Category Archives: Spirituality

Chapters from the Myroure, III

Chapter 18: of those who carelessly speak or sleep at the time of God’s service.

Among these other hinderers of our Lord’s holy hours are speakers and sleepers – those who speak carelessly for they prevent others as well as themselves and give occasions of evil. How perilous this vice is, you may see by these examples. There was a young religious virgin about 10 years of age in the order of the Cistercians whose name was Gertrude who, after her death, came again one day at the time of evensong when all the convent was in the choir and inclined low before the high altar and then came into the place where she used to stand in the choir. At the end of evensong of our lady she fell down prostrate till all was done and then she rose and went her way. None saw her but another maid of the same age who used to stand by her in the choir. She was frightened and told this to the abbess. The next day, at the bidding of the abbess, she asked the same virgin when she came again and said onto her, “Sister Gertrude, good sister Gertrude, from where do you come now, and what do you do amongst us after your death? ” Then she answered and said, “I come here to make amends for my trespass for I whispered to you half words in the choir and therefore I am bidden to make satisfaction in the same place. Unless you beware of the same vice you shall suffer the same pain after your death!” And after she had appeared in this way four times she said, “Sister, I hope I have fulfilled my penance. From henceforth you shall see me no more.” And thus she went to joy.

Take heed: if this young maid of 10 years of age was punished so for half words, what shall they suffer who are of greater age for whole words spoken in a time and place of silence? It is also read of St. Severin, Archbishop of Cologne, who was so holy a man that he heard angels sing when St. Martin died many hundred miles from him and on account of his prayer his archdeacon heard the same song. This same St. Severin appeared after his death to the same archdeacon arrayed in his bishop’s array and standing, as it were, in the area between heaven and Earth and above his head was something like a cloud of fire sparkling and dropping upon his head and upon all his body. Then the archdeacon said to him, “Are you not my Lord Severin?” He answered and said yes. Then the archdeacon asked, “What is this that I see, are you in fire?” He said, “Yes I am.” Then the archdeacon said, “We honor you, sir, as a saint and yet you suffer so great a torment!” St. Severin answered, “I suffer this for the singing of God’s service in the choir. I was more negligent than I should have been. For while my clerks sang the service of God, and I was present with them, sometimes both my servants and others came to tell me of various necessary things and I attended to them and gave them answers.” The archdeacon said, “Sir, I trust that it is no great torment that you suffer.” When he had said this, a drop of the fiery cloud fell upon his arm burning the flesh down to the bone and he cried, “My arm! My arm!” Then St. Severin said to him, “Fear not for now you shall see, notwithstanding my pains, how much I may do through God.” Then the holy Bishop lifted up his hand and blessed the archdeacon’s arm and it was made whole so that he felt no more pain after that.

Here you may see what pain they deserve who are bound to silence yet needlessly speak in the time of our Lord’s holy service. This holy bishop, who was not bound to silence by religion, was thus grievously tormented because he spoke even necessary things at the time of these holy hours.

Concerning those who are dull and sleepy in God’s service, we read that St. Bernard saw an angel with a censor go all about the choir and cense those who prayed and sang devoutly but passed by those who were sleepy and negligent. About another holy man we read that he was once oppressed with sleepiness during our Lord’s service. There came an angel in the likeness of a reverend person who took him by the breast and drew him out of the choir and while he was thus drawn he began to wake and opened his eyes and saw him and said, “What are you, sir, and why do you draw me thus?” He answered, “Why do you sleep thus? Do you come to church to be awake or asleep?” And suddenly he was gone and the good man drove sleep from him and was more wary to keep himself awake in God’s service always after that.

Chapter 19: that this holy service ought to be said or sung or heard with attention to it and what peril it is to leave any part of it unsaid

The third thing that belongs to the due manner of saying these holy hours this to say them with full attention. For God does not take heed to hear the prayers of him who does not hear himself nor who does not take heed to hear his own prayers. The one who does not hear himself, cannot pay attention to what he says. Therefore St. Augustine in his rule bids us and says, when you praise God or pray with Psalms or hymns, think in your heart on the same thing that you say with your mouth.

This thinking and attention in the heart occurs in four ways. The first is to keep the mind upon the words themselves without any understanding. In this way some simple souls ay employ a good intention and devotion even though they do not truly understand what they say [in Latin]. The second is to take heed to the letter only, after the literal understanding. This is sometimes savory, sometimes barren, according to the meaning of the letter itself. The third is to keep the mind and the attention to the inward spiritual meaning of the words that are said or sung. This is truly difficult to do continually, for heaviness of the frail body, that often bears down the fervor of the spirit but is truly comforting and it gives great spiritual food to the soul that works with discretion in a humble and clean conscience. (Now, these last two forms of attention belong to those who can understand what they read or saying [in Latin]. I undertook this work in order that you might have some way of understanding your service if you wish to work at it in this way.) For it comforts a creature much in anything that he does, when he knows what it means. However, he may become weary of his work the sooner.

But whatever attention he has, either to the words or to the understanding, it is always useful that at the beginning of this holy service, you make your heart as free as you can from all earthly things and set your desire as mightily as you may upon our Lord God, beholding him as if [visibly] present. This strong desire and inward beholding of him will aid in abiding and keeping you in him as much as possible. Thus you may sing or say your service in love and joy in reverence at his presence as if you speak to him himself (or to our blessed lady when the service belongs to her) or, at the least in her presence and hearing. This should delight you in them with all the might of your soul. If you do this, I hope you shall feel much comfort and grace of devotion.

You must be fully aware in the keeping of yourself afterwards, that you do not recklessly lose such grace and devotion that you have received at the time of your service lest it be withdrawn from you at another time for your own faults. Also, it is useful in order to obtain such devotion to take some brief leisure before the beginning of each hour in order to stir up the heart towards God. For as a holy father says, therefore we are so cold and dull in God’s service that we are neither quickened before devotion nor are we careful to cast from us vain thoughts in the beginning and to establish our mind in God and upon what we say. Therefore as we come to it, so we go, dissolute and undeveloped.

The fourth attention is to take heed that the whole service be said as it ought to be—psalms, responses, lessons, verses, and all other things that pertain to the service of that Matins or whichever hour you are saying—without error or omission or other fault. This is not as hard to keep as the other, and therefore you are more bound to it. It should be kept by all who wish to do their business well. Furthermore, they that sing or speak together in the choir are not only bound to take heed to that which they read or sing themselves, but also to hear with attention all that is read or sung there as I have said before.

He who knowingly omits anything from these holy hours unsaid or unheard without need or sickness and does not propose to make amends, he sins mortally. The more that he omits, the more grievously he sins. But he who omits anything by unintentional negligence or by forgetting, he does not sin mortally so that he may make amends when it comes to his mind.

Also if it occurs at the time of divine service that anyone through need or sudden negligence or by any observance or duty that he must do in the choir fail or stumble or be distracted from saying or hearing any words or verses or Psalms or anything else and cannot not say it but withdraws his voice from singing he should not first leave off singing but he ought to sing forth with the choir and do penance for his negligence—if negligence be the cause of omission. If he speaks [his hours] alone then he ought to say that which he has omitted if he may conveniently do so. In the same way, if anyone is prevented by obedience or by necessity so that they may not come to the beginning of any of these hours or remain fully to the end and do not know it by heart or have no book or no time to say it, then they are not bound to say it. Nevertheless if it be a great part of the hour or many Psalms or such other than it is well to say it.

However, if the late-coming be on account of sloth or of negligence or though it be a matter of obedience it might be done it at some other time, they ought to do penance. But they should not begin the hour or try to catch up to the point in the service where the rest of the choir is singing, but should sing forth with them at the point where he found them. They should not withdraw their voice from singing or from saying if they might be in occasion of distraction or a hindrance to others.

Now, do not think that I am making laws or ordinances for you by writing this for I do not do so. Rather, I write for your information what the laws of the holy church are according to the teaching of the doctors and what must be kept regarding the saying of your divine service and what you are bound to do.

