Category Archives: Spirituality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then later on the Night Office:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sample from the Directorium

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

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

etc. . . .

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

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

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

I’m not even going to touch that one…

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

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

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

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

On Eves, Vigils, and First Vespers, I

I frequently mention various liturgical things in passing and, as a correspondent has noted, it never hurts to stop and define these every once in a while. A classic case is the term “First Vesper.” So, with that in mind, here are some definitions, explanations, and applications concerning the “First Vesper” and how it both appears in and impacts liturgies in the ’79 BCP.

Some Background

The Western Church has tended to sort days into one of two categories: feasts days and regular days (aka ferial days or simply ferias [Yes, that’s not a correct Latin plural—deal with it.]). A feria is reckoned the same way a secular day is; it starts and ends at midnight. Speaking litgurically according to the old canonical hours, therefore,  ferias begin with Matins at 3:30 AM or so and end with the conclusion of Compline at around 8:30 PM. Feast days work on a slightly different axis.

Following Jewish tradition and therefore the practice of the first generations of Christians, feast days begin at sundown on the day prior to the feast and end at sundown on the day of the feast. However, sundown is easier said than scheduled. As a result, there’s a de facto “liturgical sundown.” On regular feasts—Simple feasts to use the technical term—the feast began at the Little Chapter during Vespers then would run through the end of the None Office the next day. Thus, a Simple feast is actually a little bit shorter than a full day; if back-to-back Simple feasts show up in the kalendar, it actually creates a little gap.

Example: on February 13th in 1486, the Feast of St Valentine started at Vespers with the Little Chapter. February 14th continued the feast as it  ran through Compline, Matins, Lauds, and the Little Hours up to None. At that point, the feast of St Valentine ended. Vespers began as the Vespers for Tuesday, following the psalms appointed for Tuesday. After the opening and the psalms, though, the feast of Sts. Faustinus and Jovita starts and continues through the rest of the 14th and the 15th as far as None.

This looks confusing, but makes perfect sense if you recall one basic principle: the psalms for Lauds and the Little Hours were mostly static; to cover all of the psalms in a week (RB 18.22-25), 1-108 were covered at Matins and 109-147 were covered at Vespers (roughly). If proper psalms kept being appointed for feasts there’s no way they’d make it through the last third of the psalter!

Not all feasts are equal, though; not all feasts are Simple. The more important feasts were referred to as Doubles, presumably because at some point in the Early Church a regular Office of the day was said, then an additional Office was said for the saint or feast. By the time we have extant manuscripts and descriptions of Offices, though, this was not the case. Instead, a Double were lengthened according to their importance. A Double began at the beginning of Vespers on the Day before, continued through Compline into the feast day proper and did not end after None but continued on through a second Vespers and a second Compline. Thus, a Double had two Vespers, one on the evening before the feast and one on the feast itself. (It had two Complines as well, but Vespers is a much larger, more involved, and more variable Office than Compline, so a second Compline has little practical effect on the liturgy’s celebration.

In theory, you might expect that most feasts would be Simples and that the more important feasts would be Doubles. And perhaps that how it was at one point. By the modern period, however, it was not the case. Looking at the kalendar of Pius Xth from 1920, we see that of the 296 fixed festal days of the year, 256 were Doubles of some sort; only 27 were Simples. (And it may be alleged that the psalm issue had something to do with it—the festal psalm sequence used for Vespers on Doubles tended to be a bit shorter than the ferial sequences; messing with the psalms was sometimes the intention!)

So to recap, in the West through the reforms of Pius X there were three kinds of days reckoned differently in the church:

  • ferial days ran from midnight to midnight, starting at Matins and running to the end of Compline
  • Simple feasts ran from evening to evening in a shorter sense, starting from the Little Chapter at Vespers and running until the end of the  None Office
  • Double feasts ran from evening to the next night, starting at the beginning of Vespers the evening before and running through Compline on the day of the feast

This, then, is the origin of “First Vespers.” It designates the Vespers Office that begins a Double feast to differentiate it from Vespers on the next day. Furthermore, the liturgies of these days were often different, usually having different antiphons for the psalm and Gospel canticle and having different hymns.

