Category Archives: Church Year

Commons and Saints

Over the weekend, I’ve been working on the Commons of the Saints for the Breviary. I started early Saturday morning  then, when I went out for an easy 5-miler in the afternoon, I had an epiphany that will result in a complete overhaul in the way the breviary does sanctoral kalendars. More on this anon.

In working through the Commons of Saints, though, what I keep running up against is the sheer difference between the “old” system and the “new” system. That is, in the Old system things were pretty clear-cut; if you were a saint, you were either:

  • Apostle
  • Evangelist
  • Martyr
  • Confessor
  • Virgin (or Monastic—some early medieval sermons I have in mind group monks and hermits with virgins; other sources lump them into confessors.)

But what do we have now with Holy Women, Holy Men? We have things like:

  • Witness to the Faith
  • Prophetic Witness
  • Missionary
  • Priest and Theologian
  • Monk and Iconographer
  • Hymnwriter
  • Priest and “Friend of the Poor”

Now–I’m not saying any of the above are bad things, mind you. The two issues I’m rolling around are these:

  1. There’s no coherent system of classifications inherent in these labels. That may not matter much if all you’re doing is using a Collect to liturgically remember someone. But what if you’re trying to fit hymns, versicles & responses, and a gospel antiphon to it? Your best option is to fall back to the old categories at which point you realize just how many of the folks in HWHM fall simply into “Confessor”
  2. These two lists are fundamentally different in kind. They’re two entirely different ways of conceiving of people. The second is fairly clear—they’re being grouped by occupation; this is most evident when several people get lumped together based on their profession. Case in point is November 21nd: “William Byrd, 1623, John Merbecke, 1585, and Thomas Tallis, 1585, Musicians.” But the first category has nothing to do with occupations. It’s not quite as easy to wrap your head around but if I had to define the system of classification, it would be one based on how much people are willing to give up for the Gospel. That’s not quite it….but it’s something like that. Whatever it is, it’s very different from what the saints did for a living. On one hand I can see the New system connecting into how modern society measures personal worth and status; on the other it seems that we may have lost something profound that I can’t quite put my finger on…

Programming Kalendars

Back when I first got serious about coding the Breviary—I guess it’s been a couple of years now—I talked to Fr. Chris about it and we discovered that we’d been doing some parallel development.

One of the first issues to tackle is how to figure out what “today” is liturgically. Both Fr. Chris and I approached it the same way. That is, we take “today’s” date as given to us either by the server or the local computer then a) run it through an algorithm to determine where you are in the temporal cycle, then b) compare it to a table to determine if there’s something sanctoral going on.

What I kept running up against was the problem of transference. There are certain circumstances when a feast must be moved from its original date. For instance, Major Feasts that fall in Holy Week and the Octave of Easter are transferred by order of occurrence into the Second Week of Easter (cf. BCP, p. 17). Too, Major Feasts that fall on Sundays outside of green seasons must be transferred; major feasts in green seasons may be transferred.

At one point, for the sake of moving forward, I threw up my hands and said enough… It seemed easier to simply create a table for the year and to work everything out ahead of time. This saved me the trouble of coding transference. What it created was:

  • more moving parts. Currently I have a kalendar code that must correspond to the same code in the collect table and the lectionary table. Some of the recent Scripture reading issues (like the one that occurred today…) was the result of a perfectly normal and legal kalendar code that didn’t synch up with the lectionary code (though it did with the collect code…).
  • setting aside a block of time at the right time to work out a year’s worth of dates. And ends of years tend to be busy times. I’m clear through the end of 2010, but if it goes further…?
  • A restriction to the dates that I have a coded table for. This is less an issue with the St Bede’s Breviary than some historical projects I have in mind. For instance—what if I wanted to know what liturgy was appointed for February 18th in 892? There’s no way I’m going to code tables for thousand year spans!!

