Category Archives: Uncategorized

On the Essence of the Sanctoral Cycle, Part 2

Following on the heels of the first section, here’s the second section on the sanctoral cycle of the Calendar.

—————————————–

Back to Baptism

There are two primary definitions that the church uses for the term “saint.” The first definition is a general one with biblical roots; Paul consistently uses “the saints” to refer to the whole people of God. Those who have been joined to Christ in baptism are “holy ones” (same word in Greek) because they have become part of a holy whole. Thus, there is a general sense in which “saint” is appropriate for every member of the Church.

But there is also a more specific use of the term as well that the Church has used for centuries: a saint is a person who manifests Christ to the world. They are people in whom and through whom Christ can be seen. In a sense—like the icons that regularly represent them—they should be seen both as a window and as a mirror. The saints are windows because the light of Christ flows through them, and their primary purpose is not to reveal themselves but, in their transparency to the divine, reveal to us the heart of God. The saints are mirrors because they offer us an opportunity to see ourselves as we could be—to show us what a life in the service of Christ looks like. Just as we might glance into a mirror before a big meeting, the saints reveal when we still have spinach stuck in our teeth, when and where we fall short of living a life glowing with God.

The saints represent the goal for us. What we receive in the spiritual patterning of the prayer book, in the spiritual patterns of the Church at large, is a sacramental path to discipleship. Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Confession, these things are tools that lead us ever deeper into a relationship of discipleship where we hear and answer God’s call to follow, to learn, to love, to die, to truly live. The saints are images of the wide variety of what Christian maturity looks like. It takes a host of forms in a host of situations but the central qualities never stray far from the pattern of Jesus himself: faith, hope, love, mercy, justice, peace.

Paul, positively influenced by the Stoic teachings of his day, understood that the true transmission of the faith could only be partially accomplished through language; the deeper patterns required examples. Hence, a critical part of his proclamation is captured in this simple (but not easy) call: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). There is an inherently incarnation element in the call to imitation. It contains the recognition that the being of people cannot be reduced to their thoughts or their teachings or even their virtues in an abstract sense; their instruction is incomplete and incompletely taught without gaining a sense of the whole embodied reality with which they engaged the world. The saints are mediators of the faith to us because, as Paul, they call us through themselves to imitate Christ and to learn from his ways what it is to be holy, what it is to be fully human.

Imitation of the saints means learning about lives. Some of the earliest literature about spirituality and teaching spirituality did not appear in the form of treatises or doctrinal essays. Rather, they wrote lives. The fathers of the nascent monastic movement presented their ascetical theology in narrative form: Athanasius gave us the life of Antony; Jerome gave us a number—the more fantastical lives of Paul the Hermit and Malchus as well as the more historically grounded life of Epiphanius and the various examples and remembrances in his letters of people with whom he had lived and to whom he had ministered. Even the first great writings on Christian spirituality sought to retain a connection with lives and stories: John Cassian’s great work is a dialogue that weaves oral teachings with human lives; Sulpicius Severus likewise offers a mediation of eastern monasticism to the West by means of a dialogue about ways of life and means of imitation.

What I’m getting at here is that when we deal with the saints—particularly using the second, more particular, sense of the term—we are talking about and working within the realm of Incarnation. How is Christ made manifest in material means to heal and redeem the world? An answer is in the lives of those called to follow him. We, in turn, learn Christ in and through them.

To return again to the prayer book and to Baptism, the Baptismal Covenant lays out a set of ideas made explicit that have always been implicit in Baptism and in discipleship. The specific promises asked: fidelity to the Church’s creed, persistence in the Church’s worship and gatherings, the practice of repentance, spreading the Good News of what God has done in Christ, humble service to Christ in the person of all humanity, striving for justice, peace, and respect for all are nothing new but reflect a variety of facets of discipleship that the Church has taught through the ages. Some individuals embrace these promises more concretely than others. Some embody them more profoundly than others. These are our exemplars of Christian maturity, these are the stewards of the virtues, from whom we learn Christ and imitate him in them. To the degree that they model the more excellent way, they deserve to be set apart and held up by the Church.