The thing I need to point out now, though, is the implications of having a First Vespers.

In the example under Simples, I demonstrated how the system worked when two Simples were back to back. There was no problem since one Simple ended before the next Simple began and the ferial Office filled in the slack. Consider the Double, however—the longer day means that overlap between one feast and another is entirely possible. And if you have 296 of them, well, you do the math… And then you add in all of the Sundays which are semidoubles at the least…

Suddenly, figuring out which Vespers goes with which day and should be celebrated in which way becomes a lot more difficult.

As a result, the classification of Double feasts began quite an involved matter and there grew a range—from Semidouble to Double to Greater Double to Double of the Second Class and Double of the First Class—in order to properly arrange the feasts so that everything received its due ceremony. Sets of tables clarify the relation between them so that you can calculate what happens if two feasts fall on top of one another (quite common when you suddenly merge 52 Semidouble or greater Sundays into the pre-existing 296 Doubles) or, as happened almost daily, when adjudication had to be made between whether or how you ought to celebrate two feasts at the same time within one Vespers Office.

Example: Consider March 6th. The kalendar tells us that it is the feast of Perpetua and Felicity. This feast is a Double. So, Vespers on the 5th (and the 5th is a ferial day) is the First Vespers of the Perpetua and Felicity. The feast continues onto the 6th. However, March 7th is the feast of Thomas Aquinas—also a Double—which means that its First Vespers is abut to concur with the Second Vespers of the Perpetua and Felicity. What do you do? There are three options: division, commemoration, or suppression.  In this case, since both feasts are Doubles the answer according to Tridentine rules is division: it’s the Second Vespers of Perpetua and Felicity from the opening and through the psalms until the Little Chapter. At that point (liturgical sundown), it becomes the  First Vespers of  Thomas Aquinas. Right after the collect of Thomas, though, is included a commemoration of Perpetua and Felicity which is created by bundling the Magnificat antiphon with the versicle which would have followed their hymn and concluding it with their collect.

Don’t ask what happens if either of these days turns out to be a Sunday, because then things start getting complicated…

It’s precisely these sorts of issues that led reformers from at least the time of Wyclif to condemn what had happened to the Offices, charging that clergy had to spend far more time figuring out their breviaries than preaching the Gospel. We can see many things that Cranmer did to simplify the Offices (following in the footsteps of other reformers frequently) but this is one of the most invisible to modern Anglicans. In simplifying the kalendar he, with one stroke, removed one of the major objections to the Offices as they had been practiced at that time. By removing all antiphons and hymns, the liturgical elements to be calculated dropped dramatically; only the collects were proper to feasts. The Office became simple again—no calculations required (certainly in comparison to what it had been). However, the Office also lost the richness and depth that it had and the connections between Mass and Offices were reduced to a single point, the collect.

Where we are now and what this means for our BCP will come in another post.

The Daily Office in Holy Week

Initial Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Triduum Recommendations

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

Therefore, in Triduum:

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

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

Fore-Office

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

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

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

The Invitatory and Psalter

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

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

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

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

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

The Lessons

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

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

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

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

The Prayers

The American 1928 BCP appoints the Collect for Palm Sunday to be read following the Collect of the Day from until Good Friday. While this option is not mentioned in the ‘79 BCP, it seems a good practice in keeping with this book’s heightened emphasis on the seasons of the liturgical year.

The Marian Anthem is used Through Wednesday of Holy Week.

Evening Prayer and Smokey Mary

I’ve been involved in all manner of business over the past few weeks and it’ll be continuing for the next several as well. In lieu of thoughtful content, I’ll offer up a little gem off the hard-drive. Back when I was dwelling/squatting in New York and attending Smokey Mary almost daily for Evening Prayer and Mass, I took some brief notes on how Evening Prayer was conducted there. I’ve turned to this a couple of times recently for persons interested in the public recitation of the Offices, and have been considering posting it here.

Which I am.

So, if you’d like to see how one parish celebrates public evening prayer, here is: StMV Evening Prayer.

