Category Archives: Spirituality

Praying the Roman Sanctorale with the BCP: A Poll

I know that some of my readers use the Roman sanctoral kalendar with the BCP offices. I’m curious to know what you use for collects and to get the thoughts of others… (And I’ve been dying to try a poll!)

According to the BCP rubrics, it’s fine to add in saints/occasions from other sources provided that they “be observed with the Collects…duly authorized by this Church” (p. 18).

Formerly, Episcopalian Tiber-gazers could use the handy chart on pp. 106-8 in Michno’s A Priest’s Handbook which just happens to list which of the Common of Saints best fit various folks found in the Roman kalendar. For instance, Elizabeth Ann Seton gets “Of a Teacher II” and would be:

O Almighty God who didst give to thy servant Elizabeth Ann special gifts of grace to understand and teach the truth as it is in Christ Jesus: Grant, we beseech thee, that by this teaching we may know thee, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

However, those following along will note that Elizabeth Ann Seton has been included in Holy Women, Holy Men and has another “duly authorized collect”:

Holy God, who didst bless Elizabeth Seton with thy grace as wife, mother, educator and founder, that she might spend her life in service to thy people: Help us, by her example, to express our love for thee in love of others; through Jesus Christ our Redeemer, who livest and reignest with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Likewise, St John of the Cross. There’s the Common option:

O God, who by thy Holy Spirit dost give to some the word of wisdom, to others the word of knowledge, and to others the word of faith: We praise thy name for the gifts of grace manifested in thy servant John of the Cross, and we pray that thy Church may never be destitute of such gifts; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the same Spirit liveth and reigneth, on God, for ever and ever.

Then the HWHM option:

Judge eternal, throned in splendor, who gavest Juan de la Cruz strength of purpose and mystical faith that sustained him even through the dark night of the soul: Shed thy light on all who love thee, in unity with Jesus Christ our Savior; who with thee and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever. Amen

So—what do you use/prefer? The specificity of the HWHM option or the more general and arguably better crafted collects of the Common option?

The Pope on Penance

The Italian National Liturgical Week this year will be on penance/confession/reconciliation. Here’s a snippet of the official letter sent by the pope’s Secretary of State to the Italian head of the Liturgical Week:

In this connection, in a message sent to the participants in the recent 20th course on the Internal Forum, promoted by the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Pontiff stated: “These days, the correct formation of believers’ consciences is without a doubt one of the pastoral priorities because, unfortunately, as I have reaffirmed on other occasions, to the extent that the sense of sin is lost, feelings of guilt increase which people seek to eliminate by recourse to inadequate palliative remedies. The many invaluable spiritual and pastoral tools that contribute to the formation of consciences should be increasingly developed” (Benedict XVI, March 12, 2009).

And he adds: “Like all the sacraments, the sacrament of Penance too requires catechesis beforehand and a mystagogical catechesis for a deeper knowledge of the sacrament: ‘per ritus et preces.’ … Catechesis should be combined with a wise use of preaching, which has had different forms in the Church’s history according to the mentality and pastoral needs of the faithful” (ibid.).

Along with an adequate formation of the moral conscience, maturity of life and celebration of the sacrament, it is necessary to foster in the faithful the experience of spiritual support. Precisely for this reason, the Pope continued to note, today “wise and holy ‘spiritual teachers'” are needed, exhorting priests to keep “ever alive within them the knowledge that they must be worthy ‘ministers’ of divine mercy and responsible educators of consciences,” inspired in the example of the Cure d’Ars, St. John Vianney, of whom precisely this year we observe the 150th anniversary of his death (cf. ibid.).

Good stuff… The whole thing is here.

HWHM Options: Kalendrical Minutae

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uniform Observation

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

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

If we go this route, what is most appropriate?

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

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

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

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

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

Local Kalendars

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benedictine Spirituality of the Offices

Here’s a nice little excerpt at Speaking to the Soul today.

The image of water on rock is a favorite one that comes out of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers. Abba Poemen is one of the greater fathers who appears quite a bit in the Sayings, having a large collection of his own and appearing frequently in the sayings of others. According to Benedicta Ward, one-seventh of the sayings are his and his material may have formed the original core of the Sayings material. Here’s the full text from which the image comes as found in his saying 183:

Abba John, who had been exiled by the Emperor Marcian, said, “We went to Syria one day to see Abba Poemen and we wanted to ask him about purity of heart. But the old man did not know Greek and no interpreter could be found. So, seeing our embarrassment, the old man began to speak Greek saying, ‘The nature of water is soft, that of stone is hard; but if a bottle is hung above the stone, allowing the water to fall drop by drop, it wears away the stone. So it is with the word of God; it is soft and our heart is hard, but the man who hears the word of God often, opens his heart to the fear of God.'” (Ward, Sayings of the Desert Fathers, 192-3)

The Episcopal “Reform of the Reform”

The Episcopal Church is passing through a watershed era. I believe that as the Baby Boomers begin to fade out and Generations X and Y begin asserting our voices, yet more changes remain on the horizon. As these changes are coupled with the growth of information technology, emerging/evolving soical media, and widespread social changes, I think we’re only at the start of a larger, more complicated, more convoluted process than we may suspect.