As a result, I’m rethinking my decision. This won’t happen immediately—it may not happen for quite a while, actually—but I think the issue can be broken down more logically than I was considering before. So what would this look like?:

  • Get the date
  • Run the temporal algorithm and determine where we are in the year
  • Now–different pie (sets of kalendrical rules not pastries) have different rules for privileged octaves and when transferences happen. So, this is where each kalendar system will have to have its own algorithm. Within those, however, things may not be so bad. For instance for the ’79 BCP all I should have to do is add in a three step process:
    • Is today the Monday after Easter 2? If no, keep going, if yes, then see if we need St Joseph, the Annunciation,  St Mark, or SS Phillip & James.
    • Is today the Tuesday after Easter 2? If no, keep going, if yes, see if we need the Annunciation.
    • Is today a Monday not in a Green season? If no, keep going, if yes, see if yesterday was a major feast
  • Now check today in the Sanctoral cycle to see if anything needs to be celebrated.

I think there may be some real benefits to this approach—I’ll keep thinking about it…

On Kalendars

I’ve been putting my own kalendar together. I just can’t swallow “Holy Women, Holy Men” because I have some fundamental disagreements with its criteria, premises, and theology. Neither can I use the current Roman kalendar as it contains far too many who—I’m sure are quite wonderful and holy people but—aren’t part of my heritage and theological landscape being post-Reformation. (We won’t even get started on John of Capistrano being venerated as a saint…)

As the BCP gives perfect freedom in identifying and celebrating Days of Optional Observance and the Roman documents on the kalendar discuss celebrating those with whom you have an affinity, I figure I’m well within my rights as a Prayer Book Catholic to do just that…

My particular kalendar can be characterized as the 3M kalendar as, in looking over it, it seems to be dominated by mystics, martyrs, and Mary. (Well, ok, it could be the 4M because there are an awful lot of medievals too.)

The mystics (most of whom are also monastics) and Mary are fairly self-explanatory. Martyrs, though, are a key category for me. There are two main reasons for this.

1. It reminds me that the faith is something worth dying for and that there are those who have exemplified this in their flesh. Sometimes we treat the faith, theology, “church matters” like some kind of game. As we do so we dishonor the martyrs who took this stuff seriously enough to make the ultimate witness. (That having been said, I think there were some martyrs who were rather careless or heedless in their martyrdom, but I wasn’t there either…)

2. It gives me a healthy historical perspective on our own time. I was reminded of this by Anastasia’s post on Republicans for Jesus. I honestly have no patience for Americans who proclaim how Christianity is under persecution here. There are places in the world now—let alone historically—where you can be pulled from your house in the night and shot or have your church and house bombed simply for being a Christian. That’s persecution. Having your parents turn you in to the government for execution—that’s persecution. Kerfuffles about mangers on public property or crucifixes in classrooms are not even on my persecution radar.

Office Hymns in the 1982 Hymnal

Frequent readers here know that the breviary hymns are always a topic on low boil. I’ve posted on their function and importance here and have also discussed what the “traditional” hymns are here within a larger discussion of that troubled term.

Today’s post is a purely informational one that identifies hymns used in the Western Church as Office hymns that appear in the 1982 Hymnal. Thus, several different uses are represented here and I’ve not split them out. I’m going to organize them seasonally for ease of use. (Hymns for the Little Hours appear at the bottom.)

They are, of course, not identified in the 1982 Hymnal which annoys me no end so I may not have identified them all. If you see any that I’ve missed, let me know in the comments and I’ll stick it in the body of the post.

Yes, I’m using the Latin names; no, that’s not an affectation. Rather, there are no hymn names in the ’82 and the first lines can and have changed between traditional and modern language adaptations/translations/paraphrases. (Same with the Latin, of course. Needless to say I’m ignoring Urban VIII’s butcheries.)