Therefore, those who are so sick that they may not say their service or hear it are excused from it forever. They are not bound to say it after they have recovered, for there is no law set to bind those who are sick. Nevertheless, if they may and will say it afterword out of a sense of devotion, it is not wrong. But to say it out of a sense of obligation is neither praiseworthy nor useful. Those who are not sick but may say or hear their service without any hurt or peril and yet omit it from sloth or negligence, they are bound both to say it later and to do penance for the omission. If any be in doubt whether he should have said it or not, it is good in such case to be governed by the counsel of a discrete spiritual father lest the judgment of his own conscience be either too scrupulous or too reckless.

Chapters from the Myroure, II

This section does not follow directly upon the last but, rather, begins the second part of the work…


Introduction to the Second Part

Here begins the second part of Our Lady’s Mirror that contains your seven offices and first how you shall be directed in reading this book and all other books.

Devout reading of holy books is called one of the parts of contemplation for it brings much grace and comfort to the soul if it is well and discreetly done. Much holy reading is often lost for lack of diligence when it is not given the attention that it deserves. Therefore if you wish to profit in reading you must obey these five things.

First, you must take heed of what you read, that it contains such things that are useful for you to read and appropriate to the degree in which you stand. For you ought not to read of worldly matters or worldly books, those which do not contain spiritual edification or do not pertain to the needs of the [monastic] house. You should also read no books that speak of vanities or trifles and much less books of evil or occasions of evil. For since your holy rule forbids you all vain and idle words at all times and places, it likewise forbids you to read of all vain and idle things for reading is a kind of speaking.

Second, when you begin to read or to hear such books of spiritual fruit as are proper for you to read or to hear, you must dispose yourself to them with humble reverence and devotion. For just as in prayer a man speaks to God, so in reading God speaks to man and therefore he ought reverently to be heard and humble reverence be given to the word. It causes grace and the light of understanding to enter into the soul so that the soul may see and feel more openly the truth of the word and have greater comfort and edification from it. Therefore the Scripture says: Esto mansuetus ad audiendum verbum dei ut intelligas. That is, be humble and mild to hear the word of God in order to understand it. (As if he had said it [to you directly].) But you must have humility in hearing and reading the word, for you may not be certain of its true understanding. For our Lord Jesus Christ says in his gospel that the Father of heaven has hidden the mysteries and truths of his Scripture from the proud who are wise in their own sight and he has shown them to the humble.

Third, you must work to understand the thing that you read. For Cato taught his son to read his precepts that he might understand them. As he says, it is a great negligence to read and not to understand. Therefore when you read by yourself alone, you should not be hasty to read much at once but you ought to dwell upon it and sometimes read a thing again two or three times or more until you understand it clearly. St. Augustine says that no man should believe that he understands a thing sufficiently and completely with only one reading. If you cannot understand what you read, ask another who can teach you. They who are able should not be loath to teach another. As a clerk writes, there are three things that make a disciple surpass his master: one is to ask questions frequently and learn what he does not know. Another is to continually keep in mind what he learns and hears. The third is readily and freely to teach to others the things that he has learned and knows.

They also who read aloud in the convent ought to diligently look over their reading before and understand it that they may point it as it ought to be pointed and read it clearly and openly for the understanding of the hearers. They cannot do that unless they understand it and savor it first themselves.

The fourth thing that should be kept in reading is that you must address your intent so that your reading and studying is not only for knowledge alone or for telling to others but principally to inform yourself and to put it to work in your own living. For St. Paul says: Regnum dei non est in sermone, sed in virtute. That is, the kingdom of God is not in words but in virtues. For he who seeks after knowledge to be considered wise or to speak well and does not study for his own personal application, he works against himself. For our Lord says in his gospel that the servant who knows his Lord’s will and does not do it shall be beaten with many wounds.

The fifth thing is discretion so that you may direct your reading according to your circumstance. You should understand that books speak in various ways. Some books are made to inform the understanding and to tell how spiritual persons ought to be governed in all their living that they may know what they should leave and what they should do, how they should labor and cleanse their consciences and, in the attainment of virtues, how they should withstand temptations and suffer tribulations, how they should pray, occupy themselves, and contain spiritual exercises and many other holy doctrines. When you read such books, you ought to consider yourself truthfully whether you live and do as you read or not, what will and desire you have to do so, and what attention and work you direct to these things. If you feel that your life is ruled in virtue according to what you read, then you should truly and humbly thank our Lord for it who is the giver of all goodness and pray to him with a fervent desire that you may continue and increase ever more and more in his grace. If you feel and see in yourself that you lack such virtuous governance of which you read, then you must be right careful that you do not pass it recklessly by as though you did not know it. Rather, you ought to dwell on it and inwardly sorrow for the failings and shortcomings that you see in yourself and earnestly keep in mind the lesson that shows you yourself and often read it again and consider it and with full purpose and will amend yourself and so direct your life thereafter. In this manner you ought to read the first part of this book which informs your understanding and directs how you should be governed in saying and singing and reading of your divine service.

Other books are made to quicken and to stir up the affections of the soul. Some tell of the sorrows and dreads of death and of judgment and of pains to stir up the affection of fear and sorrow for sin. Some tell of the great benefits of our Lord God, how he made us and bought us and what love and mercy he shows continually towards us to stir up our affections of love and of hope in him. Some tell of the joys of heaven to stir up the affection of joy to desire it afterward. Some tell of the foulness and wretchedness of sin to stir up the affections of hate and loathing against it.

When you read these books you ought to work in yourself inwardly to stir up your affections according to what you read. When you read matters of fear, you ought to work to conceive a fear in yourself. When you read matters of hope, you ought to stir up yourself to feel comfort of the same hope and so forth.

Never the less it is necessary that each person is to read and study these books and such matters as may be most pertinent to him at that time. For if any were drawn down in bitterness of temptation or tribulation it is not useful for him at that time to read in books of heaviness and of dread although he may wish to do so, but rather such books as might stir up his affections to comfort and hope. So it should be said variously after the diversity of dispositions with which persons are stirred at that time. It is written in the Vita Patrum that when devils had long tempted a holy man at last they cried and said to him, “You have overcome us! For when we would lift you up with great hope, you bore yourself down in fear and sorrow of your sins. When we wished to overcome you with much fear and heaviness, then you reared yourself up to hope and the comfort of mercy. We can get no hold on you!”

There are also some books that treat of matters that both inform the understanding and stir up the affections variously. In the reading of such books, you should dispose yourself to both as the matter requires as I have said before. In this way you ought to read the second part of this book because within it your understanding is informed concerning what your service means. In the same service, your affections ought to be stirred sometimes to love and joy in the praise of our Lord Jesus Christ and of his most holy mother, sometimes to fear, sometimes to hope, and sometimes to sorrow and fellow-suffering and that especially on Fridays when we remember our Lord’s holy passion and the fellow-suffering of his holy mother.

Also in the second part the first word of each antiphon and of each hymn and of each response and verse and so forth of all the others is written in Latin with Roman letters that you may know where each begins. The English of all the same Latin is written with a smaller letter and that is the exposition of the Latin text. By this difference you will know which is the translation of the Latin and which is set for your exposition. Therefore they who see this book and read it may better understand it than those who hear it and do not see it.

Also when the second part is read openly in the convent, it is not necessary always to read the Latin especially where the matter hangs together as it does in your legend and in some other places. For it would in this way prevent the hearers from understanding. Therefore it is enough to read only the Latin at the beginning of each lesson and not in the beginning of each clause of the last. In other places of your service where the sense is not clear but each thing is different in sentence from one another as it is in the antiphon and responses and other material, there it is proper to read the first word in Latin as it is written at the beginning of each clause so that you should readily know when you have the Latin before you what English belongs to each clause. Also when your legend is read at matins if any would, in the meantime, have the English before her and feed her mind with it, then the Latin that is written at the beginning of each clause of the English should help her much and direct her that she may follow along with the reader clause by clause. Else she would not know in the English alone where the reader of Latin might be. What I say about looking at the English while the Latin is read should be understood concerning those who have said their matins or read their legend [in Latin] beforehand. Else I would not counsel them to leave the hearing of the Latin for attention to the English.

As much as it is forbidden under pain of curse that no man should translate any text of holy Scripture into English without license from the diocesan Bishop and in many places of your service are such texts from holy Scripture, therefore I asked and have license of our Bishop to translate such things into English for your spiritual comfort and profit so that both our conscience in the translating and yours in having may be the more sure and clear to our Lord’s worship which keeps us in his grace and brings us to his joy. Amen.