The Roman Expression

As I read the runes, I believe that one of the coalescing centers that will have an impact on the Episcopal Church to come will be a burgeoning “Reform of the Reform” movement. For those unfamiliar with the term, it is a movement within the Roman Catholic Church that seeks to understand the Reforms of Vatican II within a “hermeneutic of continuity” rather than a “hermeneutic of rupture.” I.e., proponents argue that much of what occurred after the council was not in keeping with either the texts or intentions of the Council Fathers and that many of the changes (and resulting abuses) were beholden to the “Spirit of Vatican II” rather than the texts of the same. (Apparently the Spirit of Vatican II may be recognized by its penchant for felt banners, guitars, and a faux folksy style of presentation…)

One of the central public expressions of this movement is the New Liturgical Movement blog. From perusing that site one can easily be led to believe that this reform is primarily about embracing the Traditional Latin Mass and colorful processions with lots of brocade and lace. Something deeper and more substantial lies below this superficial surface, however.  As I’ve said many times before, liturgical change is fundamentally theological change. Chant, baroque vestments, and classical ceremonial point to a set of theological issues promoted by this movement which include but are not exhausted by the following items:

  • Reclaiming the liturgical heritage of the Western Church in terms of texts, music and ceremonial
  • Emphasizing the liturgy as a central locus of the faith experience and highlighting classical qualities of God-centeredness, reverence, and solemn beauty
  • Re-energizing the new liturgies promulgated by Vatican II by emphasizing the continuity with the Traditional Latin rite
  • Connecting an embrace of the liturgy with  the classic doctrines of the faith
  • Recapturing the spirituality of the Liturgical Year through the emphasis on the official chant propers that ground the Liturgical Year as a fundamentally one-year cycle despite a three-year lectionary in the Novus Ordo

The strongest parts of this movement are not (as sometimes found in the comboxes of the NLM) those who seek a roll-back of Vatican II but those who appreciate the genuine advances of the council yet seek to restrain some of the excess committed in its name.

The Episcopal Expression

I suggest that there is a “Spirit of ’79” that was born from and exists in parallel to the “Spirit of Vatican II.” That is, the 1979 BCP embodied wide-spread changes that were rooted in the scholarship of the Liturgical Renewal that was embodied in Vatican II’s Novus Ordo liturgies. Like the Spirit of Vatican II, the Spirit of ’79 has understood the generous freedoms and liberality of the ’79 BCP as a authorization of liturgical license in general rather than a provision of space for legitimate options. Furthermore, I believe that this Spirit was not simply introduced in the texts but as part of a socio-liturgical movement. It’s no secret that many current Episcopalians are former Roman Catholics. Many, especially some of the more outspoken clergy, swam the Channel because they believed Vatican II did not go far enough and that the journey further could be facilitated within the Episcopal Church.

The time has come to say “enough” to the Spirit of ’79.

As in the best expression of our Roman cousins, I believe that we need to re-assert a hermeneutic of continuity—and not rupture—and embrace the ’79 BCP within the context of classical Anglican liturgy and theology and within the historic expression of the Christian Faith which we understand to be rooted in the Canon of Scripture, the Creeds, the Apostolic Succession, and the Great Sacraments.

What I will not say is that such a movement needs to be started; it already exists albeit in a variety of fragmented forms.

Indeed, I think that an Episcopal Reform of the Reform is the true home for Anglo-Catholics who remain within the Episcopal Church; after all, they were Reform of the Reform before there was a Reform… The movement for more visible creedal orthodoxy on the part of the Episcopal Church is part of this. So is a return of 20-30 somethings who prefer their churches to look and sound like they remember church. So is a backlash against some of the more extreme expressions of liturgical license.

The issue, then, is one of connections—connecting these groups and individuals within the church to one another and helping us find a common voice.

The Common Voice

If there were a common voice for the Episcopal Reform of the Reform, what would it say? I shall offer a few points that I think I hear:

Main Points

  • Fidelity to the ’79 BCP as an authentic expression of the Historic Western Liturgy. The ’79 Book has some infelicities of sound and thought—some notably dated language in some places (yes, Prayer C, I’m looking at you)—but is nonetheless a book that stands within the Historic Western Liturgy and participates within the move ad fontes that restores both Eastern and Western elements to the liturgy. Thus, to paraphrase our Roman cousins, “Read the black; do the italics.”
  • Reorient towards the faith and practice as witnessed in the early days. I.e., reading and teaching the Scriptures and the Church Fathers. Furthermore, not just echoing their words, but learning from them how to think theologically. They used the best science of their day combined with reason directed by the Spirit and shaped by the virtues. The monastic elements of the BCP and the early Anglican attraction to pre-Scholastic monastic practices and teachings commend in my mind special attention to the thought of John Cassian and the Desert Fathers and Mothers.
  • Submission to the Rule of Life inherent in the BCP and the Liturgical Year. This means living it and searching out the riches in it rather than changing it because we fail to see its depths.