And, in making that connection, we come full circle to the issue of the two buckets—the saints, the departed, and who goes where. The good news, of course, is that it’s not our decision. We can’t put anyone into these buckets—that’s God’s work. And, at the end of the day, even the metaphor of buckets fails as being overly concrete. Here’s what we can say: God knows his own far better than we ever will. Recognizing that fundamental truth, no church or ecclesial body has ever said (or at least not properly or wisely…) that it can state the contents of the buckets. Even when churches declare saints, they are not attempting to identify the whole population of the holy. There are far more of every kind who enjoy the fullness of the presence of God than we can imagine. And, if God’s ways are true to what we find in Scripture and in the Tradition, some of those enjoying that nearer presence will come as quite a shock to us! No, the most that churches can—and should—do is to state that there are strong positive signs that certain individuals are among the blessed. Not so that whole company can be catalogued, but to have a sense of whom to hold up as exemplars and representatives of the holiness and spiritual maturity to which all of us are called.

Now, what may these “strong positive signs” be? Well—I’d like to focus on the one that makes us the most nervous… In Late Antiquity and through the medieval periods, one of the key signs of sanctity was identified as miraculous power. The saints could be known and identified because they were agents of supernatural power. For most of Christian history, in fact, sanctity was something declared on the local level by people who were convinced that one who was dead was still serve as an agent of God’s power in their community. Bishops might ratify this by proclaiming a feast, pilgrimage centers would spring up or cool down as healings or apparitions or other manifestations occurred. When the Roman Catholic Church centralized the process of sanctity in the mid-fourteenth century—in a way that the Christian East never did—it incorporated this principle in the famous criterion requiring three documented miracles. To this day, this is the part of the process that most modern people feel uncomfortable about. Significantly, among the various Anglican churches who recognize saints no such criterion exists. Rather than getting bogged down in the whole question of miracles, it’s more useful for our purposes to ask, not how and to what degree it gets fulfilled, but why this criterion is important in the first place. How does this connect back into everything else?

Truthfully—it’s all about connections. The point about miracles originally was that it established proof that the saint was hooked into the life of God and was serving as a conduit of God’s grace and power to the local community. Not only that, most of the miracles that are described in the medieval lives of the saints aren’t terribly original. You’ll have a disciple of St. Benedict do something that Elisha did, or healings and meal multiplications that mirror what Jesus did. What were these people doing, just copying Scripture? No—they were, in fact, imitating Scripture. When the saints either performed or were thought to have performed biblical sorts of miracles it confirmed that they were participating within a continuity of sanctity that points directly back to Scripture and to Christ himself. The Christian life—the holy life—was about embodying Scripture, not only in terms of following its guidelines but in receiving the same graces the biblical personages enjoyed. Imitation of the saints and imitation of the Scriptures ultimately points to the imitation of Christ who is the source and pattern of both the saints and the Scriptures.

Now, it’s one thing to show evidence of holy power when you’re alive—it’s another to do so when you’re dead. Because it’s precisely proof that you’re not dead, at least not in the usual sense. And that’s precisely the difference between secular culture and church culture. The secular culture has days that celebrate certain individuals—Presidents’ Day, Columbus Day, and so forth—and they do it to celebrate important historical figures who are a significant part of our national story. They are dead, gone, and fondly remembered. It’s not so with the Church. When we remember the saints, we’re remembering those around us whom we see no longer—but who are still fellow workers with us in the Kingdom of God. Recovering a truly baptismal ecclesiology requires the recognition that that baptismal connection is not severed by physical death. The prayer book encapsulates this notion in these two collects:

Almighty God, by your Holy Spirit you have made us one with your saints in heaven and on earth: Grant that in our earthly pilgrimage we may always be supported by this fellowship of love and prayer, and know ourselves to be surrounded by their witness to your power and mercy. We ask this for the sake of Jesus Christ, in whom all our intersessions are acceptable through the Spirit, and who lives and reigns forever and ever. Amen. (BCP, 250)

O God, the King of saints, we praise and glorify your holy Name for all your servants who have finished their course in your faith and fear: for the blessed Virgin Mary; for the holy patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs; and for all your other righteous servants, known to us and unknown; and we pray that, encouraged by their examples, aided by their prayers, and strengthened by their fellowship, we also may be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; through the merits of your Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. (BCP, 504)

The proper theme here is fellowship, connection, continuity. The saints pray for us, love and remember us, just as we love, remember, and pray for those we see no longer. The celebration of saints’ days gives us an opportunity to honor and thank those who pray for us, to lift up their examples before our eyes, and to point back to Christ himself who gave them gifts of grace, and courage in their trials.