Chapters from the Myroure, I

The Myroure of Oure Layde is a fascinating text from our English heritage that opens a window into how liturgical piety was taught and fostered in late Sarum England. An anonymous work written in late Middle English some time in the middle of the 15th century, the Myroure was composed to teach the Brigittine Sisters of Syon the basics of praying their Offices and what the Latin texts of the Offices meant in English. This kind of instructional writing is perfect for cross-cultural work; because most of the women going into the convent did not read Latin and had no prior knowledge of the Latinate traditions, the author spells out things that are normally left assumed and unsaid. Thus we gain an even greater insight into the piety practiced by those who lived within the world of the Sarum liturgies.

Some of what we find is common-place; some is new and fascinating; some reveals notions we consider odd; others are directly contrary to our understandings of healthy spirituality. Nevertheless, I find this work a remarkable aid both as a manual of instruction and as a foil of our current assumptions, a work that spurs me to think more deeply about our current practice and application of liturgical spirituality.

The work falls into three major parts. This is how the author describes its structure:

First, I have compiled a little treatise of 24 chapters where I discuss the shape of the divine service, when and where and in what manner it ought to be said or sung and especially of your holy service [i.e., the Brigittine version]—how heavenly and graciously it was ordained and made. This treatise is the first part of the book. The second part is of your seven Offices according to the seven days of the week. The third part is your masses. (from the First Prologue)

The language of the Myroure isn’t terribly difficult for those who are used to late Middle English; I figure if you can handle Chaucer you shouldn’t have much problem here. The prepositions and some of the conjunctions have shifted meaning a bit and you have to watch for false friends in the nouns and verbs (e.g., “let” means “prevent” rather than “allow” and so on). In the interest of readability I’ve transcribed some chapters into Modern English which I’ll post here. Here’s an initial chunk—more to follow…

(NB: I read this into the computer with my voice recognition software; I think I’ve edited out the various oral/aural oddities such things create, but there may be a few strange constructs left which I’ll correct as you or I find them.)


Chapter 14: that the hours of this holy service ought to be sung and said in cleanness of conscience

Many things pertain to the manner of singing your hours. First, they should be said with a clean conscience. For if any earthly lord loves to have servants around him who are honest and clean in all their governance and array, how much more is it appropriate for the Lord of Lords to have his servants clean without the filth of sin, especially those called to be continually occupied in his holy praise? Therefore the prophet David says: Deo nostro sit iocunda decoraque laudacio. That is, to our God be given joyful and fair praising. Here “fair and joyful” are properly set together, for no soul may truly “joy” in the praise of God unless it be first made “fair” and cleansed from sin.

Therefore he who is remorseful in conscience over deadly sin and yet says or sings God’s service sins in the saying. However if he left it unsaid, he would sin yet more grievously – what should he then do since he sins both in the doing and in the leaving? This is what he should do. He ought to repent of his sin and fully intend to shrive himself and amend his life and then meekly humble himself before God, seeking his forgiveness. Then, trusting in our Lord’s mercy, he shall say his service with sorrow of heart, with meekness and fear. He should not think that he is in deadly sin when he is contrite and sorry for it.

Regarding this situation, you have a notable example in St. Maud’s revelations both for the divine service and for communing. Suppose a man sets to clean his house knowing that a lord is coming. If he cannot finish the job due to a lack of time and cannot cast all of the dirt out before the lord’s arrival, then he will sweep it all up together into a corner and cast it out afterwards. Just so, when a person goes to divine service or to communion and feels begrudging in his conscience, if he cannot get his spiritual father to shrive him, then he ought to sorrow his sins in his heart by contrition, and shrive himself to God and so sweep it into a corner of his mind until he may get his confessor and, trusting in our Lord’s mercy, go to his service or to his communion. This is to be done at all times and for all sins for the divine service. It is also to be kept in your communing for such daily defaults or negligences which you are not sure if they are deadly or not. But if anyone knows himself to be in mortal sin, he should not be communed until he is shriven. Also with divine service, if any feels the remorse of deadly sin, knowing well that it is deadly sin, if he may easily get to his confessor before he begins the service, you should be shriven before and take his penance for true shrift by mouth with absolution following greatly lightens the soul and gives comfort and hope of forgiveness whereby he may the more freely and devoutly praise God in his holy service when he feels himself clean and sure in conscience.

Chapter 15: that the heart ought to be kept at the time of these holy hours from distraction and thinking of other things

The second thing that belongs to the due manner of saying or singing this holy service is the stable keeping of the heart and the mind so that you may give all your attention to it and to nothing else in that time. For as St. Bernard says, we should not at the time of the Lord’s service occupy our minds with the holy Scriptures nor any other thing—no matter how good it might be. How much more, then, should we beware that we do not let our mind run upon idle and vain things during the time of this holy service. For just as bodily food is not profitable unless it is well chewed in the mouth and swallowed to the stomach, so this holy service, unless it is well chewed in the mind and sorely felt in the heart, does not feed the soul sufficiently. Therefore St. Bernard says that it profits little to sing only with the voice or to say only with the mouth without the attention of the heart. As Isidore says, prayer belongs to the heart not the lips, for God takes heed of the heart and not the words.

Therefore they who say their service yet occupy their mind with other things are like a man who pays his debt with false money that seems to be gold or silver on the outside yet is copper or brass within that does not satisfy his lord to whom he pays it but rather provokes him to displeasure. For he who willfully and intentionally occupies his mind at the time of these holy hours with other things and does not take heed of what he says or sings, or if he—willfully and without need—is distracted by hearing, seeing, or in any other way to anything that draws his mind and attention from the service that he says, although he may sing or say all the words, in this way he does not pay his debt truly and please God thereby, but offends him and sins grievously. Accordingly, he should do penance for it, then say the same service again with better attention. (Now the doing of penance mentioned here and in other places after, we should understand as the repentance of the heart and shrift as well as fulfilling such penance as his spiritual father enjoins upon him.) It remains in the confessor’s discretion to enjoin a penance for the man’s negligence and to enjoin him to say the same service again or another thing instead in this case and in the same fashion what follows after as seems most needful for his soul’s health. Nevertheless if he has said the same service again before he came to shrift, then he shall not be enjoined to say it again; rather he shall have penance only for his first mis-saying.

However, he who addresses his heart to God at the beginning of his service with the will and purpose to keep his mind stable even if it happens that after word by negligence or frailty he’s distracted in his thoughts from what he says apart from his first purpose if he does not abide willfully and such thoughts after he has perceive them but turns his mind again to his service and is sorry for it, then he is not bound to say that service again. But it is good that he should humble himself and acknowledge his negligence in shrift either generally or particularly as the matter arises.

Chapter 16: what causes distraction of the mind in time of God’s service and what remedies are to be used against it

Concerning these matters, you may see that it is important to work on the keeping of the mind in the time of these holy hours and to be fully aware of all occasions that might cause any scattering or distraction of your attention. Therefore you should understand that there are four things that cause much instability of heart in God’s service.

The first is busyness and occupation before the service about bodily or worldly or vain things. As Isidore says, when the mind has been applied to such worldly, idle, or unlawful thoughts by hearing or speaking or thinking or in any other way and then proceeds directly to prayer or to God’s service, thoughts and images of the same things will come to his mind and stop his entry into devout prayer that the heart may not freely dress up itself to heavenly desire nor abide within that which the tongue says or sings.

The remedy against this hindrance is that a man should work not only in service time but at all times to guard and to stabilize his mind in God and to keep himself from idleness and vanity in thought in word in hearing in saying and in other ways. If he is need fully occupied with any worldly or outward business from which he departs before the service begins he should labor by some devout exercise of prayer, meditation, or reading to gather and to stabilize his mind and so to make himself ready beforehand as the wise man bids and says: Ante orationem prepara animam tuam, that is, before prayer make ready your soul. If, for instance, someone would harp or make other minstrelsy before the King, he would be busy to make ready his instruments beforehand. How much more ought we to make ready the harp of our heart when we should sing or say the melody of our Lord’s praise?

