries. No specific Old English term seems to exist; none of the texts is found as a separate volume.

Gneuss throws around a number of terms here that will become technical terms for writers dealing with later periods. The ones I’ll note are ordinals, customary, and consuetudinary. There is no real precision to their use here because, as Gneuss says, the distinctions haven’t evolved yet.

The Ordines Romani are an important factor here. While they don’t receive a category of their own—i.e., we don’t really have “ordinals” proper yet—these were the documents that told you how all of your different books were supposed to fit together. Remember, within the early medieval period we had liturgical books with contents grouped by function: the choir had their book, the cantor had his book, the priest had his book, etc. The ordines provided the structure for how they interrelated. I confess that I don’t know if ordines XX-XXXVIII address precedence issues or not. We do have some surviving continental manuscripts that are collections of ordines (like Cod. Sang. 349) but these are also not ordinals in the future sense.

In any case, Gneuss lists four customaries, two of which may be familiar to readers of these pages, the Concordia Regularis and Aelfric’s “Letter to the Monks at Eynsham” (LME). These texts tend to be instructions that fill out the sparse descriptions of common life in Benedict’s Rule with a more precise detailing of the day, season, and year and add in the extra liturgical services common within a Cluniac inspired monastic system.

As you read through the LME, therefore, you find lists of incipits and when they are supposed to begin and end. On the matter of festal days, Aelfric makes two comments, one in his discussion of the liturgies of the summer period, the other tucked into his discussion of the readings of the Night Office:

55. If the Nativity of John the Baptist should fall on a Sunday, we desire to retain all the readings and the responsaries about John himself. The same [rule applies] for [the feasts of] the Assumption and Nativity of St Mary and the Feast of St Michael: should [any of these] occur on a Sunday, we desire to retain [their liturgies] in full. Again, we do the same for the feast of All Saints and [the feasts] of all the apostles, except those which occur in Advent or [in the period] from Septuagesima to Easter. But as for other feasts not observed by the laity, if they fall on Sunday and have a full history [of their own], let us read about them in the first and third position, and about the Sunday in the second. (LME, 139)

Then later on the Night Office:

73. But on all feasts of the saints, throughout the entire year, we read lives or passions of the saints themselves, or sermons appropriate to the given solemnity, and [we sing] proper responsories, if these are to be had; if not, we sing other appropriate ones and adopt for the third position [readings] from a homily on the gospel as we do always and everywhere. (LME, 147)

Thus, there is very little here about the vexing issue of Vespers, notably because of Aelfric’s focus on the Night Office.

Going back to the issue of liturgical books, there was one other item used in conjunction with the customary and that was the computus/compotus (OE gerim). This is the book that would tell you how to calculate the movable feasts and get into fun topics like lunar epacts, Golden Numbers, and dominical letters. (Gneuss discusses these briefly under item X with Calendars).

So, there were three major items, the ordines, the customary, and the computus that could be used in conjunction to figure out what was done when. The overwhelming sense that I get from reading the customaries, though, is that these tended to be descriptive rather than prescriptive and that, practically, it would boil down to however the community decided to run things.

As things evolved within English liturgy and as we moved more to the sway of the Sarum Rite, there were, in theory, two major texts which are edited together (among other items) in the two volume Use of Sarum, the consuetudinary and the ordinal. Knowing the early medieval background, having two documents makes perfect sense: the consuetudinary discusses the ritual and tells how the various groups of people interact, while the ordinal describes the liturgical orders and what masses and offices are to be said when.

The “old Ordinal” and the succeeding “new Ordinal” didn’t answer all of the possible questions so in the late Sarum period we get documents like the Crede Michi that address controverted questions. These led one Clement Maydeston in the early 1450’s to create a master document called the Ordinale Sarum sive Directorium Sacerdotum that serves to solve these issues once and for all. (This was edited in two volumes for the Henry Bradshaw Society, vol. 20 and vol. 22.)

If you do the math, there are 35 ways that the liturgical year can be arranged based on the possibilities for the date of Easter and when Sundays fall. Accordingly, Maydeston laid out those 35 options from the period between the Sunday following the Octave of Epiphany through the first few Sundays after Trinity. These were then labeled according to the dominical letter  A through G, then the five possible options for each of these were laid out (e.g., primum A, secundum A, tercium A, etc.). Once the “Easter affected” portions of the year had been dealt with,  the rest of the year was gathered into a sixth section (e.g., sextum A).