Quick Note on the Creed

This will be brief as I’m seriously crunched for time this week…

If you don’t at least look at the Liturgy blog of Fr. Bosco Peters, you’re missing out on a thoughtful voice grounded in an ecumenical appreciation of our ways coming from the New Zealand perspective. I find him to be a great representative of the best of the Vatican II spirit and tradition in ecumenical liturgy.

His latest post on the Creed, though, I find just plain wrong. He argues for dropping the Nicene Creed in the Eucharist because it serves functionally as a doublet for the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer. That is, if I’m reading him right, he’s arguing that both the Creed and the beginning of any decent Eucharistic Prayer are both about the mighty acts of God and therefore the Creed can be considered extraneous. Furthermore, he suggests that the Creed began being used in the liturgy when the Eucharistic Prayer went silent, and that since we are back to a clearly-heard Canon, the utility of the Creed has outlived its purpose.

I disagree. There is some support for the notion of the Creed as a rehearsal of the acts of God if you look at the missionary preaching of the early medieval period. That is, Augustine’s On the Catechizing of the Uninitiated takes the creed as a basic framework for the Christian proclamation. Following Augustine, Martin of Braga (+580), Pirmin (+753), and my buddy Ælfric all use the creedal frame for their communication of the basics of the Faith. But that’s not to say that rehearsal of the acts of God is its only or even primary function. Rather, its primary function was—and remains—to lay down the fundamental boundaries of interpretation within which the Church reads the Scriptures.

As I see it, the Creed was added into the Mass during the Carolingian period because there were a lot of fundamentally unformed Christians. Adding the Creed was a way to put the framework of the Faith and the basic interpretive rubrics in front of as many people as possible.

As I look across the Church, we’re far more in an 8th or 10th century situation than a 3rd or 4th when it comes to formation. That is, there are an awful lot of Christians—and people period—who do not grasp the basics of the Faith. (Even worse are those both inside and outside the Church who think they know it but are woefully lacking…)

We need the Creed.

Furthermore, as we can plainly see, repetition of the Creed alone is not sufficient; it has to be explained and understood. But at least if it’s heard regularly, it provides catechists with a starting point!

Pentecost RBOC Update

  • Activity around the house is gearing down and preparing for summer mode; ballet and track are over for the girls. That means less shuttling them around—for now in any case…
  • Projects are heating up.
  • My next section on the Prayer Book Spirituality Project is in progress but isn’t near completion. I’d hoped to already have it done before now but other things keep interfering.
  • That having been said, I did lead an Adult Ed forum Sunday on the material that will form the basis of the “Spirituality of the Eucharist” chapter. I got rave reviews on it! And realized I needed at least another chapter in addition to that one to fit in everything I needed to say to scratch the surface on just the spirituality bit…
  • Coding work for another project with Forward Movement is well underway.
  • I need to do a bunch more work on the saints for HWHM before the end of June. Thus, it’ll have to get off the ground fairly soon.
  • Page proofs for the St Augustine’s Prayer Book should be arriving in early to mid-June for review before printing.
  • I need to solve a persistent preferences issue with the breviary. I’ve decided that this has to get done by the end of the week. Just not sure when it’ll get fit in.

Tracking Sanctity: Lesser Feasts & Fasts 1973

The next stop on the run-up to the sanctoral kalendar of the ’79 Prayer Book was the revised edition of Lesser Feasts & Fasts issued in 1973. Like its predecessor in 1963, there is not a whole lot of didactic or analytic text in this book. There is, however, an interesting preface from which I will cite down below.