The second thing that causes distraction of mind in God’s service is negligence of guarding the heart in the time of the same service which is rotted by long and evil habits and so the frail and wretched soul is bound and born down that it cannot stir up itself from wandering and vagrant thoughts that it is accustomed to just as a man who runs downward from a high hill cannot stop himself after he has started until he comes to the bottom. Similarly they who have used their heart to run downward where it will upon earthly or vain things, they cannot easily restrain it were stabilize it. For evil habits, as St. Augustine says, bind a man and as a burden bear him down.

This wandering of mind is caused by the dullness and heaviness of heart or else by sloth through which a dullard does not wish to work about the guarding of his own heart until he has fallen into such evil habits that he cannot lightly break away from them. Therefore the remedy against this must be a contrary sharpening of fear or quickness of hope until the soul is so disposed. For he who is lighthearted and vain of conditions needs in this case to use his mind profitably in thoughts of the fear of his death, of his doom, and of pains beholding thereby the peril in which he stands if he continues recklessly in such wanderings of mind unto his death which shall come, he knows not how soon. This fearful beholding often and deeply used and continued may, in a short time by grace, make him restrain and gather together his flowing thoughts from all vanities. But, they that are disposed to great heaviness and dullness need in this case not only to sharpen himself with dread but also to the hold the great goodness and charity of our merciful Lord and his presence and of his holy Angels in the time of the service and so to quicken up their heaviness and learn to delight themselves in our Lord and so to establish the mind in him as the prophet says: Delectare in domino, et dabit tibi petitiones cordis tui. That is, delight in our Lord and he shall give you all the your heart will ask or desire. For he who feels true delight in him, desires nothing but him in whom he may have all that he needs.

The third thing that causes distraction in prayer and God’s service is the malice of the fiend, who is most busy to prevent them who give themselves to develop prayer and to the praise of God. For it burns him and wounds him sore that though he allow us all to have some peace in other times, as soon as he sees it turned for prayer and go to God’s service, he runs and works with all his might to bring worldly or vain were evil thoughts or business to mind and so to scatter the heart from devotion and to make him lose the fruits of his prayer. For as St. Bernard says the more effectual and helpful that prayer is, if it be done as it off, the more evilly and busily the malicious enemy labors to prevent it.

The remedy against this is to make upon your breast secretly and continually in such times the token of the cross with strong and steadfast faith. Patiently and perserveringly work to guard and to hold your mind upon our Lord and upon that which you say or sing. You shall feel that the thief shall flee away as if he were smitten with the staff as St. James says: Resistite diabolo, et fugiet a vobis. That is, withstand the fiend and he shall flee away from you. That if any give heed to his stirrings at the beginning and play with such wandering thoughts as he works to put in his mind, then he will take hold of him and bridle him in his evil way and lead his heart to as much lewdness as he can. Therefore beware and inwardly guard and drive him away at all times.

Chapter 17: of them who are vain or troublesome in time of God’s service and hinder both themselves and others

But this malicious serpent when he sees that he is thus chased off from many and driven away seeks to enter again by another way. For then he attempts to get hold in someone whom he may stir to make some vain cheer or sign or token whereby one or another or sometimes many are moved to some manner of dissolution and so distracted from the sadness of inward devotion. Another he stirs to make some wayward token or to do something conversely whereby others are hindered in their minds and troubled and so their spirits are driven from quietness of devotion into anguish and painful grudges. Then unless they hasten themselves yet quicker to their armor and begin to give battle to such vain or troublesome stirrings and work to gather and hold their mind together as I said before else the subtle enemy will enter into them again. Therefore such vain or cumbersome people are the fourth cause that makes distraction in God’s service. They are the fiend’s children and fulfill his desires that he may not bring about by himself as our Lord says to them in his gospel: Vos ex patre diabolo estis, et desideria patris vestri vultis facere. That is, you are the children of your father the fiend and you will do the desires of your father.
If the king were at table with his servants around to serve him, or if he were in the field to fight and his knights were with him to war for him, or if he had laborers in his vineyard or in his garden, and there came one and made his servants and his knights and his laborers to be scattered and to fly from his service – should not such one be called a traitor to the King and be put to death? How much more perilously are they traitors to God who through vanity or trouble cause distraction to others in his holy service and make the minds of his true knights and laborers be scattered?

These are bad companions for they prevent the common profit of all their fellowship. Like thorns and briars that will not allow the wheat that grows among them to bring forth fruit but as soon as they grow up they oppress or strangle it and bear it down. So these folks when God’s servants attempt to grow up by holy desires and devotion in his service, they with their vanity and trouble pull down their minds and prevent them. Therefore it is good that such thorns beware of what our Lord says by the prophet: Spine congregate igne comburentur. That is, thorns gathered together shall be cast into the fire and burnt.

The remedy against this is that the givers of such occasion be sadly blamed with all diligence of charity until they amend for thus the prelates of the church are charged by the common law as I have written about.
Another remedy is that all who are occupied in our Lord service be fully wary and busy to keep their sight and all their outward wits from all occasions that they take no heed of anything but only of that holy service that they have in hand. They should take no occasion or bring in no tidings to the heart to occupy their mind at all except that in all their bearing they keep the sadness of religious discipline. Such somber and sad outward keeping, if it be done in truth and not feigned, helps much to that inward stability of the heart as the Scripture says: Religiositas custodiet et iustificabit cor. That is, religiousness shall guard the heart and make it righteous.

Whatever Happened to Sin?

I spent almost an hour this morning hearing about sin and salvation, fall and redemption. I wasn’t at a church service; I was cleaning the kitchen. The girls are at an age where they clamor for “pop” radio in the car and on account of that I’d downloaded Adele’s album 21 and was giving it a full listen-through as I worked. For those not familiar, I’d describe Adele as a soul/blues singer in the classic mold; 21 is a break-up album. Though Jesus was notably absent, religious language and concepts—Christian, in particular—were an integral part of the lyrics. One could theorize that this prevalence of religious language is due to the genre—Blues and Soul have deep roots in the Black Church tradition and that certainly accounts for some of it.

On the other hand, on the way to and from the gym earlier this morning I was listening to Tom Shear’s latest effort, Bruise.  Tom’s Assemblage 23 is EBM/Industrial in the vein of VNV Nation—solid beats and electronica accompanying dark, introspective, philosophical lyrics. Again—sin, redemption, existence, eternality, and the presence/absence of God were explicit themes.

This is not the first time I’ve observed this. Christian language and thought structures form part of our cultural vernacular. Pop music and culture are familiar with notions of sin, fall, and redemption. Of course, the “redeemer/redemption” in question tends to shade somewhere from moralistic therapeutic deism to some vague moralism (about being “good”) to the power of love/positive thinking/whatever to some form of gross individualism.

You know where I’ve not heard much about sin? The Episcopal Church. Well, I take that back… The preaching at my church does tend to mention sin at least a few times each month—and that’s one of the reasons I go there. To clarify, I don’t hear much about sin in the public discourse of the Episcopal Church. Ok, fine, I’ll go ahead and say it: when I read things like this post on CWOB up at the Cafe, I cannot see if or where sin even fits into the theological structure from which the argument proceeds. It’s as if there’s an inverse relationship between language of/about “inclusivity” and language of/about “sin”. And it doesn’t have to be that way. My parish is inclusive; our preachers are openly gay—and yet we still hear about sin and our need to be redeemed from it by the saving action of God through Christ.

True, some of these public-speaking folks may talk about “structural sin” and use that as a short-hand for governmental systems and theories to the right of them, but there is an absence of personal sin apart from “exclusivity.”

They seem to insist that talk about sin is exclusive, it turns people off, it turns people away. People don’t want to hear about sin! Stuff like that just doesn’t make sense to people today! If that’s so, why is language of and about it so common and understandable in our broader culture? If today’s youth don’t understand it, why is it so endemic in pop music? Even those artists who bring up sin in order to advocate an enthusiastic embrace of it do so with the recognition that part of the thrill is the transgressive nature of the behavior. Which means they’re *still* operating out of a classic understanding of sin…

People—even young people—do have a concept of sin and redemption. The cultural view is fuzzy and, I’d suggest, often wrong because it lacks Jesus and accompanying concepts of virtue and sanctification, but to say that people don’t “get” sin is factually incorrect.