Here’s a sample for Jan 19th through the 22nd for primum A:

sample from the Directorium

Thursday is of St Wulstan, bishop and confessor; nine lessons are read from the Common of Saints. The Little Chapter starts: “Behold a priest…” At First Vespers and the Night Office there are memorials of the BVM. Second Vespers is of Sts Fabian and Sebastian. Little Chapter starts: “The souls of the righteous…” and there are memorials of St Wulstan and the BVM.

Friday is of the martyrs Sts Fabian and Sebastian; nine lessons are read at the Night Office with no exposition of the Gospel of the Day and there is a memorial of the BVM. The Second Vespers is of St Agnes, virgin. The Little Chapter starts: “I will confess…”, and memorials are made of Sts Fabian and Sebastian and the BVM.

etc. . . .

Thus, it identifies First Vespers (primas vesperas) and Second (Secunde vespere) and lets you know what to do in each case.

Parts of this tool, then, were  cut up and inserted into the Sarum Breviary as the pica or directions on what to do.

Considering the level of detail to which the Directorium descends, Anglo-Catholics through the ages have wondered if Archbishop Cranmer had not exaggerated the difficulties facing clergy in understanding how to say their breviary. All they had to do was flip to the right section of the Directorium and they could tell what was to be done.

I’m not even going to touch that one…

Furthermore, the whole issue of precedence of Vespers has, in modern times, been reduced to a chart that offers a comparison of what is done when. Here’s one from the Marquis of Bute’s English edition of the Tridentine Breviary:

As long as you know the rankings of the various days, you can figure out what you’re supposed to be celebrating. It makes sense, but isn’t an intuitive process until you’ve used it for a little while.

So, these are some of the items referred to in the previous post that give more information on the pre- and non-Reformation ways of reckoning the Vespers issues. Back to the American 1979 BCP in the next post.

* Helmut Gneuss, “Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England and their Old English terminology,” pages 91-141 in Learning and literature in Anglo-Saxon England : studies presented to Peter Clemoes on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, edited by Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985)

Central Churchmanship: Was There an American Form?

Here’s an interesting post from a Continuing bishop discussing the revisionism of both the Left and the Right wings of Anglicanism, and calling for a return to the central position which he identifies as: “based on the Bible, the Early Fathers, the Articles of Religion and the Prayer Book.”

What strikes me as odd is his appeal to “Central Churchmanship.” I’ve only seen the term used by the Young Fogey before and I wonder if this is a particularly English party. That is, here in America I’ve only heard of Anglicanism described in three branches: Evangelical, Broad, and Anglo-Catholic. These are also the parties described by an impartial historical observer as found in the 1907 (biased yet still entertaining—to me, at least) Catholic Encyclopedia article on Anglicanism.

I can see an appeal in what is being described here, but has it ever existed as a discrete body on American soil?

The Kalendar in Easter

Overview

Easter is the preeminent season of celebration in the Church Year. The “Great Fifty Days” are established by the dates given in Luke’s Gospel and Acts, and correspond with the forty days from the resurrection of Jesus until his Ascension, then the remaining ten days from the Ascension until Pentecost. Accordingly, Easter is a period always having 8 Sundays, the first being the Sunday of the Resurrection and the eighth being the Feast of Pentecost.

There are three distinct periods within the Easter Season identified by the Church: the Octave of Easter, the regular Easter time from the Second Sunday until the Ascension, then Ascension-tide consisting of the ten days from the Ascension to Pentecost.

The Easter season may begin as early as March 22nd or end as late as June 13th. Thus, there is an 83 day period within which the 50 days of Easter will fall. No matter when in this span it falls, the 15 days between April 25th and May 10 will always occur within the Easter season.

Historical Treatment

Under the early 20th century Pian rules, the Easter Sunday of the Resurrection received highest honors as both a privileged Sunday of the First Class and a Double of the First Class with a privileged Octave. The Monday and Tuesday were also Doubles of the First Class in their own right, the other days being Primary Greater Doubles by virtue of their octave status. As a result, no feasts aside from these could be kept until the second week of Easter. After this Octave, however, the ordinal Sundays of Easter receive no special treatment, being Lesser Sundays.

The days between the 7th Sunday of Easter and the Ascension, though, were the Rogation Days; the Monday and Wednesday (which is also the Vigil of the Ascension) were non-privileged Greater Feria meaning that a Double feast would take precedence but even then the ferias would be usually commemorated. These were solemn penitential days and, even in the midst of Easter, the liturgical color for these days was purple.