Couple Brief Thoughts on Celtic Spirituality

I cleverly managed to delete my post on the Daily Office in Holy Week… That’ll be coming once I get the time to reconstruct it.

I’ve been taking part in a Lenten program that bills itself as Celtic Spirituality. I was interested in seeing what was being said. It’s pretty much what I figured it would be, contemporary Liberal Protestant with a lot of feeling and a thin veneer that occasionally references some historical materials, some of which are “Celtic” (and some aren’t—unless the Victorines are Celtic and no one bothered to inform me…).

I took the chance recently to reacquaint myself with the Celtic Spirituality volume in the Classics of Western Spirituality series. It’s hard to screw up primary sources, however how you contextualize them and how you select them is open to a certain amount of fiddling. I found the introduction interesting as it I finally “got” the agenda here; they’re looking for a non-Roman Christianity, one that hasn’t been “spoiled” by the Church Fathers and classical culture. Here are a few significant quotes:

It has perhaps been the fate of Celts and the Celtic more than any other ethnic category to engage the imaginations of other cultures and to be taken up into agendas and narratives quite removed from the social realities of the insular world during the early Middle Ages. (pg. 8 )

(Hmm. You don’t say…)

Indeed, the early Welsh were keen to stress their historical links with the old Roman civilization and with the religion that it had introduced, and it is worth noting that the very term Welsh is an early English word that means “Romanized Celt.” (pg. 21)

This is news. In the Old English that I know wealh, wealas has two interconnected meanings: foreigner and slave. Did you mean Romanized or Romanticized?

Where things start getting hard and heavy is the final section of the introduction  entitled “Toward a Celtic Spirituality.”

The reconstruction of the spirituality of medieval Christians is not an easy task. In the first place, it requires an understanding of a cultural world that was very different from our own. But it is precisely the “otherness” of early medieval Celtic Christianity that makes it attractive to us, for it seems to contain perspectives that must have originated in the religious disposition of tribal peoples virtually untouched by the classical tradition.

. . .

It may be that an ancient form of Christianity survived much longer on the western margins of Europe, where there was, for instance, a relative absence of urban centers, than it did elsewhere.

. . .

Whatever the strengths of the classical Christian perspective that became the norm in most parts of western Christendom, many in the world today have become generally skeptical of a number of its key presuppositions. [summarizing here: primacy of males, reason over imagination, absence of nature, alienation from the body] A number of the Christian texts included in the present volume offer—albeit tentatively in some instances—the outline of alternative paradigms. (pgs. 23-24)

Ok—I see in here a Rousseauean “noble savage” conceit nurtured by latent nationalism and an appeal to the primitive church over-and-against “classical” (read “Roman [Catholic]”) developments. Interesting indeed…

I was also amused by this section that introduced the saints’ lives in the volume:

This latter point [that hagiography is about depicting sanctity to a culture] is of considerable importance, since there is a marked tendency among Celtic hagiographers to signal Christian sanctity by the use of motifs that appear to belong to the iconography of an earlier and pre-Christian age or, alternatively, to that of a surviving paganism. These are magical in kind and stress the Christian saint’s access to power. The Lives of Celtic saints are notoriously amoral in that the power of the saint can often be manifest in destructive ways that sit uneasily with the ethical values of the Christian gospel. (pg. 27)

So this is a uniquely Celtic trait? So you haven’t read either the Life of Martin or the Dialogues of Sulpicius Severus? Or the monastic Lives of Jerome? Or the Lives of the Desert Fathers? Because the same exact things happen there. Or, perhaps, would you rather have us believe that we’re getting in touch with a way more cool Pre-Christian and possible pagan element than to suggest that they were borrowing stock topoi that were an expected part of the genre that they were copying from the broader Church…

Of course, perhaps Jerome was Celtic and I just hadn’t picked up on that before now.

Ok—I am being a little harsh here, I admit it. There are some helpful and important things that are drawn out in the introduction but I feel that they only mumble that which I would shout from the rooftops:

To some extent what we will find in these texts is a type of Christianity that was characteristic of the patristic period, prior to the rise of Benedictine monasticism on the Continent and the centralizing, regulating, influence of the papacy, and which survived in the Celtic margins. (pg. 12)

. . .