You can’t do church without reference to sin. This is wrong. This leads to a distortion of the Gospel.

The practice of spirituality is, to my mind, the inculcation of habits that maintain a proper relationship with God, our neighbors, and the rest of creation. To try and maintain these relationships without a healthy awareness of sin—our own and that of those around us—is folly. You cannot be in a “right relationship” if you have no sense of “wrong” or what can distort the shape or nature of the relationship.

My fear is that in the name of a misguided attempt at inclusivity and through the means of a flawed evangelism, we will succumb to the temptation to preach a watered-down message of moralistic therapeutic deism instead of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes, MTD really is and will be more popular and more favorably received than the Gospel, but it is not our message!

I’m not, on the other hand, calling for a heavy-handed monomania on sin exemplified in those who delight in ceaselessly pointing it out in others or who swell with pride in excessive penitentialism. We need clarity. We were created good by a good God. We currently exist in a state of separation from that original intention. God reaches out—through Christ, his church and its sacraments—to reconcile us to himself even in our sin and invites us to cooperate in the cleansing of that original image and its decoration with the colors of the virtues (to steal an image from Didymus the Blind…).  The church needs the balls to both say it and mean it. Yes, some liturgical language can get overly wrapped up in sin and go overboard—I don’t think that’s an issue in the current prayer-book. Yes, we were created good—but a simple look around at the state of the world should be sufficient to remind us that we’ve deviated quite a bit from the original plan. Yes, some language  about sin and theories around Original Sin get too bogged down in sex and its nuts and bolts—it’s really easy to target in on sex and sin and thereby (intentionally?) miss all of the other ways that sin infects our lives and relationships.

One note to end on:

“There was at that time a meeting in Scetis about a brother who had sinned. The Fathers spoke, but Abba Pior kept silence. Later, he got up and went out; he took a sack, filled it with sand and carried it on his shoulder. He put a little sand also into a small bag which he carried in front of him. When the Fathers asked him what this meant he said, ‘In this sack which contains much sand are my sins which are many; I have put them behind me so as not to be troubled about them and so as not to weep; and see here are the little sins of my brother which are in front of me and I spend my time judging them. This is not right, I ought rather to carry my sins in front of me and concern myself with them, begging God to forgive me for them.’ The Fathers stood up and said, ‘Truly, this is the way of salvation.’ (Sayings of the Desert Fathers, 199-200)

When we no longer understand this, we no longer understand the Gospel.

Brief Commercial

I have a more substantive post in the works, but I wanted to throw in a quick commercial before I forgot to do so…

As I said earlier, the Daily Prayer section of the new Forward Movement site is based off the St Bede’s Breviary code. However, also tucked away in the “Chapel” area is a section marked “Daily Devotions.” While this is a rather generic title, these are indeed the so-denoted Daily Devotions for Individuals and Families from pages 136-140 of the prayer book.

The Morning devotion includes a suggestion that “A hymn or canticle may be used; the Apostles’ Creed may be said.” Accordingly, I’ve included there links to a seasonal hymn, canticle, and the Creed. While the Early Evening devotion doesn’t contain the same rubric, I went ahead and put similar links there as well.

So–if you’re in the mood to do some prayer-book praying but don’t have time for a full office, you can find the (slightly) beefed-up Devotions here.

(Note: they’re designed to work based on your time of day but you can see the whole set by fiddling with the “office=” variable at the end of the url. To see morning, noon, early evening, and night just put in the abbreviations MP, NP, EP, or CP respectively.)

General Convention Update

Though in the midst of quite a lot of general busy-ness (yes, I owe several people emails–forgive me!) I wanted to at least say a few words on the current progress of General Convention and some resolutions that are near and dear to my heart…

Communion Without Baptism

There were two resolutions up that dealt with CWOB. One from Eastern Oregon, C040 [PDF], wanted to get rid altogether of the canon requiring Baptism before Eucharist; the other from North Carolina, C029 [PDF], wanted a “study” of the issue (costing $30,000…). To my surprise, these were both assigned not to the Prayer Book, Liturgy and Church Music Committee but to the Evangelism Committee. In all fairness, there was quite a lot assigned to PBLCM and I know that folks of the Ecumenism Committee had asked to review these but this is where they ended up. As I read it, if either of the resolutions had a chance of passing in any of the three committees, passage was more likely to occur in Evangelism: Ecumenism would have shot it down right quick and I suspect something similar would have happened in PBLCM. Despite my fears, the Evangelism folks made some good preliminary moves.

According to my sources, the Eastern Oregon resolution was a complete non-starter. The original text was scrapped and new text was drafted for it reiterating Baptism as the ancient and normative path to Eucharist but recognizing that in some places there is an exercise of pastoral sensitivity with the non-baptized. However, titles can’t change on resolutions meaning that this new resolution—whatever its text might have said—would still have been titled “Open Table” which would undoubtedly lead to confusion on the floor. Thus, they addressed the NC resolution. The committee apparently didn’t feel that with all the budget and structural woes that $30K for a study of CWOB was worthwhile. So, keeping the title, they scrapped some or all of the original text of C029 and imported the new paragraph they had written before.

This is really good news. In the most favorable setting for its passage, the resolution calling for abolition of the canon preventing CWOB was scrapped. The new text affirms Baptism as the ancient and normative practice of the Church prior to Eucharist. I wholeheartedly agree! What concerns me is how the language around pastoral practice will get shaped.

Nobody wants to see a communion rail lock-down; that’s just silly. What needs to be avoided, though, is any sense that Baptism is somehow optional. If we invite any and all to the Eucharist then we have precisely made Baptism optional. That’s not a pastoral practice, that’s deliberately turning our backs on the theology of the Prayer Book and the consistent witness of the Church up until the late 20th century.

What I would love to see in any discussion of pastoral discretion with regard to CWOB is the word “individual.”

The message that the resolution would send, then, is to say that pastoral discretion may be warranted in specific individual and unusual circumstances. A general call to any and all is not pastoral—nor is it evangelism; rather, it salves the consciences of those who want to see themselves as inclusive, but who don’t want to do the work of setting healthy boundaries and inviting all comers within those boundaries through the proper protocols (i.e., Baptism with water in the name of the Triune God).

If the word “individual” is omitted, then I’m concerned that such a resolution mentioning pastoral responses may be seen as permission to flout the canon without regard for our theological and sacramental integrity.

Holy Women, Holy Men

Bishop Martins made an attempt to get HWHM stricken from trial use at all in the next triennium. It failed, but what is currently up for a vote is definitely the next best thing!

The revised version of A051 [PDF] sends HWHM back to the Standing Commission for Liturgy and Music for further revision. In particular, it calls for clearer adherence to the 2006 guidelines. Now, personally, I think that adherence to 2006 is not enough; I’d like to see the 2006 guidelines merged with the 1994 guidelines as I said a while back.

Coincidentally, I’ve been reading a fascinating book by Robert Campany: Making Transcendents: Ascetics and Social Memory in Early Medieval China. One of my good friends from high school with whom I studied Japanese is a professor of Asian Religion now. He recommended this work to me knowing my interests in martial arts, qi gong, and cross-cultural asceticism. Campany looks less at particular ascetical practices and more at the discourse of, about, and around early medieval Chinese transcendents (aka “Taoist immortals”). His methodological chapters, in particular, pointed back to Peter Brown’s seminal work on “the holy man” in Christian Late Antiquity and to other scholars working on social memory and sanctity. Naturally, I couldn’t help reading this with a third of my brain focusing on the text at hand, a third of it considering how Sulpicius Severus uses both similar and different language about Martin of Tours in not just the Life but the additional epistles, and a third thinking about our current use/construction/modification of social memory and sanctity in HWHM… It makes me wonder how rigorously the whole enterprise has been approached from this angle.

In any case, the reformed version of A051 no longer presents HWHM for its first reading at the 2015 General Convention and sends it back for more work.

Forward Movement Prayer Site

Not really a resolution but something that has been sucking up a lot of my time is a new initiative unveiled at General Convention. Forward Movement is re-launching their web presence and one part of it is the new Daily Prayer site. This web app not only offers their signature Forward Day by Day devotional reading but also the Daily Offices from the ’79 Prayer Book! If any of this sounds a bit familiar—it should; the back-end code is a simplified form of the St Bede’s Breviary.