Advent

Matins: Verbum supernum prodiens (63-64)

Lauds: Vox clara (59)

Vespers: Creator alme siderum (60)

Christmas

Matins: Veni Redemptor gentium (54-55)

Lauds: A solis ortus cardine (77); Corde na­tus ex pa­ren­tis (82)

Vespers: Jesu, Redemptor omnium (85-86)

Epiphany (Octave)

Lauds: O sola magnarum urbium (127)

Vespers/Matins: Hostis Herodes impie (131-132)

Lent

Matins: Ex more docti mystica (146-147)

Lauds: O Sol salutis intimis (144)

Vespers: Audi, benigne Conditor (152)

Passiontide

Matins/Lauds: Pange lingua gloriosi (165-166)

Vespers: Vexilla Regis prodeunt (161-162)

Easter

Vespers: Ad coenam Agni providi (174, 202)

Ascensiontide

Lauds: Aeterne rex altissime (220-221)

Pentecost (Octave)

Lauds: Beata nobis gaudia (223-224)

Vespers: Veni Creator Spiritus (500-504)

Ordinary Time

Summer Sunday Matins: Nocte surgentes vigilemus (1-2)

Sunday Vespers: Lucis creator optime (27-28)

Monday Vespers: Immense caeli Conditor (32)

Saturday Vespers: O lux beata Trinitas (29-30)

BVM

Matins: Quem terra, pontus, ethera (263-264)

Apostles

Matins: Aeterna Christi munera (233-234)

Martyrs

Matins: Aeterna Christi munera (233-234)

Lauds/Vespers: Rex gloriosi martyrum (236)

Michael and All Angels

Lauds: Christe sanctorum (282-283)

Hymns of the Little Hours

Prime: Iam lucis (3-4)

Terce: Nunc Sancte (19-20)

Sext: Rector potens (21-22)

None: Rerum Deus (14-15)

Summer Compline: Te lucis (44-45)

Winter Compline: Christe qui lux (40-41)

RBOC: Busyness Edition

  • Haven’t had much time lately for teh internets. Busy with work and academic obligations. (Still rather behind on that second one…)
  • I’m turning into a Martin Thornton junkie! After Christian Proficiency, I’m now reading English Spirituality, and his Spiritual Direction is next in line. He’s one of those people who confirms a lot of the things that I’ve been thinking about history and spiritual movements—but extends them in new and interesting directions.
  • Thornton’s section on the Victorines reminded me of a theme I’d wanted to expand on that sees the Scriptures and Creation as intertwined twofold revelation of God’s creative and redemptive work. I think this line of thought is absolutely key in balancing the proper relation between the too frequent rhetorical division between reason and revelation and the impact of those on our theological thinking.
  • Also on tap is Martin Smith’s Reconciliation which I probably should have read a long time ago.
  • But I’m also re-reading Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere which is an outstanding read…
  • Not that I’m biased or anything, but the current Roman kalendar seems rather overloaded with saints from the Counter-Reformation.
  • And what happened to the Saturday after Ascension being “Mary, Queen of Apostles”? All I can find on the Bishops’ kalendar for 2009 is the”Queenship of the BVM”, a memorial on Aug 22. That seems a rather different concept than Queen of Apostles if you ask me…
  • We ran out of coffee a few days ago and have been living without. Our inability to get things done has been—well, I’d say eye-opening but they’re not really open… On one hand, we could treat this as a “wake-up” call to return to a lifestyle less dependent on chemical stimulants. On the other, we’ve decided it’s a sign that we need to go out and buy more coffee.
  • I hope to get back to some posts of substance in the not too distant future.