The Irish monks who from the sixth century traveled across the continent of Europe were following in the footsteps of ancient Irish traders, and the great monastic foundations of Southern Gaul, such as Marmoutier and Lerins, were seedbeds of monasticism that undoubtedly left their mark on the early Irish Church. (pg. 17)

. . .

The spiritual inspiration for the early Welsh Church seems to have come in the main from the monks of the Middle East through their counterparts in Southern Gaul. The Lives of the early Welsh saints are full of references and allusions to the monasticism of the desert, and the Eastern monastic ascetic ideal evidently proved a powerful role model in Wales, as it did in other Celtic lands. (pg. 22).

There we go—that’s what I’m talking about.

This ht me hardest when reading through the Welsh poem “Praise to the Trinity” which contains this epithet, “The God of Paul and Anthony.” The Paul and Anthony are Paul of Thebes and Anthony the Great and right there any notion of pristine, primitive, non-classically influenced Christianity is blown out of the water by a clear off-hand reference to the writings of Jerome and Athanasius…

Here’s the bottom line for me. If all you know about patristic Christianity is the treatises of St Augustine and all you know about medieval Christianity is Thomas’s Summa, then yes, “Celtic spirituality” can look like quite the refreshing surprise. And, given what gets taught in seminaries these days, some (many?) clergy are in this position, let alone lay people.

My perspective, though, is entirely different. I see these documents in the context of the Monastic Pipeline West which flows from Jerome and John Cassian to Sulpicius Severus and Caesarius of Arles and through Gaul to the Insular world. These Celtic writings are not discontinuous from “established Christianity” but represent a development of a particular strand of it as the West sought to assimilate and inculturate the ideals of the monastic movement. For me, they’re part and parcel of early medieval monasticism. Yes, Celtic hymns and poems are quite beautiful and astounding—especially if you’ve never heard of Paulinus of Nola or Venantius Fortunatus and have no clue about the hymnwriters and poets working contemporaneously.

Is that to say that there’s nothing distinctive about the particularly “Celtic” instantiation of early medieval monasticism? No—but what it is is more difficult to isolate and define than what it’s made out to be.

A Guiding Ideology of the Liturgical Renewal Movement

I was working up a post on the Kalendar in Holy Week when I encountered a concept that really deserves a post of its own. In thinking through the changes to Triduum (Maundy Thursday through Holy Saturday including the Vigil), I put some pieces together. This is one of those odd insights where the pieces have been in plain view the whole time and stating it out loud is an absolute no-brainer—it’s just never clicked to the degree that it has now…

One of the central—if not the central—ideology of the Liturgical Renewal Movement (LRM) was to shift the liturgical churches from a eucharistic piety to a sacramental piety. That is, instead of focusing on and primarily referencing the Eucharist as the central sacrament of the Church, they sought to focus on the two chief sacraments, placing Baptism alongside the Eucharist. I would suggest that many of the liturgical and theological differences between the Church of the ’28 BCP and the Church of the ’79 BCP can be directly attributed to this shift.

From the perspective of the Church of the ’79 BCP, the Church of the ’28 and its piety focus on the Eucharist in fundamental relation to the events of the Passion. Note, for a moment, the piety captured in this collect, variants of which had wide circulation in the Anglican world of the early 20th century:

O Lord, who in a wonderful Sacrament hast left us a memorial of thy passion, grant us so to venerate the sacred mysteries of thy body and blood that we may evermore perceive within ourselves the fruits of thy redemption through Jesus Christ…

Here the Eucharist is pre-eminently a memorial of the Passion and also a participation within Christ. The reverse is also true: the events of the Passion are understood eucharistically.