The Ascension which always falls on a Thursday is also a Double of the First Class with a non-privileged Octave.  The time from Ascension to the Vigil of Pentecost was its own mini-season with hymns proper to it. The Vigil of Pentecost only ranked as a Semi-double but was a privileged Vigil—no feast could be celebrated upon it. Pentecost received the same rank as Easter and therefore the week following was bound by the same rules: Monday and Tuesday in Pentecost week were Primary First Class Doubles, the rest of the weekdays were Primary Greater Doubles with the added twist that the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday were the Summer Ember Days. The Octave concluded on Saturday before the First Vespers of the Feast of the Holy Trinity.

Thus, there were three periods during the Pian Easter where the kalendar rules were in full play, first during the Octave of Easter itself, then in the days around the Ascension, and finally the Octave of Pentecost which effectively expanded the Easter season by an additional week.

Under the rules immediately before Vatican II, the ranks were altered but the effects were the same with one exception; the Octave of the Ascension was suppressed.

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

Rank Class Days
1 Feasts/Sundays, 1st Class Easter day and Pentecost
3 Feast, 1st Class Ascension of Our Lord
6 Sunday, 1st Class Low Sunday (Easter 2)
9 Vigil, 1st Class Vigil of Pentecost
10 Octaves, 1st Class days in the Easter and Pentecost octaves
15 Sunday, 2nd Class Sundays of Easter (Easter 3-7)
21 Vigil, 2nd Class Vigil of the Ascension

Within the “Rules to Order the Service” in the English 1662 BCP, rules 1 through 3 address, among other things, occurrence with the octaves of Easter and Pentecost. Rule 1 states that:

When some other greater Holy Day falls on . . .  Palm Sunday or one of the fourteen days following, on Ascension Day, or on Whitsunday or one of the seven days following, it shall be transferred as appropriate to the . . . Tuesday after Easter 1 [Low Sunday], or the Friday after Ascension Day, or the Tuesday after Trinity Sunday: except that if Easter Day falls on April 22nd, 24th or 25th, the festival of St. Philip and St. James shall be observed on the Tuesday of the week following Easter 1, and the festival of St. Mark shall be observed on the Thursday of that week.

Thus, Holy Days are transferred after the Octave of Easter and special rules are in force when said transference might interfere with other Holy Days.

Rule 2 prohibits a greater Holy Day from superseding Easter day, Low Sunday or Pentecost. No other Sundays in the Easter season are protected in this way, however.

Rule 3 states, “A lesser Holy Day shall lapse if it falls on any Sunday, . . . on Palm Sunday or any of the fourteen days following, on Ascension Day, or on Whitsunday or any of the seven days following.”

Rule 4 concerns the Rogation Days and states that “a greater or lesser Holy Day” will supersede the feria but the collect of the Rogation Day should be said as a memorial.

Rule 5 states that the collect of the Ascension shall be used on the days following it until Sunday and also that the collect of the Ascension will be the only collect at Evening Prayer on that day (i.e., no memorials).

Rule 6 which gives permission for First Vesper services, explicitly forbids a First Vespers for Ascension day.

The Table of Precedence in the American 1928 BCP shows an expansion of protections to the Easter season. It gives precedence to “Easter Day and the seven following days [including Low Sunday (Easter 2)]; Rogation Sunday [Easter 6]; The Ascension Day and the Sunday after Ascension Day [Easter 7]; Whitsunday and the six following days.”

Current Status

The ‘79 BCP simplifies the Easter season. In following the greater tradition, it keeps the Octave of Easter as a privileged octave; feasts are transferred until after Easter 2  and every day is a named holy day with its own collect and propers. Ascension Day and the Day of Pentecost are Principal Feasts but they have no octaves. The days following Pentecost are explicitly those of the next numbered proper of Ordinary Time and thus the collect of Pentecost is only said on the Day of Pentecost itself.

The Sundays of Easter have received a promotion, though, and no feasts may replace them. Indeed, the Easter season as the great baptismal season of the church has received a boost in the ’79 BCP and the practices around it and many parishes again make reference to Canon XX of Nicaea which forbids kneeling “during the Days of Pentecost [Easter]” and on Sundays. I’ll take no hard position on this either way except to make note of three things: 1) An appeal to 4th century practice completely by-passes the next 16 hundred years within which it became the standard Western practice to kneel on Sundays and during Easter; 2) the 4th century insistence on not kneeling was a reference to and was set in the context of the usual daily practice of multiple prostrations—to enforce the “no kneeling” without reference to lots and lots of kneeling the rest of the time seems to throw the practice off-kilter; 3) The current trend in the Episcopal Church tends not to revere the other actions of the Council, perhaps I’d be more enthusiastic to follow this canon if the other were equally promoted.