HWHM Options: Kalendrical Minutae

This is a shorter version of a longer and more technical (read: tedious) post with full cross-references , historical examples, etc. IOW, if you really want expansion of any of these items, I can do it but warn you in advance…

As far as the BCP’s kalendar goes there are 5 general categories of occasions that impact how we do liturgy:

  • cat1: Principal Feasts (p. 15). These are the biggies (Christmas, Easter All Saints, etc.). They have Eves (1st Vespers in the old schemes) and the Mass and Office are always of the occasion.
  • cat 2: Sundays (p. 16). They have Eves (see direction on collect use on p. 158) and the Mass and Office are always of the Sunday.
  • cat 3: Holy Days (pp. 16-17). They have Eves (see collect note as above and most have explicit readings for the Eve with a few odd omissions that we can believe are actually errors) and the Mass and Office are always of the occasion.
  • The vision of the BCP is that the three above categories are to be celebrated with a public Eucharist. (See p. 13.)
  • (The cat 4: Days of Special Devotion (p. 17) have no liturgical effect unless one chooses to use the Confession of Sin and/or the Litany.)
  • cat 5+: Days within the Octave until the Subsequent Sunday. This one’s not actually laid out in the book but I think it’s a principle of post-Vatican II liturgics which ought to be recognized. That is, following the general Western consensus found in Sacrosanctom Consilium and then applied in the General Norms for the Liturgical Year, regular ol’ weekdays (feria) now have a somewhat higher position by virtue of their role in the Temporal cycle and may even supersede Sanctoral occasions (as in the Roman Catholic “Optional Memorials” and our next category, “Days of Optional Observance”). These don’t have Eves. The Collect is of the originating occasion—a Sunday except for Ash Wednesday, the Ascension, and perhaps a few other occasions—and the Essentials of the Office are as found in the Daily Office Lectionary. Mass, well, you’ve got options including the Propers of the Sunday, Propers of the Day [following the 2 year Daily Mass Lectionary], or a votive of your choice.
  • cat 5: Days of Optional Observance (pp. 17-18). This is where all of the black-letter days in the BCP & therefore all of the occasions in HWHM come in. And here we get to the issue…

So—we know how we’re supposed to celebrate the Mass and Office on days of cat 1-3; what’s the deal with a cat 5 as it bumps up against a cat 5+? Is it automatic replacement—and if so, how? As best I can determine, HWHM, like its predecessor LFF, appoints three readings and a psalm, yet doesn’t actually give directions for their use. What the heck are these and how do we decide?

As I see it, we have the following options moving from lesser impact to greater:

  1. Ignore It. The rubrics do indeed give us the option to ignore any cat 5 occasion we like. In this case, everything is, of course, of the cat 5+ “feria”.
  2. Commemorate It. This is the minimum level of observation. Mass and Office are of the cat 5+, but the Collect of the optional cat 5 is said immediately after the Collect of the Day (i.e., preceding Sunday/Observance). Alternatively, this collect with or without additional antiphonal material could be said at the end of the Office.
  3. Offer It. Here the Office is of the cat 5+ with a commemoration of the cat 5 (as above), but the Mass is of the cat 5 with the appointed lessons for the HW/HM used as Mass Readings.
  4. Observe It. Here the Accidentals of Office are of the cat 5—hymns, antiphons, and Collect; the cat 5+ collect would not be said. The Essentials—psalms and Scripture lessons—are of the cat 5+ as laid out in the Daily Office Lectionary.
  5. Celebrate It. Here the entire Office is of the cat 5 as is the Mass. No cat 5+ elements would appear at all. The HWHM readings and the appropriate Common of Saints (pp. 925-927) would be deployed, using one set of readings for the Office and the other for the Mass.  In places where the Daily Mass is neither said nor reckoned, the HWHM readings would replace the appointed cat 5+ readings from the Daily Office Lectionary.
  6. Whoop It Up. Deploying appropriate Commons, the cat 5 becomes (effectively) a Local cat 3 complete with an Eve. This level is permitted as long as it doesn’t interfere with a higher level occasion (cat 1-3).

So, this gives us clarity on what we do, but we have yet to identify when these six levels of observance should be used. The books don’t really give us direction either. Therefore we’re flying subjective at this point.

We have two fundamental choices: 1) observe all black-letter/cat 5/HWHM occasions in the same way or 2) create local kalendars that have different levels of observation for different days.

