Martin Thorton speaks of the English tradition as a balance of affective and speculative elements. I wonder if it’s worth going a step further and adding in the kinetic dimension. In reductionistic terms, then, it’d be theology and spirituality that balances and integrates heart, head, and body. The pay-off is that we recognize the bodily dimensions—kneeling, fasting/feasting, crossings, etc. as just as much a part of our theology and spirituality as what we think and feel.
Category Archives: Spirituality
Applied Liturgical Linguistics
Ok—we’ve got enough accomplished Latinists who read this site and who fall on different points of the theological/liturgical spectrum that this should lead to an interesting conversation… (And non-Latinists are quite welcome to play along too, of course!)
Here’s the question. Given this as a base text:
Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris: et accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam.
Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae; ut, quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur. (Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)
please consider these three translations:
Option 1
Look with favour on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchisedech.
Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing. (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)
Option 2
Be pleased to look upon them with serene and kindly countenance, and to accept them, as you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel the just, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.
In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.
[Through Christ our Lord. Amen.]
Option 3
Vouchsafe thou also, with a merciful and pleasant countenance, to have respect hereunto : and to accept the same, as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the gifts of thy righteous servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and the holy sacrifice, the undefiled host, that the high priest Melchisedek did offer unto thee.
We humbly beseech thee, O Almighty God, command thou these to be brought by the hands of thy holy Angel unto thy high Altar in the presence of thy Divine Majesty, that as many of us as of this partaking of the Altar shall receive thy Son’s holy Body and Blood may be replenished with all heavenly benediction and grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
1. Which of the three best communicates the base text? Why?
2. Which of the three is the best form for English language liturgy? Why?
3. To what degree does being “literal” or “faithful” to a base text help or hurt a composition intended as a modern vernacular liturgy?
(And please note—nobody says your selections for questions 1 and 2 need be the same…)
Allez!
On Kalendars
I’ve been putting my own kalendar together. I just can’t swallow “Holy Women, Holy Men” because I have some fundamental disagreements with its criteria, premises, and theology. Neither can I use the current Roman kalendar as it contains far too many who—I’m sure are quite wonderful and holy people but—aren’t part of my heritage and theological landscape being post-Reformation. (We won’t even get started on John of Capistrano being venerated as a saint…)
As the BCP gives perfect freedom in identifying and celebrating Days of Optional Observance and the Roman documents on the kalendar discuss celebrating those with whom you have an affinity, I figure I’m well within my rights as a Prayer Book Catholic to do just that…
My particular kalendar can be characterized as the 3M kalendar as, in looking over it, it seems to be dominated by mystics, martyrs, and Mary. (Well, ok, it could be the 4M because there are an awful lot of medievals too.)
The mystics (most of whom are also monastics) and Mary are fairly self-explanatory. Martyrs, though, are a key category for me. There are two main reasons for this.
1. It reminds me that the faith is something worth dying for and that there are those who have exemplified this in their flesh. Sometimes we treat the faith, theology, “church matters” like some kind of game. As we do so we dishonor the martyrs who took this stuff seriously enough to make the ultimate witness. (That having been said, I think there were some martyrs who were rather careless or heedless in their martyrdom, but I wasn’t there either…)
2. It gives me a healthy historical perspective on our own time. I was reminded of this by Anastasia’s post on Republicans for Jesus. I honestly have no patience for Americans who proclaim how Christianity is under persecution here. There are places in the world now—let alone historically—where you can be pulled from your house in the night and shot or have your church and house bombed simply for being a Christian. That’s persecution. Having your parents turn you in to the government for execution—that’s persecution. Kerfuffles about mangers on public property or crucifixes in classrooms are not even on my persecution radar.
An Open Letter to Bishop Alexander
…is my latest piece up at the Cafe.
It’s a plea for the new hymnal—study for which was authorized by General Convention—to include a full complement of Office hymns, and to identify them as such. Too, it’s time for a new translation into contemporary English and I’m urging that, like the Prayer Book itself, these be released into the public domain.
We are the heirs of a long and profound liturgical tradition. We must remain good stewards of these riches.
Office Hymns in the 1982 Hymnal
Frequent readers here know that the breviary hymns are always a topic on low boil. I’ve posted on their function and importance here and have also discussed what the “traditional” hymns are here within a larger discussion of that troubled term.
Today’s post is a purely informational one that identifies hymns used in the Western Church as Office hymns that appear in the 1982 Hymnal. Thus, several different uses are represented here and I’ve not split them out. I’m going to organize them seasonally for ease of use. (Hymns for the Little Hours appear at the bottom.)
They are, of course, not identified in the 1982 Hymnal which annoys me no end so I may not have identified them all. If you see any that I’ve missed, let me know in the comments and I’ll stick it in the body of the post.
Yes, I’m using the Latin names; no, that’s not an affectation. Rather, there are no hymn names in the ’82 and the first lines can and have changed between traditional and modern language adaptations/translations/paraphrases. (Same with the Latin, of course. Needless to say I’m ignoring Urban VIII’s butcheries.)