One other point on Easter is that the ’79 BCP attempts to restore the Vigil of Pentecost, making it an evening baptismal service analogous to the Easter Vigil. Despite this intention, I have never seen or heard of this being put into practice.

The current Roman rules concur concerning the new prominence of Easter and likewise give Sundays of Easter precedence over other feasts and solemnities with one exception—the Ascension may be transferred to Easter 7 (GNLY 7.2). The Octave of Easter is observed, each of the days being a solemnity of the Lord (GNLY 24). The status of Ascension-tide seems rather ambiguous; the norms say only that “The weekdays after the Ascension of the Lord until the Saturday before Pentecost inclusive are a preparation for the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete” (GNLY 26) but fail to note whether this preparation has any liturgical implications.

The order of precedence established in the GNLY 59 is:

Rank Class Days
1 I Easter triduum of the Lordʼs passion and resurrection
2a I the Ascension of the Lord, and Pentecost
2b I Sundays of the season of Easter
2d I Days within the octave of Easter
13c III Weekdays of the season of Easter from Monday after the octave of Easter until the Saturday before Pentecost inclusive.

Liturgical Days within Easter

Holy Days

There are 5 Holy Days that may fall within the Easter season:

Date Class Feast DL Notes
Mar 25 Feast of our Lord (3a) The Annunciation g Always in the Easter Octave if in Easter
April 25 Major Feast (3b) St Mark the Evangelist c May fall in Easter Octave
May 1 Major Feast (3b) Sts Philip and James, Apostles b Rarely falls in Easter Octave
May 31 Feast of Our Lord (3a) Visitation of the BVM d
June 11 Major Feast (3b) St Barnabas the Apostle d

The Octave of Easter may fall any time between March 22nd and May 2nd. As a result, the first three feasts may fall within this span and require transference. In each case, the feast is transferred outside of the Octave of Easter as stated in the BCP: “Major Feasts falling in [this week] are transferred to the week following the Second Sunday of Easter, in the order of their occurrence” (p. 17).  Current Roman practice seems to be that transferred feasts are placed on the Monday of the week (GNLY 5), but Sarum and the example of the 1662 BCP suggest that transference to the next Tuesday is optimal allowing full celebration of the prayer book appointed Eves/First Vespers.

If the Annunciation falls within Easter, chronologically it must fall within the Octave and cannot be celebrated on the 25th.

St Mark the Evangelist will always fall within the Easter season and, when Easter is late, may fall within the Octave. As it precedes the feast of Sts Philip and James by six days, transferences around this time must adequately accommodate both occasions; the recommendation of the 1662 BCP seems solid, suggesting that when Easter is on April 22nd (and thus Philip and James naturally fall on the Tuesday after Easter 2) or when Easter falls on April 24th or 25th (and thus Philip and James also fall within the Octave), that Sts Philip and James be celebrated on the Tuesday and St Mark receives the Thursday.

Some uses have special material for feasts of apostles within Easter, however, not all have Commons for Evangelists (yes, English Office, I’m looking at you…). If such supplementary materials are used, St Mark should receive the honors as an apostle within Easter-tide.

As noted above, Sts Philip and James will only fall within the Octave of Easter if Easter lands on one of its two latest days. In most years, therefore, the feast may be celebrated on its appointed day.

Days of Optional Observance

The only Days of Optional Observance that are impacted by Easter are those that fall within the Octave and lapse. There are a few feasts that fall within the March 22nd to May 2nd window that may be feasts of title or patron. Too, the Rogation Days are explicitly classed and listed as Days of Optional Observance in the BCP. Here are the significant Easter-tide feasts that may need to be transferred or otherwise noted:

Date Feast DL Notes
Mar 22 Gregory the Illuminator e May fall on Easter
April 19th Alphege of Canterbury d May fall in Easter Octave
April 21 Anselm of Canterbury f May fall in Easter Octave
April 23 St George, Patron of England A May fall in Easter Octave; lately added to HWHM, though not in ’79 BCP
April 29 Catherine of Siena g But note that most “St Catherine’s” are named for the VM of Alexandria (Nov 25)
May 2 Athanasius c Falls on Easter 2 if Easter falls on Apr 25
varies Rogation Days n/a Fall on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday before Ascension

If any of these days fall in the Octave of Easter and would be feasts of patron or title, they should be transferred to the first open day in the week after Easter 2. They may not replace the Mass of the Sunday during Easter.