Uniform Observation

This would seem to be the mind of the resolution at General Convention when it says in the princples of revision:

Levels of Commemoration: Principal Feasts, Sundays and Holy Days have primacy of place in the Church’s liturgical observance. It does not seem appropriate to distinguish between the various other commemorations by regarding some as having either a greater or a lesser claim on our observance of them. Each commemoration should be given equal weight as far as the provision of liturgical propers is concerned (including the listing of three lessons).

If we go this route, what is most appropriate?

I must register a strong objection against the practice that I’ve seen in some circles of Celebrating all cat 5 occasions (i.e., using option 5 for all Optional Observances). Especially given the multiplication of occasions in HWHM, this practice does exactly what Cranmer warns against in the Preface to the 1549 (pp. 866-7) and completely obscures the Temporal arrangement of the Daily Office Lectionary and any sort of regular Psalm pattern.

I would even suggest that option 4 is a bit much. I believe that the Collects appointed for Sundays are, overall, of a higher quality and better convey the full scope of the faith than many of the sanctoral collects. Thus, I’d rather we not overly obscure these liturgical gifts.

If, therefore, a uniform method is chosen, I’m of the opinion that it ought to be of the level of option 3.

There is, however, one major hitch in the logic of the “Principles of Revision”: they’re all optional… It seems like opting to celebrate versus opting not to celebrate would be a distinction of a kind, wouldn’t it? I think the main argument for uniformity fails through irony due to the optional nature of all of these occasions.

Let me say, though, that I think it’s fine for the national church to not make any distinctions—but that also does not preclude dioceses, parishes, and people from making distinctions; it just means the Province isn’t making the choice for us.

Local Kalendars

This is the option of greater antiquity and established Christian custom. Not that I’m biased one way or the other… In fact, I’d say that this option connects directly to Sacrosanctum Consilium‘s wise observation that there’s a difference between Universal observations and those of liturgical “families”:

Lest the feasts of the saints should take precedence over the feasts which commemorate the very mysteries of salvation, many of them should be left to be celebrated by a particular Church or nation or family of religious; only those should be extended to the universal Church which commemorate saints who are truly of universal importance.

To put this in BCP terms: you’ve got your cats 1-3—choose the cat 5 observances that resonate most with you.

Of course, this option then becomes the one that requires the most work, because it means sorting through all of the observances and assigning celebration options to them all. So:

  • option 6 would be used rarely (2 or 3 times a year) for patrons (personal, parochial, or otherwise)
  • option 5 would also be pretty darn rare (again, 2 or 3 times a year) for secondary patrons and such
  • option 4 would be uncommon (say, 3 to 5 times a month) and for for the HW/WM with which you/your parish have a special connection or veneration
  • option 3 would be more frequent for those classes of saints that best connect
  • options 2 or 1 would serve for the rest. The choice between 2 or 1 would most likely have more to do with how you understand the place of these observations within the church as a whole. I.e., are these to be considered the proper prayer of this church—or are they truly optional.
  • Let’s not forget that, these being optional, there’s nothing wrong with personal/parish kalendars adding in days (*cough* Marian feasts *cough*) that are not contained in HWHM…

That’s where I’m at. Time to start sifting, I’d say…

Roman Advice Regarding HWHM

The other night I was perusing my copy of Sacrosanctum Consilium, the main statement on liturgical matters from Vatican II. (This requires a much longer post which is in the works, but as the ’79 BCP is as much a fruit of the council as the Novus Ordo mass, I’ve been rereading the council’s documents.) I came across this little bit which I found of great interest, especially given the developing Episcopal situation with HWHM (thanks, Ren!):

102. Holy Mother Church is conscious that she must celebrate the saving work of her divine Spouse by devoutly recalling it on certain days throughout the course of the year. Every week, on the day which she has called the Lord’s day, she keeps the memory of the Lord’s resurrection, which she also celebrates once in the year, together with His blessed passion, in the most solemn festival of Easter.