Again, from the perspective of the Church of the ’79 BCP, the anthropology of the Church of the ’28 is eucharistically derived with a focus on unworthiness, particularly an unworthiness to receive the Eucharist. The Prayer of Humble Access is typically People’s Exhibit A in prosecuting this line of thought:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

Note in particular the theological function of the bit of this prayer that was edited out of the ’79 BCP’s Prayer of Humble Access: “that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood.” I suggest that this change was made for three fundamental reasons. The first was to remove the separation of bodies and souls which the ’79 editors saw as too dualistic (see Hatchett), the second was to remove the suggestion that the body/bread effected one thing and the blood/wine effected another, but the third—and the pertinent one here—is that “washing” is connected to the Eucharist rather than Baptism.

The epicenter of this theological Change was expressed liturgically in the restructuring the Triduum. The centerpiece is the Easter Vigil as the great Baptismal Feast of the Church.This recapturing enabled the reorientation of Lent as a preparation for Baptism which takes the previous penitential character of the season and recasts it. We’re no longer just heading towards the Cross; we’re also heading towards the font.

Another noticeable change is the emphasis on the foot-washing on Maundy Thursday. While foot-washing has always been part of this day, I think that the LRM gave it a new emphasis and importance as a type of Baptism performed by Jesus on the apostles.This emphasis places Baptism as equal in importance to the Eucharist at the Last Supper, a uniquely momentous point in the Church’s consciousness.

The underlying point of these changes is the make the central festivals of the year, the liturgies of Triduum and Easter, to be centrally about both Eucharist and Baptism, then to portray the Easter Vigil as the paradigmatic act of Christian worship to which all Sunday Eucharists point. From there, the LRM and the ’79 BCP derive an anthropological shift. The sacramental center of this theological anthropology is not the Eucharist and our unworthiness to receive it, rather it is Baptism and our worthiness as members of Christ.  It is from this anthropology that a host of other changes have resulted.

(On a side note, I hypothesize that it would be very instructive to look at the exegesis of John 19:34 through the 20th century. This is the verse where the mingled blood and water flow from the side of Jesus. My guess is that at the beginning of the century, most liturgical exegetes would interpret this theologically as a reference to the Eucharist—see the number of depictions where this flow is caught by a chalice. As the LRM made headway, however, I think you’ll see a shift towards seeing it as a sign of Baptism which is how it was presented to me at seminary…)

In short, then, I think that one of the most profound theological differences between the Church of the ’79 BCP and the Church of the ’28 BCP can be traced to the impact of the LRM. Obviously there are other theological and cultural factors in play here too but I’d argue that this is how those factors were expressed liturgically. The reshaping of Triduum , the pre-eminence of the Easter Vigil, and the representation of all other Sundays as a reflection of the vigil serve to reinforce a sacramental anthropology that plays down a penitentially-rooted eucharistic anthropology in favor of a “higher” baptismal anthropology.

The Daily Office in Lent

The Fore-Office

The Angelus, should you use it, is said through Lent into Holy Week.

The ’79 BCP provides 5 opening sentences. They should be used sequentially, the first serving the partial week following Ash Wednesday and the Week of Lent 1,  changing to the second sentence on Lent 2 and so on.

The Confession of Sin should be a more regular feature during Lent; daily use is ideal.

The Invitatory and Psalter

The use of “Alleluia” after the opening versicle is dropped.

There is one Invitatory Antiphon appointed for Lent, “The Lord is full of compassion and mercy: O come let us adore him.” which should be used for the whole period except on the three Holy Days. The Feast of St Matthias uses the antiphon for Major Saint’s Days without the Alleluias; the Feast of St Joseph and the Annunciation both use the antiphon for Feasts of the Incarnation.

The Daily Office Lectionary appoints Psalm 95 as the Invitatory for Fridays in Lent. Alternatively, the full Psalm 95 may be used throughout Lent rather than the truncated version of the Rite II Venite.

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

The Lessons

Year Two preserves the ancient tradition (as recorded in the 7th century Ordo XIII) of reading through Genesis and Exodus during Lent. Year One’s readings move through the prophet Jeremiah perhaps due to the soul-searching and personal suffering so eloquently described by the prophet. After a flirtation with Hebrews during the Week of Lent 1, Romans is read in Year One through chapter 11. 1st Corinthians is read through chapter 14 in Year Two, omitting chapters 15-16 on resurrection, then moves briefly into 2nd Corinthians before Holy Week. A new Gospel begins in Lent, John in Year One and Mark in Year Two.