This is a very significant text because of a number of important policy shifts that it contains. Few, if any, of these are explained, but they are definitely present. If the 1957 book represented the first crack at the Calendar, this is unquestionably Calendar 2.0. Here are the things that I identify as major alterations:

  • An increase in Red Letter days: 6 feasts originally introduced in the 1957 study as Black Letter days were promoted to Red Letter-level Holy Days. A brand-new one was added as well. All of these are feasts celebrating biblical people or events. What the shift represents is a new freedom in identifying major holy days apart from the predecessor kalendars whether English or American.
  • Inclusion of the Calendar material: The first material in the book after the preface is a version of what will become “The Calendar of the Church Year” section on pp. 15-8 of the ’79 Prayer Book. This spells out in new detail the relationship between Holy Days (containing Feasts of Our Lord and Other Major Feasts) and the Days of Optional Observance. The language of “Red Letter” and “Black Letter” disappears. Ironically, this is the first kalendar printed in color in a book of this sort and the Holy Days appear in red!
  • Abolition of Collect-Only Entries: In this book there are no longer levels of distinction between feasts that get full propers and those that only receive collects. All entries are provided with materials giving them two psalms, an Epistle, a Gospel, a Collect, and identifying the Proper Preface to be used. However, some feasts receive their own specific readings while others use the readings appointed in a particular common.The varieties and implications of this change will be discussed in detail below.
  • Turn to the Modern Age: Two-thirds of the entries added were from the 19th and 20th centuries. When a consolidation and unqualified group are removed from the reckoning, the fraction jumps to four-fifths. This will begin a major trajectory that will only accelerate in coming years.
  • Move to Consolidation: In the 1957 Proposed Calendar there were only two entries with more than one named individual: Cyril and Methodius, and Latimer and Ridley. One of the principles explicitly called out in the 1957 study was that Anglican Calendars tended to offer one person per entry (except in the case of mass martyrdoms). The Wesley brothers were added together in 1963, but the current work gives us the first example of a consolidation. Timothy and Titus had received their own separate days in 1957, but in 1973 they appear together as “Companions of Saint Paul.” While this is only one entry, it sets a precedent that will be increasingly followed.
  • Dropping of the term “Saint”: In text of the 1957 study, there was absolutely no hesitation to use the word “saint.” There was no sign of any hesitation to regard the people placed on the Proposed Episcopal Calendar as saints in the classical catholic sense. In the Proposed Calendar offered, though, only biblical personages were honored with the title. Thus, in the 1957 Calendar we have Black Letter days for Saint Timothy, Saint Titus, Saint Joseph, Saint Mary Magdalene, and Saint Mary. (Oddly, Cornelius the Centurion did not receive it…) In the expansion of biblical figures in 1963 we saw Saints Mary and Martha of Bethany, Saint Joseph of Arimathea, and Saint James of Jerusalem added. In 1973, most of these were elevated to Holy Days, but those who remained Days of Optional Observance lost their “Saint.” While there was always a reticence with this title for post-biblical figures, now only those biblical persons honored with Holy Days received the accolade.
  • Collects appear in Contemporary as well as Traditional Language: This is not a surprise, but should be noted for completeness’s sake.

Contents

Preface (p. vii)

The Calendar (p. 3)

The Collects, Psalms, and Lessons
The Weekdays in Lent (p. 20)
The Lesser Feasts (p. 34)
The Common of Saints (p. 156)

Appendices
Biographical Sketches (p. 173)
Indices
The Sources of the Collects (p. 281)
The Lessons (in Canonical order) (p. 289)
The Selections from the Psalms (p. 297)
Alphabetical Listing (p. 304)

The first thing the Contents reveals is the absence of several kinds of days that had appeared in the previous book. While the Weekdays of Lent are here, gone are the Ember Days, the days in the Easter Octave, and the Rogation Days. The days in the Easter Octave are still mentioned in the Calendar section as having precedence over Holy Days, but they do not appear here. Too, the Ember and Rogation Days are not mentioned as examples of Days of Optional Observance in the explanatory portion of the Calendar rubrics as they are now.