Advent
Matins: Verbum supernum prodiens (63-64)
Lauds: Vox clara (59)
Vespers: Creator alme siderum (60)
Christmas
Matins: Veni Redemptor gentium (54-55)
Lauds: A solis ortus cardine (77); Corde natus ex parentis (82)
Vespers: Jesu, Redemptor omnium (85-86)
Epiphany (Octave)
Lauds: O sola magnarum urbium (127)
Vespers/Matins: Hostis Herodes impie (131-132)
Lent
Matins: Ex more docti mystica (146-147)
Lauds: O Sol salutis intimis (144)
Vespers: Audi, benigne Conditor (152)
Passiontide
Matins/Lauds: Pange lingua gloriosi (165-166)
Vespers: Vexilla Regis prodeunt (161-162)
Easter
Vespers: Ad coenam Agni providi (174, 202)
Ascensiontide
Lauds: Aeterne rex altissime (220-221)
Pentecost (Octave)
Lauds: Beata nobis gaudia (223-224)
Vespers: Veni Creator Spiritus (500-504)
Ordinary Time
Summer Sunday Matins: Nocte surgentes vigilemus (1-2)
Sunday Vespers: Lucis creator optime (27-28)
Monday Vespers: Immense caeli Conditor (32)
Saturday Vespers: O lux beata Trinitas (29-30)
BVM
Matins: Quem terra, pontus, ethera (263-264)
Apostles
Matins: Aeterna Christi munera (233-234)
Martyrs
Matins: Aeterna Christi munera (233-234)
Lauds/Vespers: Rex gloriosi martyrum (236)
Michael and All Angels
Lauds: Christe sanctorum (282-283)
Hymns of the Little Hours
Prime: Iam lucis (3-4)
Terce: Nunc Sancte (19-20)
Sext: Rector potens (21-22)
None: Rerum Deus (14-15)
Summer Compline: Te lucis (44-45)
Winter Compline: Christe qui lux (40-41)
Little Hours of the BVM Bleg
I had a question from a reader inquiring if I knew of an Anglican version/edition of the Little Hours of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
I’m occasionally intrigued by the Little Hours of the BVM and the accompanying Little Hours of the Cross which were often said after the regular office in Cluniac and other monasteries in my period and which would later form the core of the Books of Hours. However, I’ve never delved into them deeply. I keep thinking I’ll get around to them one of these days and just haven’t yet.
I’m aware of: The Hypertext Book of Hours which, to my mind, is the premiere spot on the web for the Little Offices,
Also the Baronius Press Little Hours of the BVM with chant,
But I don’t know of an Anglican version. Does anyone else?
Cyprian on Baptism
I ran across this excerpt over the weekend in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Mark while looking at Sunday’s Gospel text:
Even to the foulest offenders, when they afterward believe, remiussion of sin is granted. On this premise2 no one is prohibited from Baptism and grace. How much more should an infant be admitted, who, just born, has not sinned in any respect, except that, being born of the flesh of Adam, has in his first birth contracted the contagion of the ancient deadly nature. Would not such a child obtain remission of sins with the less difficulty, because not his own actual guilt, but that of another is so remitted? Our sentence therefore, dearest brother, in the Council was that none by us should be prohibited from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to all. (Cyprian, Letters, Epistle 58)
Oh—CG, there should be a way to make the underlined blue items disappear at NewAdvent (linked to above), but it’s a little technical. I believe that a local style sheet would over ride their style sheet at which point you could (in essence) tell it not to display the hyperlinks. I’d have to research how you could do that; perhaps another reader with better css kung fu could comment…
Apocrypha in the Daily Office
In case you were wondering, the Daily Office contains:
- Much of the first four chapters of 1 Maccabees (but none from the other 12),
- 5 verses from 2nd Esdras,
- Bits of Baruch 3 and 4
- Quite a goodly selection from Ecclesiasticus,
- Wisdom of Solomon gets some readings in there too.
Too, there are the stealth additions—Canticles 1/12, 2/13, and 14.
Thornton Thought for the Day
Do all members of the average Diocesan Conference, or of the House of Laity, live seriously and loyally by the Prayer Book pattern? Unless or until they do, those bodies are theologically incapable of making decisions of any real weight.
In the seventeenth century, individual liberty of conscience was firmly guarded, yet the “opinion of the Church” had real meaning. To-day it has not; not because individual Christians lack integrity or courage, but because they are not acting as, are not being, the Church. Our need is the same: spiritual guidance according to the Caroline pattern, based on the Catholic ascetical theology which the Prayer Book pattern embodies. To attain efficiency, we must either be true to our adult spirituality, or we must constitute a Sacred College through which the Archbishop of Canterbury can exercise total power!
Martin Thornton, English Spirituality, 238-9.
The Scotist–At It Again
The Scotist is attempting to bring forth yet another argument in favor of Communion Without Baptism. Frankly I’m not clear how this is different from his earlier attempt.
The fundamental flaw remains the same.
The Scotist has found himself a practice that he thinks has some merit. So he goes and tries to find a theology that will support it. Is this really the way we proceed?
How about this, Scotist: start with the fundamentals and work out. In most of your definitions so far you mention salvation—but you provide absolutely no sense of what you think this is or how it’s accomplished. I know what I think it is, but you’re clearly using another definition.
Start with that—then we’ll talk.