Seminaries in Jeopardy

Word has been coming to me through both public and private channels that things are in a very bad way at General Theological Seminary. As most readers know, I have a special place in my heart for General as M did her Anglican Year there; ever since then, I’ve hoped to some day return there to teach in some capacity. How long the seminary will be in operation, though, seems to be a live issue.

Between events at Seabury-Western, the unfolding events at General, and similar situations at other places, we can no longer pretend that the twentieth-century models for clergy education will remain stable and static through the twenty-first. Free-standing denominational seminaries are becoming endangered species.

The very real—and realistic—discussion that needs to happen throughout our church needs to center around clergy formation. This is related to, but is a different beast from, clergy education. There are certain academic competencies that clergy must have beyond a typical four year degree. However, I don’t believe that the core competencies that clergy require can be met solely through academic instruction. Formation rooted in our distinctive spiritual practices are essential for the production of clergy who are both effective and Episcopal.

The Daily Office in Holy Week

Initial Considerations

The disposition of the Daily Office in Holy Week is perhaps the single most complex area where the current shape of the ’79 BCP must be reconciled with the practices of the historic Western liturgy. Three major factors are in play here:

  1. The simplifying principles of the BCPs and post-conciliar liturgies in general
  2. The shifting of Passion Sunday from Lent 5 to Lent 6
  3. The renewed emphasis upon Triduum in post-conciliar liturgies

The Offices of Holy Week in the Tridentine breviary are some of the most unusual and irregular of the year. On one hand, it reverts back to a more primitive shape of the Office that drops a number of usual features, most notably the Opening Versicles and the Invitatory. On the other, it adds a new layer of liturgy and ceremonial appropriate to the events of Triduum. The “Tenebrae” services celebrated in many mainline protestant churches involving a set of readings and a progressive extinguishing of candles is an adaptation of these offices wherein Vespers was dropped and Matins and Lauds were anticipated on the evening before.

Due to the simplifications of the previous Books of Common Prayer, the changes and elaborate ceremonial involving the hearse (a triangular wooden candelabrum containing 15 candles) were dropped. Furthermore, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite with its simplification of the Liturgy of the Hours has left these liturgies in an ambiguous state. The General Instructions on the Liturgy of the Hours (GILH) directs that Evening Prayer not be said on Maundy Thursday or Good Friday by those who participate in the proper liturgies of these days (GILH 209). It advocates a public celebration of the Office of Readings and Morning Prayer (GILH 210). Exactly how or if the ceremonial of the older form is retained is left to the discretion of the celebrant. One method is described in Appendix Seven of +Elliott’s Ceremonies of the Liturgical Year.

Perhaps the more significant issue is the reversion to a primitive form. Part of the simplification of the Books of Common Prayer is that they maintain a constant form of the Office that does not change. Thus, occasional reversions to primitive forms as in this case are silently removed for the sake of simplicity. That having been said, not all Anglicans have retained this simplicity and have chosen to cleave more closely to primitive practice; Ritual Notes, 11th ed. provides a model for adapting the 1662 Office to historic liturgical norms while the Order of the Holy Cross’s A Monastic Breviary offers a contemporary adaptation based on the precursors to the ’79 BCP.

The second issue regards the movement of Passion Sunday. Under the previous perspective where Lent had been seen as a tiered period of increasing penitence, the shift into Passiontide adds an additional grade up with Holy Week and Triduum providing the final steps before Easter. The leveling of Lent included the shift of Passion Sunday off Lent 5 and combining it with Lent 6/Palm Sunday. There is a useful pastoral rationale here, namely that those who do not or cannot attend mid-week public services do not go straight from the Triumphal Entry to the Empty Tomb thereby skipping the passion, death, and burial of Christ. This shift impacts the Office as a few reversions to the primitive form had historically occurred on Passion Sunday. Specifically, the Gloria Patri was removed in some places—the Opening Versicles, the Responsary Prayers, and the Invitatory—but not others—it was still said following the psalms and canticles.

The third issue reflects the intention of the Liturgical Renewal Movement concerning the importance of Triduum. This emphasis suggests that changes to the liturgy to highlight this time would be appropriate and in line with the priorities of the ’79 BCP.