Of all the Office elements, the canticles are most impacted by Lent. The Te Deum is usually suppressed during Lent and the Benedictus Es used in its place, save the three Holy Days. The Suggested Canticle Table brings in the Kyrie Pantokrator following the first reading on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays and the Gloria in excelsis is replaced by the Magna et mirabilia after the second reading. Alternatively, some uses, like that of the OJN, use the Kyrie Pantokrator as the invariable first canticle through the season, the three Holy Days excepted.

The Prayers

Anglican tradition from the English 1662 BCP through the American 1928 BCP appoints the Collect for Ash Wednesday to be read following the Collect of the Day from Lent 1 to Palm Sunday. While this option is not mentioned in the ’79 BCP, it seems a good practice in keeping with this book’s heightened emphasis on the seasons of the liturgical year.

The Great Litany should be used more frequently during Lent, Wednesdays and Fridays being most appropriate.

The first and simplest conclusion is best when the Great Litany is not used.

The Marian Anthem throughout Lent is the Ave Regina Caelorum which is used into Holy Week.

Breviaries and the BCP

Fr. Gregory has a quite thought-provoking post here on the different formation issues between the Anglican Breviary and the BCP. It’s one we’ve discussed at points here and a tension I also feel.

The issue is that the Daily Office Lectionary offers Scripture; the breviary offers concrete guidelines for interpreting the Scriptures—by patristic example. How, then, to do both?

I’m still of a mind that the best way to do it (in addition to a proper round of psalm and gospel antiphons which—classically—were themselves interpretive) is an expanded utilization of the Noon Office.

At Smokey Mary, the slot in the Noon Office is occupied by a reading from the Fathers; in the more expanded versions of the St Bede’s Breviary I’ve put in the daily portion from Benedict’s Rule. In practice this mirrors the post-Vatican II Office of Readings which is the retread of Matins, now removed from the middle of the night and stuck at a time where people who sleep can actually pray it.

I don’t know enough about the Office of Readings to know where to find the lectionary of patristic texts… Do any of you know?

On Confessors in the Sarum Kalendar

I just took a crawl through the kalendar of the Sarum Breviary (I know—a modern one…). Of the confessors listed, there are precisely two who are not listed as either bishops,  archbishops, popes or abbots:

  • Petrocii Conf. (June 4th) concerning whom I’ve been able to find no data (and who isn’t in the Warren edition of the Missal).
  • Translatio S. Edwardi regis et confessoris, inferius duplex, ix. lectiones. (Oct 13) Royalty—not clergy.

Jerome is an odd case. He’s listed as: Hieronymi presbyteri et doctoris, festum inferius duplex, ix lectiones. He’s the only “doctor” present so theoretically he ought to be considered a Confessor as well.

There’s only one saint in the Sarum kalendar designated as “presbyteri” with no other qualifications and that’s the memorial of Eusebii presbyteri. (Aug 14) whose status is questionable. This Eusebius was a priest of Rome who may be a confessor or may be a martyr—it’s unclear. In any case, he is the only “presbyterus” in the Sarum kalendar who’s not a martyr.

So—while in theory the Confessor category included all non-apostle/martyr/virgin/monks, functionally speaking it was for bishops and abbots.

On the Carolingian Commons of Saints

AKMA asked on the post below why I was equating Ardo’s use of “prelates” to “confessors” in the discussion of the place of St Martin. There’s a good answer for that but it takes more space than I can get in a com-box so I’m moving it here to a new post.

The short answer is that Ardo seems to be utilizing the traditional Carolingian framework for Commons and Martin fits into the “Confessor” slot,  in the Carolingian West “Confessor” was regularly assumed to mean “clergy” and preeminently “bishop”, and St Martin (of Tours, naturally) is noted as a bishop and confessor  in the Carolingian kalendars, was one of the great heroes of the monastic West, and thus the exemplar of his category.