Minor Points proceeding from the Major

  • Continued use of both rites. Rite II gives us our prayer in our daily language. Rite I gives us our prayer in language that is apart from our daily language. Both are important vehicles of our Anglian spirituality and theological heritage.
  • Recover the proper place of the Daily Office. Early expressions of Anglicanism over-emphasized the Office to the detriment of the Mass. Our current American practice is an over-emphasis on the Mass to the detriment of the Office. The original intention in the early medieval period and in the Reformation attempts to recapture the early medieval scheme are a harmonious balance of the two.
  • Respect the Creeds. I.e., use them and explain them.
  • Respect the Sacraments. I.e., use them and explain them. Baptism, our inclusive sacrament, prepares us for Eucharist, our intimate sacrament.
  • Emphasize the dignity and God-wardness which is our heritage. Whether the congregation prays eastward (per the rubrics of the ’79 BCP) or facing the priest, let our common prayer be focused on God, not ourselves or the clown up front.
  • Restoring the proper place of both Anglican Chant and Plainchant.

What do you hear?

The BCP and Spiritual Adventurism

Following an interesting link at YF’s I found an interesting article. The topic is on Episcochameleonism but I’d like to pull something else out of it…

The author (a conservative Anglican priest) writes:

28 years ago when I noticed that the opening of the Eucharist was a takeoff on the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I went out and ordered three sets of Greek Orthodox vestments. It was early in my Anglo-Catholic days, and I was playing one of the classic Anglo-Catholic games–more high-church than thou. Even in a diocese that described itself historically as Anglo-Catholic, I won hands down. A year or so later I discovered the born-again movement, and it was time to play some different games.

Not every Episcopal cleric plays games like I did. At the time I didn’t know it was a game, and I did not mean to play games with other people’s lives as, regrettably, I often did. The fact is I found myself playing church for a living, and I was shocked.

He identifies something here that is very important for the recent discussions on the prayer book. There is a large percentage of the current Episcopal clergy who I regard as “seekers”. That is to say, they are still looking and searching for the deep connection with God and the holy that their soul calls them too. I’d hazard a guess that many of them are clergy because it gives them an opportunity to be a full-time “religious/spiritual person” and still be able to draw a salary. Some, like the priest quoted above, do this while remaining within the prescribed boundaries of the church (canon, creed, sacraments a la Chicago-Lambeth); others, not so much…

Is this seeking or spiritual adventurism necessarily bad? Maybe not as long as an individual stays within the boundaries of the Church but definitely yes when it stops being an individual journey and is foisted on congregations.

The Book of Common Prayer is, among other things, a defense for laity against spiritual adventurism on the part of the clergy.

That having been said, it is no fail-safe. Even when the rite is followed as written, ceremonial, vestment, and other choices can still throw things off quite a bit—but let’s at least keep in place what safeguards we have!

I am sympathetic to the spiritual adventurers, being one myself to a certain degree. I have always, however, had a conviction that my own personal spirituality not be placed onto a congregation and was perhaps the most significant reason that I left the ELCA’s ordination process. (I couldn’t live with the average ELCA parish’s attitudes towards the sacraments and would have felt compelled to change it; I can live with the average Episcopal parish’s sacramental sense…) I have enormous respect for the rector under whom M served as a deacon. He was an Anglican Missal guy but the way he adapted his use was such that the congregational text was always the BCP. He was a Missal guy—but no one else had to be just because he was.

On one-hand, I’m open to legitimate spiritual adventurism on the part of the clergy in so far as it reflects necessary growth and listening to the Spirit and transformation into the Mind of Christ. On the other hand, I believe that much of it reflects a failure of our discernment and formation processes. Yes, it’s fine to deepen, but I’m seeing a lot more wandering around than rooting down. Further liberalizing the already generous and liberal options of the prayer book to endorse these behaviors is entirely unwarranted. Rather, a re-focus of the issue placing it in terms of the obedience and stability necessary for conversion of life is the ticket.

On Prayer–Individual and Corporate

I’m currently reading Martin Thornton’s Christian Proficiency, a book much discussed here at various points. My spiritual director (yes, we found it mutually agreeable despite his forth-coming swimming expedition) lent me a copy and said that the place to begin was reading this book.This section from the opening chapters jumped out at me:

The second point is that the efficeincy of the work of [the Church’s] members, its hands and legs, eyes and lips—again interpreted either universally or locally—depends entirely upon the general health of the whole Body. The redemptive channel of grace flowing from Christ on to the world—or town or parish—is not the individual Christian but the Church. Really effective prayer is not so much that of the contemplative saint and the “sincerely devout” Christian, but the total prayer of the integral Body. Two further very practical and very modern pastoral points follow: all the prayer we offer, every act of corporate worship and every “private” prayer, is but a part of the total prayer of the Church. Neither the mystical heights of the contemplative saint nor the routine office of the dullest proficient have any great value in their own right, yet both have supreme value in that they add to the prayer of the Church; they are inter-dependent, the latter shares in the former, which in turn, depends on its support.