Within the cycle of a year, moreover, she unfolds the whole mystery of Christ, from the incarnation and birth until the ascension, the day of Pentecost, and the expectation of blessed hope and of the coming of the Lord.

Recalling thus the mysteries of redemption, the Church opens to the faithful the riches of her Lord’s powers and merits, so that these are in some way made present for all time, and the faithful are enabled to lay hold upon them and become filled with saving grace.

103. In celebrating this annual cycle of Christ’s mysteries, holy Church honors with especial love the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, who is joined by an inseparable bond to the saving work of her Son. In her the Church holds up and admires the most excellent fruit of the redemption, and joyfully contemplates, as in a faultless image, that which she herself desires and hopes wholly to be.

104. The Church has also included in the annual cycle days devoted to the memory of the martyrs and the other saints. Raised up to perfection by the manifold grace of God, and already in possession of eternal salvation, they sing God’s perfect praise in heaven and offer prayers for us. By celebrating the passage of these saints from earth to heaven the Church proclaims the paschal mystery achieved in the saints who have suffered and been glorified with Christ; she proposes them to the faithful as examples drawing all to the Father through Christ, and through their merits she pleads for God’s favors.

. . .

108. The minds of the faithful must be directed primarily toward the feasts of the Lord whereby the mysteries of salvation are celebrated in the course of the year. Therefore, the proper of the time shall be given the preference which is its due over the feasts of the saints, so that the entire cycle of the mysteries of salvation may be suitably recalled.

. . .

111. The saints have been traditionally honored in the Church and their authentic relics and images held in veneration. For the feasts of the saints proclaim the wonderful works of Christ in His servants, and display to the faithful fitting examples for their imitation.

Lest the feasts of the saints should take precedence over the feasts which commemorate the very mysteries of salvation, many of them should be left to be celebrated by a particular Church or nation or family of religious; only those should be extended to the universal Church which commemorate saints who are truly of universal importance.

How interesting…

I see here a specific injunction for local kalendars. Not bad advice given our possible upcoming odd proliferation.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that this document is binding on Anglicans, I simply raise it as an example of how a parallel ecclesial body has wrestled with this same issue…

M’s Sermon for Wednesday in Holy Week

What wondrous love is this, O my soul! What wondrous love is this that caused the Lord of bliss to lay aside his crown for my soul.

In our readings, we are moving in a progression to Maundy Thursday. On Monday night, we heard how Mary of Bethany poured out her jar of expensive ointment onto the Savior’s feet and wiped them with her own hair. A simple act of love. But an act rich with meaning and rich with feeling. Her act gave us a glimpse of what pure human devotion to God looks like.

Tonight’s reading gives us a glimpse of another facet of the depth of love in the relationship between God and humanity. Monday’s reading showed us what human love looks like when humanity is at its best. Today’s reading shows us what God’s love looks like when humanity is at its worst.

A thousand years before, King David had sung in the psalms about the pain of human relationships, the pain of relationships gone wrong:

“All my enemies whisper together about me and devise evil against me. Even my best friend, whom I trusted, who broke bread with me, has lifted up his heel and turned against me.”

As David sang, as David prophesied, so Judas acted.

The one dips his bread in my bowl, this is the one who will betray me.

It’s not like Jesus doesn’t know. He knows the friend who will betray him. And yet he loves.

Of course, if it would be one thing if the betrayal had stopped at Judas. Not only did the disciples fall away in the garden, but Peter himself would betray Jesus three times. But the betrayal doesn’t stop with biblical characters either. I think of things that I’ve done and things that I’ve said. I too have betrayed him.

It’s not like Jesus doesn’t know. He knows the people who will betray him. And yet he loves.

What wondrous love is this, O my soul! What wondrous love is this that caused the Lord of bliss to lay aside his crown for my soul.