Now I’ll trot out the evidence that supports all of this…

First, let’s note that Ardo is utilizing a common trope but is using “prettified” language that may obscure the trope a little for those not used to his sources.

Dipping into the Latin (I’m relying here on PL 103, col. 565A [this whole bit is in Migne’s section 26]), it reads: “Petrus et Paulus capita sunt apostolorum; Stephanus protomartyr principatum tenet in choro testium; Martinus vero gemma refulget praesulum; Benedictus cunctorum est Pater monachorum.”

In a standard sacramentary, lectionary, or homiliary, the entries for the Temporale and Sanctorale would be followed by a group of generic templates for use in celebrating local or, at least, non-universal saints. They were arranged in order of their liturgical importance and came with both singular and plural versions—Common of One Apostle, of Many Apostles, of One Martyr, of Many Martyrs, of One Confessor, of Many Confessors, of One Virgin, and of Many Virgins. The commune sanctorum was never a completely formalized set, however. Nevertheless, the order above is the exact order given in the Missal of Robert of Jumieges and is the standard order of the Hadrianum supplement which recent scholarship (cf. Vogel) has identified as the very work of Benedict of Aniane rather than Alcuin as earlier believed.

So, in the little snippet quoted above Ardo gives us Apostles, Martyrs but uses the flowery term “in choro testium”, then [Martin] using the term “praesulum”, then monks. The order seems to me to mirror the usual commons even if he’s not explicitly using the usual terms.

Moving to other points of evidence, we need to look at the hymns appointed for All Saints. Again, I know the English sources best and have them to hand, so here are the hymns of the Durham Hymnal which is from the Frankish New Hymnal promulgated in Carolingian times:

Hymn 98: Ymnus in Festiviate Omnnium Sanctorum[1]

Ad Vesperam
Festiva saeclis colitur     dies sanctorum omnium,

qui regnant in cęlestibus,     Iesu tecum feliciter.

 The feast day of All Saints is celebrated in all the world, the day of those who reign happily in the heavenly regions together with you, o Jesus.
Hos invocamus cernui     teque, redemptor omnium.

Illis tibique supplices     preces gementes fundimus.

 It is these we invoke with bowed heads and it is also you, redeemer of all. As suppliants we address prayers to them and to you, sighing the while.
Iesu, salvator saeculi,     redemptis ope subveni

&, pia genitrix     salutem posce miseris.

 Jesus, saviour of the world, assist and aid those whom you redeemed and you, loving mother of God, demand salvation for the wretched.
Caetus omnes angelici,     patriarchum cunei

& prophetarum merita     nobis pręcentur veniam.

 May all the hosts of angels and the troops of patriarchs and the prophets by virtue of their merits pray for forgiveness unto us.
Baptista Christi pręvius     & claviger æthereus

cum ceteris apostolis     nos salvant nexu criminis.

 May the Baptist who preceded Christ and the bearer of the keys to heaven release us from the bonds of sin in concert with the other apostles.
Chorus sacratus Martyrum     confessio sacerdotum

& virginalis castitas      nos a peccatis abluant.

 May the holy choir of the martyrs and the priests by virtue of their being confessors and the maidens by virtue of their chastity purify us of our transgressions.
Monachorum suffragia     omnesque cives celici

annuant vota supplicum     & vitę poscant premium.

 May the intercession of the monks and may all the citizens of heaven grant the requests of the suppliants and ask the reward of life for them.
Laus, honor, virtus, Gloria     deo patri & filio

simul cum sancto spiritu     in sempiterna sęcula.

Amen.

 Praise, honour, might and glory be to God, the Father and the Son together with the Holy Spirit in eternity.

This hymn is a perfect example of the Carolingian configuration of the Saints. Its point of departure is clearly the Te Deum; stanza 4 hits the main categories, then we expand from there (Note John the Baptist in 5). Stanza 6 has the brief “confessio sacerdotum” which Millful in her translation expands as “the priests by virtue of their being confessors”. That is reading a bit into it, but given the later evidence, I’ll present I don’t think it’s a stretch.