Triduum Recommendations

Based on the core principle of using the ’79 BCP in continuity with the historic Western liturgy, I think that it would be most appropriate to abridge the Offices during Triduum for the sake of contituity. The alterations suggested by A Monastic Breviary serve as my main model, being a respectful attempt to incorporate the historic patterns into the contemporary Offices.

Therefore, in Triduum:

  • Offices begin with the Psalms (and antiphons if used) except for Compline; Compline begins with the Confession and Absolution, then jumps to the Psalms.
  • All Gloria Patris are omitted.
  • A penitential responsory replaces the 1st canticle at Morning and Evening Prayer
  • All hymns are omitted
  • The Offices conclude early. After the Gospel/second canticle of Morning and Evening Prayer, the Lord’s Prayer and the Collect of the Day are said at which point the Office ends. At Noon Prayer the Lord’s Prayer and Collect of the Day complete the Office immediately after the Psalm(s). At Compline, the Nunc Dimittis without Antiphon follows the Psalms, then the Lord’s Prayer and Collect conclude the hour.

It would also be my recommendation to omit the Gloria Patris during the first four days of Holy Week as well.

Fore-Office

The Angelus, should you use it, is said through Wednesday in Holy Week.

Two Opening Sentences are provided for Morning Prayer in Holy Week. Presumably the first is for the first four days and the second is for Triduum. If Opening Sentences are omitted during Triduum, however, either may be used.

The Confession of Sin should be used on the first four days of Holy Week. If opening matter is omitted during Triduum, this should be omitted as well.

The Invitatory and Psalter

“Alleluia” after the opening versicle is not said when the Versicle is used.

Holy Week does not receive its own Invitatory Antiphon. You may either use the text provided for Lent or omit the antiphon altogether.

The Daily Office Lectionary appoints Psalm 95 as the Invitatory for Good Friday and Holy Saturday in place of the Venite.

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

The Gloria Patri may be omitted during Holy Week at your discretion.

The Lessons

Palm Sunday and Good Friday use the almost the same lessons in both years. Four readings are appointed; two are designated for Morning Prayer and two for Evening Prayer. For the Palm Sunday Texts, the first two are “Palm” readings and the second two are “Passion” readings, mirroring the division in the prayer book’s Palm/Passion Sunday liturgy. The morning’s Zechariah text contains the prophecy of the king of Zion riding triumphant, victorious, and humble on a donkey rather than a war-horse and presents the paradox of a large prosperous nation without weapons. The second lesson from 1 Timothy includes one of the few instances of Paul appealing directly to a Jesus narrative, reminding Timothy of Jesus’s confession before Pilate. The evening lessons carry a darker tone, presenting another prophecy from Zechariah concerning “him whom they have pierced” and describing the weeping and mourning of Jerusalem. The second reading alternates by year between Matthew and Luke’s rendering of the Cleansing of the Temple which, in the Synoptic timeline, follows upon the morning’s palm procession.

Four readings should be used on Good Friday but five options are given. The preferred morning first reading is from the Book of Wisdom which describes the wicked speaking together, plotting against the righteous one, with heavily prophetic overtones. For those with allergies to the Apocrypha, the other option is the typological sacrifice of Isaac from Genesis 22. The second reading for the morning is Peter’s insistence to Jesus that he will remain faithful and Jesus informing him that he will deny three times before the cock’s crow. The first reading for Evening Prayer comes from 1 Peter and speaks of the sufferings of Christ, exhorting the faithful to obedience and holiness. The second reading is from John describing the giving of Christ’s body to Joseph of Arimathea.

For the rest of the week, Year One retains the use of Jeremiah, following medieval tradition, and uses the second half of Philippians until Triduum. The Gospel is from John, following his account of the triumphal entry and the following dying seed discourse with the Last Supper/High Priestly Prayer for Maundy Thursday. Year Two uses Lamentations, which in medieval tradition was read over Triduum, and provides the opening portions of 2 Corinthians until Triduum. The Gospel follows Mark’s narration of the entry and last days including his Last Supper account for Maundy Thursday. Holy Saturday appoints Hebrews 4 for the morning on account of its description of God’s rest on the seventh day; Romans 8 is appointed for the evening foreshadowing the Vigil.

If first canticles are used, the Kyrie Pantokrator is most appropriate with the Gospel Canticles for the second.

The Prayers

The American 1928 BCP appoints the Collect for Palm Sunday to be read following the Collect of the Day from until Good Friday. 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 Marian Anthem is used Through Wednesday of Holy Week.