Scott Gunn approached me shortly after being named Executive Director of Forward Movement and asked if I’d be willing to collaborate on this and I happily agreed. I said I’d do the back-end work if I didn’t have to do the front-end/interface and recommended for that one of my favorite co-conspirators who shall remain nameless unless they choose to reveal themself… :-)

A mobile app is also in preparation but I can’t say exactly when that’ll launch; I’ll let you know when it becomes available, though!

Sacraments and the Catechism at the Cafe

I said a bit ago:

I think it’s time for a back-to-basics primer on what the prayer book teaches on the Eucharist to provide a real starting point for any discussions going forward.

Well, it’s up today at the Episcopal Cafe

I’m shooting for a basic perspective on the sacraments that a broad majority of Episcopalians can get behind. Yes, there will be outliers even from that, but I think it’s a start to get us on the same page—in the BCP.

On Silence and Sundays

The Lead points us today to an article in the Guardian by Mark Vernon about a lecture series conducted by Diarmaid MacCulloch. I’m certainly going to have to listen to it (via this link here) but, having not yet done so, I want to make two comments on the reporting of this event; first a comment, then a critique.

Vernon reports MacCulloch as speaking against the avoidance of silence in Christianity in general which is (apparently) part of a critique of the institutional church’s suppression of the interior life. Evagrius Pontus seems to be lifted up as the ignored martyr, pilloried for interiority and the stand is killed off… This seems a gross over-generalization and I expect that it’s coming from Vernon rather than MacCulloch. Yes, historically the church has taken issue with some of its most forward-thinking teachers of mysticism and ascetical theology: Origen, Evagrius, his spiritual heir John Cassian, and a number of later folks wither received suspicion or rejection from later folks when their speculative or ascetical theology fell a-foul of the prevailing dogmatic theology. However, the practices and teaching of Origen, Evagrius, Cassian, and the Desert Fathers and Mothers did find fertile ground in the monastic movement and—as both Dom Leclercq and DeLubac pointed out—a return to Origen and the other sources by spiritual movements has always heralded a period of spiritual flowering and rebirth.

The other side of this is to point out that Vernon (and possibly MacCulloch) seem to be speaking of Western Christianity which has decidedly taken the kataphatic path of spirituality, that which focuses upon what can be positively said about God that therefore privileges linguistic and dogmatic expression—talk. The East has broadly chosen the apophatic path of spirituality that focuses upon the via negativa and what cannot be said about God but only experienced.

Bottom line: the church in the West and the Anglican churches specifically have done a poor job speaking about and promoting the interior life. We need to do a better job of this!

Now for the critique which also picks up on the previous point… What really jumped out at me in the Lead’s excerpting and coverage of this article is this paragraph:

The legacy of this tradition is that, today, if you go to a mass or morning worship, there will be barely a moment’s silence. Quakers aside, it is as if there is a de facto ban on silence in public worship. When people gather together, they should rehearse approved truths. The inner life, left alone, foments heresy and subversion.

Now—what’s the assumption here? That the Sunday morning public worship is the expression of everything that’s important, worthwhile, and taught by a particular tradition. And it’s dead wrong.

Sunday mass is an important part of your complete spiritual life—no question about it. But to either say or imply that it should be the totality of your spiritual life is a big mistake and is not something that the Church has taught. Nevertheless, some of the major shifts in 20th century American religion are grounded in this assumption. Let’s face it—the widespread revisions to the Mass lectionary in both the Roman Catholic post-Vatican II effort and its protestantization in the Revised Common Lectionary feed directly in to this fallacy. The idea expressed in these reconfigurations is that more and more Scripture has to be poured into the Sunday morning service, more and more weight has to be laced upon that time slot because that’s when our culture chooses to “do” religion.

On one hand, we’ve got to be real: the majority of people in our churches do now and always will see religion as a phenomenon relegated to Sunday morning. That’s unfortunate, but is the way things go. Some religion for some people is better than none…

On the other hand, we have done a very poor job of communicating of communicating the Church’s historic teachings about the spiritual life and where and how silence is found within them. We are not doing a good job of communicating that all Christian formation, Christian liturgy, and Christian experience is not intended to be crammed into an hour to two-hour block occupying Sunday morning. We are not presenting a clear, on-focus message about either Christian maturity or Christian proficiency. And, to be frank, this is one of the huge problems that I have with both Holy Women, Holy Men and the Communion Without Baptism movements. HWHM is a celebration of diversity for diversity’s sake; CWOB is a celebration of the extraordinary channels of God’s grace. What we’re lacking, though is any sense that there is a norm—that there are clear classic disciplines for cultivating the relationship with God, and that there are consistent and ordinary means through which God gives grace to the covenant community.  By highlighting diverse routes and a multiplicity of ways, we increasingly lose (and obscure) the sense that the Church offers any firm guidance for those who seek a deeper relationship with God. Just because some have chosen and found their own way does not mean that the Church does not offer a particular well-trod path.

At this point, of course, I can’t help but loop back to the original topic. One of the major mistakes that moderns make when they encounter the work of the great Christian mystics is misunderstanding their context. Speaking particularly about the medieval mystics, they cannot and should not be considered apart from the liturgical life that grounded their mystical freedom. Too often people try to set up a stark dichotomy between the teachings of the mystics and the paths of the institutional church. But the freedom of the mystics is intimately bound to their practice of the Church’s liturgy particular in the Mass and Office (or Mass and prymer for some…). To set the Mass in stark opposition to contemplative practice is just wrong—it’s not just misunderstanding the Mass, it’s misunderstanding the contemplative life as well.

Sacramental History and CWOB

This is a piece I wrote for a collection now in the final stages of editing. It’s targeted for the adult formation in your typical parish (hence the phonetic spellings of some items…)

—————————–

Introduction

The sacraments, particularly Baptism and Eucharist, have been an important part of the Anglican tradition from even before the time that Anglicans became a distinct body within the global Church. Looking across the centuries of Christian sacramental practice, we see quite a lot of change based on different beliefs that appeared in different times and different places. The sacramental rites and who had access to them shift as the understandings of those rites shifted.  However, we find through all of these practices a significant common thread: the sacraments can never be viewed in isolation; they are intimately connected with one another to form a broader pattern of Christian discipleship.

The Early Church

The evidence of the first few centuries is notoriously spotty; the church grew in obscurity from its humble beginnings and once it began to flourish, it became the target of suspicion and then suppression from the Roman authorities. As a result, we get only bits and pieces from the first three Christian centuries.

Our first real glimpse of the sacramental teaching of the Early Church after the writing of the New Testament is a short little book called the Didache (pronounced “Did-a-kay”). Difficult to date, most scholars believe that it was written sometime at the end of the first century or the very beginning of the second. It is the first surviving Christian writing to make a statement on the direct relationship between Baptism and the Eucharist (but is hardly the last). It states: “But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord’s Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs’” (Did. 9.5). It’s only fair to locate this statement within the larger context of the whole treatise. The Didache was written as a baptismal instruction manual. It begins with a section describing “The Way of Life and of Death” that lays out the ethical conduct required to live as a disciple of Christ. It begins by describing the demands of discipleship. Then it describes the Baptismal rite, then the Eucharistic rite, and it’s after the description of the Eucharist where we find the admonishment that only the baptized should receive the Eucharist. In this initial foundational document, Baptism is the introduction into a life of discipleship—the Eucharist is the food that sustains it.

Justin Martyr, an apologist who died for his faith, wrote a defense of that faith around the year 150. In it, he too linked the same themes that we see in the earlier Didache: “…And we call this food ‘thanksgiving [eucharist]’; and no one may partake of it unless he is convinced of the truth of our teaching, and has been cleansed with the washing for forgiveness of sins and regeneration, and lives as Christ handed down” (First Apology 66.1). For Justin Martyr, the Eucharist is the food of discipleship that is preceded not solely by Baptism but by faith, by Baptism, and by a life marked by discipleship.