The biographical sketches remain separate from the propers.

The Preface to the work offers a glimpse into the changes that have occurred. It’s short, so here it is:

The General Convention of 1970 authorized the Standing Commission to publish this revised edition The Calendar and the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels for the Lesser Feasts and Fasts and for Special Occasions, first published as “Prayer Book Studies” XVI in 1963 and authorized for trial use by the General Convention of 1964. With certain amendments it was re-authorized by the General Convention of 1967.

The new edition is made necessary because changes have been made in the Calendar, and because certain materials from the 1963 edition have been included in Services for Trial Use, authorized by the General Convention of 1970 and published in 1971. Opportunity has thus been afforded to enrich this new edition with the following changes and additions:

  1. The Collects of the earlier edition have been carefully revised, and several new ones have been included. They are provided in both traditional and contemporary language, as in Services for Trial Use.
  2. Optional Collects and daily schedules of Psalms and Lessons are given for the weekdays of Lent. The new schedule of Lessons, but not of the Psalms, is substantially that proposed for experimental use in the Roman Catholic Church’s Ordo Lectionum Missae of 1969.
  3. Commemorations which hitherto had only a Collect are now assigned Psalms and Lessons, either individually or by reference to The Common of Saints.
  4. The texts of the Lessons have not been written out in full, since it is now permitted to read them from several translations (Title II, Canon 2). The references for the Lessons are from the Revised Standard Version. Verses from the Psalms are numbered according to The Prayer Book Psalter Revised. The corresponding verses in the 1928 Prayer Book, when they differ, are shown  in brackets.
  5. Biographical notes and sketches about the commemorations have been prepared for this edition by the Rev. Massey H. Shepherd, Jr. Many of them are revisions of the notices scattered in “Prayer Book Studies” IX, XII, XVI, and 19.

The Collects, Psalms, and Lessons in this book are for optional use at the times appointed, in accordance with the rules of precedence of The Calendar. The officiant may always substitute, at his discretion, appropriate selections from The Common of Saints. It is our hope that this new edition will be received with the same favor throughout the Church as was the earlier book, for the enhancement of our common worship and devotion.

The Drafting Committee on the Calendar, Eucharistic Lectionary, and the Collects has been responsible for preparing this edition: The Reverend Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., chairman; the Reverend Canon James R. Brown, and the Reverend Messrs. Lawrence L. Brown, Reginald H. Fuller, and Donald L. Garfield.

All sorts of revisions have been going on. Entries are being added, Scripture lessons are being added all around, collects are being changed, a number of new Commons have been added; there’s a lot of flux here.  Point 3 is one of the biggest policy shifts but no information around it is given here—just the statement that it has occurred. I think that Point 4 was also a significant change as it no longer meant that everything had to be constrained by the printed page, several of the readings got longer perhaps in relation to this.

One of the other things not to lose sight of from this preface is its passing mention of Vatican II. We weren’t the only ones doing kalendar changes in this period—the Roman Catholic kalendar was undergoing fairly major revision in this era as well and the full story of the Episcopal kalendar is likely incomplete without looking at parallel developments across the Tiber. Certainly the emphasis on historicity seen in PBS9 was common with the Roman commission, but I suspect other parallels will appear there as well driven in large part by the Liturgical Renewal Movement that was at work in both churches.

Changes to the Calendar

In the 1973 Calendar there are 13 new entries not in the ’63 Calendar containing 13 named individuals.

One of these is a brand-new Holy Day: the Confession of St Peter. Additionally, 6 days already on the Calendar were promoted up to Holy Days:

  • SAINT JOSEPH
  • THE VISITATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
  • SAINT MARY MAGDALENE
  • SAINT MARY THE VIRGIN, MOTHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
  • HOLY CROSS DAY
  • SAINT JAMES OF JERUSALEM, BROTHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND MARTYR, C. 62

One of these new entries is the above-mentioned consolidation of Timothy and Titus on the same day so this is technically a new entry but these individuals are clearly not new additions.

