Michelle at Heavenfield has a fascinating post up summarizing an article on the Liturgy of the Hours in the voyage of St Brendan. As I read it, the author argues that the Life of St Brendan is a means of arguing for and presenting an ideal monastic implementation of the Offices. St Brendan is one of the Celtic saints that I recognize, but have never read any of the literature about him. So–for the edification of us all, here’s a link to his Life.
Category Archives: Spirituality
OJN Liturgical Materials
Fr. John-Julian has graciously allowed me to post some of the Order of Julian of Norwich‘s liturgical materials on my Trial Liturgies page.
At the moment, I have put up the order’s Offices of the Dead (which also includes a procession) and their use for Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.
There is much more great material–much of it freshly translated and arranged by Fr. John-Julian himself–to go up, but it will appear in bits and pieces due to my rather full current schedule. I’ll let you know as items appear.
Once again, my heartfelt thanks to Fr. John-Julian. Please keep the order in your prayers and, if you are able to do so, consider a contribution to assist them in their work.
Update: I’ve already changed things around… Upon reflection I decided that it would be more fitting for the Materials from OJN to have their own page since they really aren’t “trial” liturgies—they’re “actual” liturgies in continuous use. So, for these liturgies, please visit my new Liturgies of the Order of Julian of Norwich page. (I’ll try and transfer the pertinent comments there too but haven’t tried doing that before…)
Liber Usualis On-Line!!
Here’s a tender little-known fact from our courtship days lo these many years ago: the first big purchase that M and I made together–before we were married–was a Liber Usualis reprint from St. Bonaventure Publications. (That probably comes as little surprise to those who know us…)
I’m happy to pass on the news today via NLM that the CMAA is now offering the Liber as a complete PDF download.
What is the Liber, you ask? It’s a big collection of helpful and important plainchant settings for masses throughout the year and the Sunday Offices (and Lauds of Feasts) according to the Roman Use as of 1953. Here’s the technical details from the introduction:
This Edition with complete musical notation includes the following:
1. The Kyriale with Cantus ad libitum.
2. The Mass of the Sundays and Feasts including those of double rank throughout the year, with Vespers and Compline for the same.
3. Prime, Terce, Sext, None, for Sundays and Feasts of the First and Second Class.
4. Matins of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi; Lauds for Feasts of the First Class.
5. The Litanies: the Mass of Rogation Days, Ember Days, Easter and Whitsun weeks; the Vigils of Christmas, Epiphany and Whitsun.
6. The services of Ash Wednesday, the Triduum of Holy Week and Easter Day.
7. The principal Votive Masses and the Offices for the Dead.
In the beginning of the book will be found the Common Tones of the Mass and Office. Chants for special occasions, e. g. the Blessing of the Holy Oils, Ordinations, etc, are included in the Appendix.
If you do anything or have any interest in chant–you need this!! (And at this price, why not? :-D) It is, of course, in Latin with square notation but it has a fine English language introduction to the basics of chant and a full explanation and presentations of the 8+1 psalm tones.
While the Liber is very helpful for people doing research in medieval liturgy, I must warn you that anything you find here must be backed up by properly contemporary evidence as this really is the 1953 rite. For instance, its hymns are the hacked-up reformed versions promulgated by the Renaissance pope Clement VII.
The Anglican Rosary
I’ve never been a true fan of the Anglican Rosary. It’s always seemed like one of those half-measure flirts with our catholic roots that is neither one nor the other and ends up being a totally modern practice in search of a spirituality.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve never been sold on the classical rosary either(instructions here include the new “Luminous Mysteries” add by JP II)… Those who know me won’t be terribly surprised at my reason–it’s one of those “recent” innovations. You know, a new-fangled 13th century thing that didn’t seriously catch on until the end of the 15th century… (See here for details.)
However, Catholic in the Third Millennium brings to our attention a devotion using the Anglican Rosary that I can really get behind–a means of praying the St. Patrick’s Breastplate. This hymn has long been a favorite of mine and holds a lot of personal meaning for me. It’s associated of General, was sung at M’s ordination and was one of the few things that would put Lil’ G to sleep as a baby. I had the *whole* thing [midi alert!]–not just the few verses that appear in the hymnal–memorized from singing them nightly for several months. (I’ve since forgotten bits…)
In any case, this may actually move me to try my hand with the Anglican Rosary…
CWOB at the Episcopal Cafe
My next piece on Communion Without Baptism is up at the Cafe. I doubt there wil be many surprises there for those who have been following the current discussions.
Yet More on CWOB
To recap briefly, we’ve been discussing Communion Without Baptism quite a bit lately. One of the main engines of debate has been the Anglican Scotist’s attempts to connect CWOB with universal salvation and to argue that if we take our beliefs about the power of God to their logical conclusion the theological reasons for CWOB will become self-evident. It’s an intriguing argument but not one that wins me over–universal salvation being the first major stumbling block.