On Wise and Foolish Virgins

The Postulant wonders about the Gospel appointed for St Cecilia. Here’s the best and most complete answer I can give…

————-

In the lectionaries of the Benedictine Revival, Matthew 25:1–13 was utilized for a general class of occasions: feasts of multiple virgins. By Ælfric’s time, there was a fairly well defined set of saints venerated in common by the Western Church. This sanctoral kalendar was born from attempts to standardize liturgical practice across the West—particularly by Charlemagne and the rulers after him—but does not represent in any way the establishment of a centralized control or process over who was named a saint and how it occurred. As a result, the addition of new saints to the kalendar was not an uncommon occurrence in an early medieval monastery.

As the new saints were added to the yearly round, they required liturgical texts so that they could be properly venerated. Thus a generic set of texts were appointed to cover a variety of saintly classifications: apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, abbots/abbesses, and virgins. These appeared in both singular and multiple configurations. Practically speaking, the multiple appeared most often in the case of groups of martyrs who were killed together. The various liturgical books had a set of the most necessary of these—though not necessarily standardized—referred to as the Commons of the Saints.[1] The Leofric Missal, for instance, contains commons for the vigil and feast of one apostle, a feast of multiple apostles, vigils of holy martyrs, a feast of one martyr, a feast of multiple martyrs, vigils of holy confessors, a feast of one confessor, a feast of multiple confessors, a feast of virgins and martyrs, and a feast of several saints in common.[2] Paul the Deacon includes similar categories including materials for a vigil of one apostle, a feast of one apostle, a feast of one martyr, a feast of multiple martyrs, a feast of multiple confessors, and a feast of multiple virgins. Ælfric, in turn, provides in the Catholic Homilies for a feast of one apostle, a feast of multiple apostles, a feast of one martyr, a feast of multiple martyrs, a feast of one confessor, a feast of multiple confessors, and a feast of multiple virgins.[3]

The parable of the wise and foolish virgins is appointed for a general kind of liturgical occasion, the common of multiple virgins, and also appears early at the feast of some virgin martyrs, most notably Agatha. The logic here is not too hard to trace—but is more interesting than it first appears. The obvious correlation is that the occasion celebrates virgins who, by virtue of their sanctity, have entered into the final consummation and stand now in the presence of God and the Lamb as intercessors on behalf of the faithful; the passage itself features multiple virgins who enter into the marriage banquet that is surely a symbol of eschatological rejoicing.

This interpretation is well attested in the liturgical variety of the church. Hesbert’s great collection of antiphons and responsaries from medieval Europe contains four antiphons[4] and twelve responsories[5] that use this passage. Most of them connect it explicitly to virgin saints. Sometimes exegetical decisions are already encoded into these texts. Responsary 7228 which circulated with two different verses, is a prime example:

You will not be among the foolish virgins, says the Lord, but you will be among the wise virgins; taking up the oil of gladness in their lamps, going out to meet him they will meet the Bridegroom with the palms of virginity.
(Verse 1a): But at midnight a cry was made: Behold, the Bridegroom comes, go out to meet him.
(Verse 1b): But coming they will come with exultation, carrying their sheaves
Response: Going out to meet him they will meet the Bridegroom with the palms of virginity.[6]

The interpretation identifying the oil as “the oil of gladness” is interesting and has two complementary possible sources. The early medieval church read VgPs 44 narrating the marriage between Christ and women religious—“the oil of gladness” is mentioned in v. 8. The gloss may be a direct reference to the psalm. Alternatively, Augustine made the connection between the psalm and Matt 25 in De Div Quaest. 83.

Verse 1b represents another exegetical option. While Verse 1a uses a text from the Matthean parable, Verse 1b introduces a passage from the Psalms (VgPs 126:6). According to Augustine, the psalm refers to almsgiving; the sowing of the seed is the giving of alms, returning with sheaves speaks of the eschatological rewards of the almsgiving.[7]

Another antiphon also with two options for the verse explicitly cites VgPs 44 in one of them while in the midst of using the image of the lamps from Matt 25:

The five wise virgins took oil in their vases for their lamps. But at midnight a cry was made: Behold, the bridegroom comes, go out to meet Christ the Lord.
(Verse 1b): Listen, daughter and see, and incline your ear, for the king has desired your beauty.
But at midnight a cry was made: Behold, the bridegroom comes, go out to meet Christ the Lord.[8]

This responsaries specifically identifies the bridegroom as Jesus and stitches together VgPs 44:11a, 12a into a harmonious whole. This move mutually reinforces the interpretative connections between Matt 25 and virgin saints and VgPs 44 as well.