There have also been some exits from the Calendar. Obviously, the entries for “Saint Timothy” and “Saint Titus” have disappeared/been replaced. In August, “Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore, 1667” was moved from his previous position on August 14th to August 13th.  In the 1963 Calendar, the 13th had contained “Hippolytus, Bishop, and Martyr, c. 235” who has now been dropped from the Calendar.

Here are the stats on just the new Days of Optional Observance:

By ordination status:

  • 3 bishops (30%)
  • 4 priests (40%)
  • 1 deacon (10%)
  • 1 religious (10%)
  • 1 laity (10%)
  • 3 unqualified collectives

By gender:

  • 9 male (90%)
  • 1 female (10%)
  • 3 unqualified collectives

Entries by category:

  • 3 Multiple Martyrs
  • 3 Male Confessors
  • 1 Martyr
  • 1 Virgin/Doctor
  • 1 Bishop/Confessor
  • 1 Multiple Bishops/Confessors (2 individuals [Timothy & Titus])
  • 1 Confessor/Doctor
  • 1 Hermit/Monastic

Entries by Continent of Major Activity:

  • 3 in N America
  • 3 in Europe
  • 2 in Africa
  • 1 in Polynesia
  • 1 in Asia
  • 1 in the Middle East
  • 1 unquantifiable (Commemoration of All Faithful Departed)

Entries by Century:

LFF1973_Adds_century

Due to its obvious breadth, the entry for the “Commemoration of All Faithful Departed” doesn’t appear on the chart.

The New Shape of the Calendar

Ok—so now the stats of the Calendar as a whole…

In the 1973 Revised Edition of Lesser Feasts & Fasts there are 152 entries of which 33 are Holy Days and 119 are Days of Optional Observance. Within the Days of Optional Observance there are 121 named individuals.

Here are the stats on the Days of Optional Observance…

By ordination status:

  • 62 bishops (51%) [+1/-1%]
  • 26 priests (21%) [+4/+2%]
  • 5 deacons (4%) [+1/+1%]
  • 11 religious (9%) [+2/+2%]
  • 15 laity (12%) [-3/-4%]
  • 5 unqualified collectives (4%) [+3/+2%]

The drop in laity here is due to the upgrading of entries: St Mary Magdalene and the 2 entries naming the BVM left the tally.

Named individuals by gender:

  • 109 male (90%) [+7/+2%]
  • 12 female (10%) [-2/-2%]

Again, the drop in women is due to the upgrade of the Marys.

Entries by category:

  • 30 Bishop/Confessors
  • 20 Male Confessors
  • 14 Bishop/Confessor/Doctors
  • 9 Hermit/Monastics
  • 9 Confessor/Doctors
  • 8 Bishop/Martyrs
  • 8 Multiple Martyrs (only 3 named individuals, though)
  • 5 Martyrs
  • 4 Multiple Bishops/Confessors (9 named individuals)
  • 3 Female Confessors
  • 2 Virgin/Abbesses
  • 2 Virgin/Doctors
  • 1 Multiple Female Confessors
  • 1 Multiple Male Confessors (2 named individuals)
  • 1 Virgin/Martyr
  • 1 Feast of the BVM (2 individuals [her parents])
  • 1 general (Commemoration of All Faithful Departed)

Entries by Continent of Major Activity:

  • 73 in Europe (76 named individuals) (61%)
  • 15 in the Middle East (18 named individuals) (13%)
  • 12 in North America (10%)
  • 10 in Africa (9 named individuals) (8%)
  • 5 in Asia (4 named individuals) (4%)
  • 2 in Polynesia (1 named individual) (2%)
  • 1 unquantifiable (Commemoration of All Faithful Departed) (1%)
  • 1 in Australia/New Zealand (1%)

By Century:

LFF1973_All_century

As you can see, there remain three obvious spikes: the 4th century, the 13th century, and the 19th century.