My main objection to the argument of the Scotist is that it comes in the form of syllogisms. While I do recognize the need for such things and acknowledge their proper place in theological reflection, logical syllogisms in their use of absolutes and extremes tend to wander away from the basic incarnate character of the life of faith. To my mind, they too easily enter the realm of speculation divorced from discipleship.And here, of course, I see one of the classic divisions between the Scholastic and the monastic.
Both Caelius and *Christopher have written great reflections that return the discussion from questions of universality and omnipotence to questions of daily Christian practice. *Christopher’s piece engages the Scotist’s invocation of the Eschaton and makes a distinction between the regular and extraordinary means of grace, paying special attention to their roles in communities of practice. Caelius’s piece touches on a range of issues, moving from an interesting discussion of the Eucharistic meal as a plunder-dividing party to a thoughtful reflection on exclusion and intimacy. If you haven’t already read them, I commend them to you highly.
More on CWOB
A new entry on the current CWOB (Communion Without Baptism) discussion so ably chronicled by bls (plus updated addenda of course…) has appeared this morning at the Episcopal Cafe.
Dr. Deirdre Good from GTS has posted a most thought-provoking work on hospitality. This is, of course, a virtue constantly emphasized in Benedict’s Rule that reminds us that love of neighbor is only realized when enacted–especially as we greet Christ in the person of the stranger. In this reflection, Dr. Good presents the open table as a central practice of Christian hospitality.
I like her reflection–but I’m not ultimately convinced. The Eucharist is not just a meal–it is a ritual meal. Christians believe that there is something categorically different between eating this bread and drinking this wine and eating other bread, drinking other wine. A non-Christian would presumably not agree. As Anglicans we believe that Christ is truly present in this meal in a way not found in others. I’m feeling something around this that I can’t articulate with the precision I’d like yet–but it’s something like this: If we believe that Christ is really present do we take the presence of divinity so lightly? So much so that we do not even warn those who are about to take it into their own bodies? Is this a domestication of divinity–an assumption of safety–that attempts to collapse an encounter with the Wholly Other?
Ok! I’ll Put Up a Benediction Liturgy!
I’ve been looking at my Google click-throughs… It seems that a rite of Benediction is desired for the trial liturgy page by more than a few. I’ll try and get to it before too very long.
(But how’s that for Fruedian slips–when I first typed the title it said “Benedictine” rather than “Benediction”…)
Actually–I have a bit of work to do over there… I need to correct typos that have been found so far, I need to post an adaptation of the Office of the Dead used as a liturgy for Memorial Day, I need to post seasonal variations for the Anglican Lauds & Vespers…
Oy… It won’t get done until ch. 4 gets finished–sorry!
The CWOB Position
After looking at the comments both here and at the Cafe, I’ve come to the realization that most defenders of CWOB wouldn’t really see that piece as a criticism of the practice. Indeed, some may well be wondering what the one has to do with the other. As far as I’m concerned, that goes to show how different the starting places may be between those who stand for and against CWOB. Annie’s comments below have been helping me get a better sense of where that position is invested. What I will try to do in this post is to sketch a fairly accurate picture of what the supporters of CWOB hold in regard to this specific topic. So, let’s be clear on a few things–I don’t hold this position; my starting place is what I wrote in the Cafe piece–a fairly traditional catholic sacramental mysticism. On the other hand, I also don’t want to caricature this position either–if this is to be a real discussion then building up straw men to tear down completely defeats the purpose. Thus, I’m trying to understand what would motivate a thoughtful Episcopalian to hold CWOB and what theological premises might underlie that–whether consciously or not.
I think that the starting place for the position is (1) a conviction that the church and it’s clergy have no business serving as gate-keepers that keep seekers away from God’s mercy and grace.
Based on this premise, they (2) see an insistence on Baptism as a hindrance keeping a seeker who has been touched by the Spirit in a service from immediately coming forward and partaking in God’s grace through the Sacrament of the Altar.
As they see it, then, (3) an insistence on Baptism is a new form of legalism that keeps people from seeking and finding God.
Update: The main biblical warrant that they use is (4) the notion of the eschatological banquet, most clearly put forth in the middle verses of Isa 25. From there, (5) they point to the feeding miracles of Jesus regarding them [correctly in my book…] as (a) connected to the eschatological banquet and (b) eucharistic in nature. Because Jesus feeds all who come to him without regard for their status, (6) it is concluded that we should do likewise. Thus, (7) if Jesus is the host of our eucharistic feasts then–like him–we should invite all without regard to the table.
Are these seven premises accurate construals of the position held by CWOB supporters?
Communion Without Baptism Discussion
My latest post is up at the Episcopal Cafe. It takes on the issue of Communion without Baptism. I feel strongly that this is a critical issue for the church to discuss. Thus–if you feel comfortable revealing your name per the Epoiscopal Cafe’s policy, please comment there; if you do not, then feel free to have the conversation here pseudonymously.
I won’t be around much today, regretably, but y’all know the protocol here: comment as you like, feel free to disagree, just be respectful to one another…