As we move farther into the second century we can take a broader view because our evidence allows us to gain insight into more aspects of Christian life.  Hippolytus of Rome wrote a set of liturgical instructions around the year 215 that laid out the ideal process for Christian initiation and living. Those who wished to become part of the faith were examined to see if they lived acceptable lives. People with certain jobs were automatically denied. Some of these are not surprising: pimps, prostitutes, sorcerers, magic amulet-makers, priests of pagan cults. Others might be more surprising: soldiers, actors, painters, and civil officials. Essentially, anyone who either was connected to the practices of idolatry or those who held the power of life and death—including condemning others to death—had to renounce their profession or be turned away. Those acceptable were enrolled as catechumens (pronounced “kat-a-kyu-mens”) and were instructed in faith for up to three years before they were selected for Baptism. The criteria Hippolytus gives us is significant: “When those to be baptized have been selected, their life is to be examined: Have they lived uprightly during their catechumenate? Have they respected widows, visited the sick, practiced all the good works?” Baptism was not dependent upon knowing a certain amount (that was a given based on the period of instruction beforehand) but on whether the catechumens were living lives of tangible discipleship.

After selection for Baptism, Lent became a special time of intensive pre-Baptismal preparation where formerly hidden parts of the Christian teaching were revealed; the catechumens were formally given the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer along with exorcisms. Hippolytus then describes Baptism at the Easter vigil with the bishop presiding. The candidates are baptized and anointed. Then we get our first record of the rite of Confirmation: the bishop seals the newly-baptized with oil and lays hands on them. After this rite, they receive their first Eucharist. Again we see the basic pattern of discipleship inextricably bound with the reception of the sacraments.

The vision that we get from Hippolytus—Baptism at the Easter Vigil followed immediately by Confirmation and by Eucharist—becomes the standard pattern that we will see through the third and fourth centuries. Indeed, the fourth century is the age of the great catechetical lectures; several of the Church Fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose of Milan wrote and gave lectures preparing the catechumens for the life of discipleship as well as post-Baptismal lectures that explained the meanings of the rites that they had experienced. In order to reserve their experience of the Christian sacraments for the time in which they could participate in them fully, however, the Eucharistic liturgies of the fourth centuries have a specific point during the prayers and before the Eucharist where all of the catechumens were dismissed.

The Medieval Era

With the fall of Roman authority in the West, the move of Christian Rome to the Greek-speaking East in Constantinople, and the large-scale migrations in tribal Europe, the social and religious patterns of the fourth century experienced tremendous disruption in the West between the late fourth and sixth centuries. By the end of this time, Baptism was typically administered to infants. Because of the infant mortality rate and the spread of a biologically-grounded understanding of original sin, Christian parents felt a need to have their children baptized as soon as possible lest they die outside of the Church. The chrism of Confirmation still required a bishop, however. In some places, Baptisms were held at the Easter Vigil when possible and the infants were communed even if the bishop was not available—for those who lived near urban centers and cathedrals, Confirmations would follow the week after. For those who lived in more rural areas, Confirmation would occur the next time the bishop was in the area…in theory. In practice, though, Confirmation was put off not just months but often years; Baptism and Confirmation began to take on separate lives of their own.

By the medieval period, Confirmation seems to have been a sacrament often honored in the breach. In the thirteenth century there were a number of rulings by local English Synods that sought to compel  Confirmation. One council insisted that children be confirmed within their first year or else their parents were forbidden to even enter the church building. Another mandated that Confirmation had to occur before the age of seven. Yet another insisted that Confirmation happen before three; if this did not happen, the parents were required to fast on bread and water until the time that the Confirmation occurred!

Furthermore, reception of the Eucharist became less and less common. Due to fears of profanation of the sacrament, most laity received the Eucharistic bread infrequently. At the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, Pope Innocent III decreed that all Christians had to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, at Easter, and that sacramental Confession had to precede it. In relation to this Eucharistic ordinance and in frustration at the dearth of Confirmations, the Council of Lambeth meeting in 1281 under Archbishop Peckham decreed that only those who had received Confirmation would be allowed to receive the Eucharist.

At Baptism, the parents and sponsors promised to teach the fundamentals of discipleship—the Ten Commandments, Creed, and Lord’s Prayer. In turn, the priests were required to teach these to the people in the vernacular. Although the infants could not understand, the Creed and Lord’s Prayer were still handed over to them during Lent, and often early medieval sermons during Lent and the Easter season explained them to the people.

While the practice of the sacraments in the medieval West differed from that of the fourth century of the Church Fathers, the fundamental pattern was the same: Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, then Communion. With the virtual universal adoption of Christianity in the West, the connections between the sacramental rites and the life of discipleship became less obvious. The presence and practice of Confession between a vital link between the Great Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, and Christian discipleship. Drawing its power from Baptism, requiring thoughtful reflection about intentional habits of life, and receiving advice for Christian living from the confessor-priest, the demands of discipleship were placed in direct relationship with Eucharistic reception.

The Prayer Book Tradition

In the very first Anglican prayer book, the English Book of Common Prayer of 1549, there are two services of Baptism, a public and a private, one following the other with the second to be reserved for cases of “great cause and necessity.” Both services (the public especially) would not be so foreign to Hippolytus as it contains the same basic principles: renunciation of the devil, affirmation of the Apostles’ Creed, threefold wetting (either by dipping or sprinkling rather than full immersion), then an exhortation to fulsome Christian living. The purpose was the same as we see from the initial prayer which ends as follows:

“We beseech thee (for thy infinite mercies) that thou wilt mercifully look upon these children, and sanctify them with thy Holy Ghost; that by this wholesome laver of regeneration, whatsoever sin is in them may be washed clean away; that they, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ’s church, and so saved from perishing: and being fervent in spirit, steadfast in faith, joyful through hope, rooted in charity, may ever serve thee; and finally attain to everlasting life, with all thy holy and chosen people.”

The children are baptized into a community—the ark of Christ’s church—and sanctified with the Holy Spirit, binding them to the rest of the holy and chosen people likewise baptized. Furthermore, they are baptized for discipleship—service of God characterized by the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love.

There are two main differences between this service and that of Hippolytus. The first is that it was set to occur after the New Testament reading and before the canticle at either Morning or Evening Prayer; it was not set within the context of a Eucharistic service, and the newly-baptized were not communed. Second, it was intended for infants while Hippolytus envisioned adults. The gap between the two is filled by the role of the Godparents who take the children’s promises on themselves and then receive a final exhortation that connects the core catechesis, the necessity of discipleship, and the role of the community. After the minister reminds them of their duty to instruct the children in the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments, he ends the service thus:

“And that these children may be virtuously brought up to lead a godly and Christian life; remembering always that Baptism doth represent unto us our profession; which is, to follow the example of our Saviour Christ, and to be made like unto him; that as he died, and rose again for us, so should we (which are baptized) die from sin and rise again unto righteousness; continually mortifying all our evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in all virtue and godliness of living.”

This is the end of Baptism—a life of virtue in the example of Christ. This is why we are baptized, this is why we must learn the core instructions of the faith. It’s not (solely) for the sake of knowledge but for action, for faithful daily living.

Following Baptism is the service for Confirmation; there’s a section right after the title “Confirmation” that says a few words about its purpose. For Confirmation to occur—as was stated at Baptism—children had to be able to repeat “in their mother tongue” the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments along with the contents of the catechism that followed that offer brief explanations of these three items. This section then offers three reasons for Confirmation, the first reason picking up the same themes from the Baptismal service itself and directly connecting Baptism with Confirmation by means of discipleship:

“First, because that when children come to the years of discretion, and have learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in Baptism, they may then themselves with their own mouth, and with their own consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confess the same; and also promise, that by the grace of God they will evermore endeavour themselves faithfully to observe and keep such things as they by their own mouth and confession have assented unto.”

Learning the words is not enough; they must also promise to observe and practice the demands of discipleship encapsulated in the Creed, Commandments, and Lord’s Prayer. The final note after the Confirmation rite states briefly: “And there shall none be admitted to the holy Communion until such time as he be confirmed.”