As we approach the publication of the ’79 Prayer Book as as its shape gels, we begin to have new movement towards informal categorization of the entries by means of two factors in the propers, the commons and the proper prefaces. That is, in the “Category” classification above, I’ve been going by the traditional method using the kinds of categories and commons historically found in breviaries and missals. While we saw moves in this direction with 5 specific and 1 general Commons in the 1963 book, we now achieve the 14 Commons consisting of 5 Categories (“Deaconess” was dropped, “Pastor” was added) that will appear in the ’79 Prayer Book (with minor tweaks in a few of the collects):

  • Martyr (3 options)
  • Missionary (2 options)
  • Pastor (2 options)
  • Theologian or Teacher (2 options)
  • Monastic (2 options)
  • Saint (3 options)

There are a couple of tricky things when in comes to applying these categories, though. First, they’re not air-tight.  What do you do with Boniface or James Hannington, both martyr/missionary/pastor types? Classically there were specific propers for Bishop/Martyr that would apply; not so under this framework. That’s not a criticism per se because the flexibility given to emphasis different aspects in different situations is a bonus. However, the way that we categorize our saints simultaneously teaches us about the nature and perception of sanctity in a given time and place.

Second, everybody is assigned their own collect but some entries in the calendar get specific proper readings: psalms, an epistle, and a gospel; others are assigned a Common and receive the generic readings. What’s going on here—is this another way of creating a hierarchy within the Days of Optional Observance that was swept away by the decision to give everyone propers? The evidence seems to suggest not. Of the entries that received full propers under the Black Letter system, none of them lost proper readings. These were retained (but sometimes tweaked). On the 1963 Calendar there were 68 entries that did not receive readings; on the 1973 Calendar, 46 entries received Common readings. Thus, there is not an easy correlation between the old “lesser” entries and the entries in this calendar that received Commons. This suggests to me that the distinction is not based in a hierarchy but has more to do with “fit”—if a particular entry fit another passage of Scripture better than the Common under which they would ordinarily fall, they were assigned that Scripture, otherwise they received a Common.

Furthermore, even among the assigned lessons there are signs of de facto Commons emerging. In the 1963 proper readings there were no duplicate readings in the Epistle and only 1 verse of overlap. There were no duplicates or overlaps in the Gospels. In the 1973 proper readings,  both “Perpetua and her Companions, Martyrs at Carthage” and “The Martyrs of Uganda” are assigned identical Psalms, Epistles, and Gospels (Pss 124; 138|Heb 10:32-39|Matt 24:9-14). Within the Psalms there are 29 entries that share an introit either in full or in part with another entry. In the Epistles:

  • John Henry Hobart and Hilary share 2 Tim 4:1-8;
  • William Reed Huntington and William Augustus Muhlenberg share Eph 4:11-16.
  • There are 7 entries with overlap.

In the Gospels:

  • Ignatius of Antioch and John Donne share John 12:23-26;
  • William Tyndale and Justin Martyr share John 12:44-50;
  • Basil the Great and Catherine of Siena share Luke 10:21-24;
  • Samuel Isaac Joseph Scherechewsky and Jerome share Luke 24:44-48;
  • Francis and Anselm share Matt 11:25-30;
  • Margaret of Scotland and J.M. Neale share Matt 13:44-52;
  • Nicholas Ferrar and Bede share Matt 13:47-52 (overlapping with the previous two…);
  • Theodore of Tarsus, Jeremy Taylor and Dunstan share Matt 24:42-47;
  • Elizabeth of Hungary, William Wilberforce, and F.D. Maurice share Matt 25:31-40 and Martin of Tours picks up at v. 34;
  • The Consecration of Samuel Seabury and Thomas Bray share Matt 9:35-38

Two things in all of this. First, with the expansion of the Calendar and the extension of proper readings overlap and duplication is bound to start happening despite the apparent intentions of the committee up through 1963. Second, it’s interesting to note the reappearance of the traditional medieval Commons particularly in the Gospel readings.

So—to pull together this line of thought—there are now Commons that are used as a rough categorization principle. However, of the 119 Days of Optional Obligation, only 46 are so classified.