Hymn 99: Ymnus ad Nocturnam
Christe, redemptor omnium,     conserva tuo famulos

beatae semper virginis     placates sanctis precibus.

 Christ, redeemer of all men, preserve your servants, placated by the holy prayers of the perpetual virgin, blessed Mary.
Beata quoque agmina     caelestium spirituum,

preterita, pręsentia,     futura mala pellite.

 You also, blessed troops of celestial spirits, dispel evils past, present and to come.
Vates aeterni iudicis     apostolique domini,

suppliciter exposcimus     salvari vestries precibus.

 You prophets of the eternal judge and you apostles of the Lord, humbly we beg to be saved by means of your prayers.
Martyres dei incliti     confessors lucidi,

vestries orationibus     nos ferte in cęlestibus.

 You renowned martyrs of God and resplendent confessors, convey us into the heavenly regions by your appeals.
Chorus sanctarum virginum   monachorumque omnium,

simul cum sanctis omnibus     consortes Christi facite.

 You choir of holy virgins and all monks, let us be partakers in Christ together with all the saints.
Gentem auferte perfidum     credentium de finibus,

ut Christi laudes debitas     persolvamus alacriter.

 Move the heathen infidels away from the borders of the faithful so that we may gladly offer up the praise we owe to Christ.
Gloria patri ingenito     eiusque unigenito

una cum sancto spiritu     in sempiterna secula.

 Glory be to the Father who was not begotten, and to his only-begotten Son together with the Holy Ghost in eternity.

Here the confessors aren’t more explicitly identified, but we are once again given the standard framework which moves from apostles, to martyrs, to confessors to virgins/monks.

Moving to the two sermons I mentioned before, the Ps-Bede “Legimus in ecclesiasticis historiis” identifies the confessors quite explicitly as clergy: “Christi vero sacerdotibus atque doctoribus sive confessoribus huius festivitatem diei non ignotam esse credimus.” I don’t have the full text in front of me at the moment but Aelfric’s sermon uses “Legimus” as a starting place. Following his section on martyrs he moves to his section on confessors:

After the cessation of the cruel persecutions of kings and governors, holy priests of God prospered under peaceful conditions for God’s church. They, by true learning and holy example, pointed men of the nations to God’s joys. Their minds were pure and filled with chastity,  and they worshiped God almighty with clean hands at his altar glorifying the holy sacrament of Christ’s body and his blood. They also offered themselves as living sacrifices to God without wicked or sexually perverse works. They established God’s teaching among their underlings as a permanent deposit and inclined their minds with compulsion and prayers and great diligence to life’s way and not for any worldly thing scorned the proper fear of God. Though they did not experience the persecution of the sword yet through the merit of their lives they were not deprived of martyrdom because martyrdom is accomplished not in blood alone but also in abstinence from sins and in the application of God’s commands.

After these follow hermits and solitaries. . . . (CH I.36, ll. 89-104)

When these four items are put in parallel, they look like this:

Hymn 98 Hymn 99 “Legimus” CH I.36
Christ Christ Christ
Blessed Virgin Mary Blessed Virgin Mary
Angels Angels Angels Angels
Patriarchs Patriarchs Patriarchs
Prophets Prophets Prophets Prophets
John the Baptist John the Baptist John the Baptist
Key-bearing Peter and other Apostles Apostles Apostles (with mention of the power of the keys) Apostles (with mention of the power of the keys)
Martyrs Martyrs Martyrs Martyrs
Confessor priests Confessors Priests/Teachers/Confessors Priests
Hermits
Blessed Virgin Mary Blessed Virgin Mary
Virgins Virgins Virgins/Monks[2] Virgins
Monks Monks
Hermits

So—that’s why I feel entirely justified in conflating “prelates” with “confessors”.

[1] Both the text and the translation are taken from Millful, 358-360.

[2] Legimus conflates virgins and monks by stating that “an innumerable multitude of both sexes followed in her footsteps (innumerabilis utriusque sexus multitudo eius sequebatur uestigia)” (ll. 171-2).