Speaking to admission to holy Communion, these same themes of discipleship appear there in the exhortation which precedes the invitation to Eucharist. The exhortation breaks into four main sections. The first reminds the hearers of Paul’s command that those coming to the table examine themselves before hand, knowing that those worthily receiving receive a great benefit, but harm comes to the unworthy. The second focuses specifically upon the hearers’ pattern of life: if they are in patterns of habitual sin, they must repent of them before coming. The third recalls to mind the salvific acts of God on the congregation’s behalf while the fourth exhorts their thanks for the gift of the sacrament and its reception. After the prayer of consecration, right before the reception of the sacrament, the principal themes of this exhortation are condensed into the call for confession:

“Ye who do earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God meekly kneeling.”

This exhortation—however brief—makes clear that the combination of Baptism and Confirmation is not all that is required: active discipleship is the stated requirement. The confession and absolution that follow should not be seen simply as a cleansing of sin—they are also a naming of acts that describe what the congregation has failed to do with an eye towards mending their ways and returning to full discipleship.

The prayer book tradition begins, then, with a continuation of the classical Western pattern: Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, then Eucharist. While the confession in the prayer book rite is a general one, private confession is recommended in the exhortation but is not required.

The American 1928 Book of Common Prayer follows substantially in the tradition laid down almost 400 years before. Baptism is still about inclusion into the Church, the Body of Christ; Confirmation is still required for admission to the Eucharist; Confession still occurs before reception (although it has shifted to before the consecration). The exhortations are still present although moved out of main body of the rite.

Here and Now

The American 1979 Book of Common Prayer represents a major revision from the mainstream of the Anglican Tradition. With the influence of the ecumenical Liturgical Renewal Movement, Roman Catholic and Mainline Protestant Churches alike aligned their liturgical practices back towards the pattern represented by the fourth century rites. Following suit, our current prayer book melds fourth century traditions with historic Anglican ones. The rethinking of our rites that accompanied these efforts included some substantial modifications of our sacramental theology.

Our current prayer book makes clear that Baptism—not Confirmation—is full initiation into the Church (BCP, p. 298); Confirmation is no longer required in order to receive the Eucharist. The demands of discipleship are laid out in the form of the Baptismal Covenant. Those being baptized or their sponsors commit to belief in the Apostles’ Creed but also commit to five specific patterns of behavior: continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship particularly through the breaking of bread and the prayers, repentance and returning to God after sin, proclaiming the Good News of Christ by word and deed, seeking and serving Christ in all persons, and striving for justice and peace and respecting the dignity of all (BCP, p. 304-5). These patterns of life sketch the boundaries of discipleship.

The Confirmation rite removes the questions and answers that had characterized it from the beginning of the Anglican tradition. Instead, the heart of the service is a recapitulation of the Baptismal Covenant (BCP, p. 416-7).Confirmation is a reaffirmation and a mature claiming of the patterns of discipleship taken on in Baptism.

A general confession still precedes reception of the Eucharist. The version in Rite I differs only in wording and spelling from the1928 and 1549 forms. The version in Rite II has been rewritten so that the demands of discipleship are sketched in the confession itself rather than in the exhortation preceding it. Rather than focusing on specific acts, the confession sketches categories by which we either maintain or fall short of perfect discipleship: “in thought, word, and deed” and also “by what we have done, and by what we have left undone” (BCP, p. 360).  Recalling both the two tables of the Ten Commandments and Christ’s own Summary of the Law we acknowledge discipleship’s requirements when we say that “We have not loved [God] with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves” (ibid.). Our contrition and request for mercy that follows is itself a fulfillment of the Baptismal Covenant’s second promise to repent and return to the Lord. The concluding lines express our hope for the result of God’s grace: that we can fulfill discipleship’s demands through a proper reorientation towards God.

One final element clarifies and sharpens the Eucharistic theology of our present prayer book. Where formerly there was one post-communion prayer, now there are two. Despite this change, the structure of both prayers is the same: they begin with a recognition that those who have received are “living members” of the Body of Christ, and move to a request to be sent out to fulfill the works of discipleship. (BCP, pp. 365, 366). Those who belong to the visible Body of Christ receive the sacramental Body of Christ and, as the empowered Body of Christ, are authorized to perform the works of Christ.

Conclusions

Across the ages Christian communities have not embodied the sacraments in identical ways. However, there are some fundamental patterns that are constant.

  1. The traditions and the liturgies of the Church have never treated the sacraments as distinct and isolated rites.
  2. The central common thread connecting the primary sacraments of the Church is discipleship.
  3. The sacraments and the grace that they communicate are not simply a generic sign of God’s favor but is precisely grace for a cruciform life of discipleship .
  4. Baptism is the act of initiation into the communal and visible Body of Christ which is the Church, the community of disciples.
  5. Eucharist is food for the Church where in the midst of the communal Body of Christ bread and wine become the sacramental Body (and Blood) of Christ given to feed the life of discipleship.
  6. The sacraments are always communal actions: Baptism is Baptism into the full community of faith; Confirmation is Confirmation into a local community of faith; Confession is an alignment back to the norms of the community; Eucharist is the communal celebration of its identity and integration into Christ.

Most discussions about Communion without Baptism only consider it from the perspective of an individual attending one liturgy. This is an inadequate perspective that fails to properly treat either the communal nature of the sacraments or their intimate connection with discipleship. Rather than discussing “Communion Without Baptism” the Church would be far better served by a discussion around the “Sacramental Path to Discipleship.” Is how we greet strangers important? Absolutely. Is hospitality a Christian virtue? Absolutely. But our most hospitable act towards strangers is to introduce them to the sacramental path to discipleship that will bring them into a community that embraces God’s promise of resurrection life most fully.

We as a Church have received the sacraments for a purpose. They bind us deeper into the life of grace into which God invites us. But without committing to embracing that resurrection life offered—and sharing it with those we meet—we mistake the nature, purpose, and aim of these sacramental gifts.

Pedantic Lectionary Note on Romans 1

As your official source for pedantic lectionary minutae, I must call attention to the appearance (or lack) of Romans 1:26-7 in the Daily Office lectionary. These two verses appear to contain Paul’s clearest statement on same-sex sexual relations and, as such, have been greatly and hotly debated in recent years. Thus, the absence of these two verses is usually taken as a sign of the co-opting of the ’79 prayer book by the “gay agenda.”

As today’s Speaking to the Soul points out, however, these same two verses were specifically avoided in the Daily Office lectionary of the 1928 prayer book as well, suggesting that the creeping “gay agenda” may not be the only consideration here. However, there is one pitfall and one minor technicality concerning the aforelinked article’s method that I feel compelled to bring to your attention.

The article successfully navigates the pitfall and it is this: you can’t pick up just any 1928 prayer book and expect to see the lectionary dating from 1928. There was a revision to the lectionary tables in 1943 (the nature and character of which I have neither the time, space, nor desire to delve into at the moment…). Thus, ’28 prayer books printed after that point may or may not have the original 1928 Daily Office lectionary. As I said, they dodged this and did indeed refer to a 1928 lectionary.

What the article misses, however, is the relation or lack thereof between the Sunday Daily Office readings and the full-on readings in course. Allow me to clarify… Since the 1559 book, prayer books have, functionally speaking, had three lectionary cycles superimposed on one another throughout the year: the continuous reading in-course (this is the base layer), the appointed Sunday lessons (which are selections from what was “edifying” as defined by the editors), and the Holy Day readings (which are lightly sprinkled on top of the other two).

Yes, the 1928 Daily Office lectionary does omit Romans 1:26-27 during the Sunday reading (Romans 1:17-21, 28-32) and that’s a significant point to note. However, more significant is to look at the state of Romans in its reading in-course where Scriptural coverage rather than “edification” is in the fore-ground. Looking for it there, we note that Romans is being read in-course at Evening Prayer from the Ninth Sunday after Trinity to the Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity.  Monday after the 9th Sunday after Trinity appoints Romans 1:1-17; the next day goes directly to Romans 2:1-16. The whole section from Rom 1:18 to the end of the chapter is omitted. This evidence actually makes the omission even stronger. The 2 verses are omitted where the rest of the latter half of the chapter appears in the Sunday cycle and the in-course cycle fails to remedy the lack.

For comparison purposes, the American 1896 lectionary appointed all of Romans 1 for the Thursday after Ash Wednesday, the 16th of February, and the 7th of August.