However, there is a second correlation that could be masked by the more obvious relationship between the virgins in the passage and the ascetical class of virgins in the Western Church. Indeed, this second correlation only becomes visible when lectionary selections are viewed across categories. The parables of the gospels are found in various places in the most prevalent Anglo-Saxon lectionaries, but the parables of Matt 13 and 24–25 are particularly appointed for the saints. In a representative Anglo-Saxon lectionary, the Gospel list contained in London, BL, Cotton Tiberius A.ii,[9] Matthew 13:44-52, a cluster of three kingdom parables, is appointed eight times, all for feasts of virgins and their companions.[10] Likewise the parable of the industrious servant in Matt 24:42-47 is appointed six times, generally for feasts of popes and bishops.[11] Our parable of the wise and foolish virgins is appointed for five occasions—again, virgin saints.[12] Finally the following parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-23) appears just four times also on feasts of bishops and popes.[13] Thus, there is an overwhelming preference to assign the Matthean parables of the kingdom to saints. As a result, there would be no doubt in the early medieval mind that the protagonists of the parable would be saints of some kind.

[1] This Commune Sanctorum is typically found after the listings for the temporal and sanctoral cycles. Sometimes the dedication of a church is included with these as well.

[2] Vigilia sive natali unius apostoli [f. 204r.], natali plurimorum apostolorum [f. 204v.], vigiliis sanctorum martirum [f. 205r.], natali unius martyris [f. 205v.], natali plurimorum martyrum [f. 206r.], vigiliis sanctorum confessorum [f. 206v.], natali unius confessoris [f. 207r.], natali plurimorum confessorum [f. 208r.], natali virginum et martyrum [f. 208v.], and natali plurimorum sanctorum communiter [f. 209v.].

[3] These are homilies CH II.33-39.

[4] Antiphons 3730, 4543, 4953a, 4953b.

[5] Responsaries 6151, 6760, 6806, 6807, 6809, 7139, 7228, 7496, 7667, 7668, 7803, [“Ecce” is unnumbered].

[6] Non eris inter virginis fatuas, dicit Dominus, sed eris inter virgins prudentes; accipientes oleum laetitiae lampadibus suis, obviantes obviaverunt Sponso cum palma virginitatis.

[7] NPNF1 8.605-6 Enn. Ps. 126.10-11.

[8] COA 7496: Quinque prudentes virgines acceperunt oleum in vasis suis cum lampadibus. Media autem nocte clamor factus est: Ecce sponsus venit, exite obviam Christo Domino.

V. B. Audi filia et vide et inclina aurem tuam, quia concupivit rex speciam tuam. – Media.

[9] This is Lenker’s Qe.

[10] St Lucia (Dec 13), St Prisca (Jan 18), Octave of St Agnes (Jan 28), St Pudentiana (May 18), St Praxedis (Jul 21), St Sabina (Aug 29), and Sts Eufemia, Lucia, Geminianus (Sep 16) and for the Common of Several Virgins.

[11] St Marcellus (Jan 16), St Urban (May 25), St Eusebius (Aug 14), St Augustine of Hippo (Aug 28), St Calistus (Oct 14), and the Common of One Confessor.

[12] St Agnes (Jan 21), an alternate for the Octave of St Agnes (Jan 28), St Agatha (Feb 5), St Cecilia (Nov 22), and the Common of Several Virgins.

[13] St Leo (Apr 11), St Martin (Nov 11), St Silvester (Dec 31), and Common of One Confessor.