A better—but less specific—means of classification appears in the provisioning of Proper Prefaces. Before there had only been one proper preface. This did prompt an interim measure reported by the Episcopal News Service:

In further action, the two presiding officers have authorized two Prefaces for lesser Saints’ Days, as alternatives to the Proper Preface for All Saints’ Day on such commemorations. The new Prefaces, which are provided both in contemporary and traditional forms, read as follows:

1. ” For the wonderful grace and virtue declared in all your (thy) saints, who have been the chosen (choice) vessels of your (thy) grace, and the lights of the world in their (several) generations: ”

2. “Who in the obedience of your (thy) saints have (hast) given (unto) us an example of righteousness, and in their eternal joy a glorious pledge of the hope of our calling: “

Now, 7 different Proper Prefaces were assigned to Days of Optional Observance:

  • PP for a Saint: 72
  • PP for Holy Week: 19 [for martyrs]
  • PP for Apostles: 8 [for missionaries]
  • PP for the Incarnation: 7 [for theologians/teachers]
  • PP for Pentecost: 7 [also for missionaries]
  • PP for Trinity Sunday: 5 [also for theologians/teachers]
  • PP for Trinity Sunday or Pentecost: 1 (First BCP)
  • PP for Commemoration of the Dead: 1 (All Souls)

So, this does introduce some native categories into the current kalendar but they still remain very broad.

For what it’s worth, Laud, Tyndale, Latimer/Ridley, and Clement of Rome (?)  receive the Proper Preface for a Saint rather than the Holy Week Preface given to everyone else traditionally identified as martyrs.

Relaxing into the Person of Christ

I’ve been pondering Christopher’s last post for a couple of days now. In it, he draws our attention to the nuance necessary around themes of baptism, discipleship and sanctification.

I’m of two minds on the topic at the moment.

On one hand, I appreciate the image of relaxing into the person of Christ. That connects with me on all sorts of levels. As one of my chief physical disciplines is tai chi, I resonate with the idea that relaxation is one of the ways that we return to a more natural state —as opposed to the tension which we manufacture as a defense mechanism against the world and which thereby distorts us muscularly from our proper shape and function. The idea of relaxing into the person of Christ as a way of understanding discipleship, as a form of the imitation of Christ, and as a way of reconnecting with the image of God woven into us at our beginnings makes a lot of sense.

On the other hand, Christopher writes with reference to the situation of the “terrified conscience” (as Luther termed it). There are now and always will be these consciences in our churches and our theology—particularly our ascetical theology—does need to recognize it. But (and you knew there’d be a “but”…) I can’t help but think that the dominant character of our time is not the “terrified conscience” but the “complacent conscience.” The complacent conscience doesn’t need to be told not to stress out about their salvation status—they’re not doing that anyway. The complacent conscience doesn’t need to be told that God’s grace is sufficient, they already assume it, and in doing so may even presume upon it. I suspect that what this conscience needs is to be reminded that a yet more excellent way awaits them—but that it will require effort and action on their part.

Does this mean we need to advocate for a return to works-righteousness? Of course not. And yet, as beautiful as I find the image of relaxing into the person of Christ and as much as it makes sense to me, I wonder if this image of (apparent) inaction speaks the needed word of the Gospel to those who need not fewer reasons but more to engage and to be transformed.

I’m still pondering…

Wise Words

While I work up a post on the proper disposition of the Franken-Mass requested by colleagues, let me point you to some other stuff you should be reading:

Go Read This

I’m working on a thoughtful post at Bill’s behest on the Daily Prayer items from the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music which should be up in the not too distant future. However, as wonderful as thoughtful posts are, sometimes we just need a good rant (which isn’t saying that rants can’t be thoughtful as well…). One Episcopalian has had enough and has an open letter to General Convention that includes some nice paragraphs like this one:

What we do seem to have is a bumper crop of bishops and priests who want to be prophets, but do not want to be bishops and priests (except that it helps them to be prophetic).   We have clergy and laity who love to tinker with the liturgy, but are woefully or willfully ignorant of Scripture, Patristics, and the Anglican Reformers… the very wellsprings and sources of our Faith and Tradition.  We have hundreds of parishes with interfaith services and not a few with the actual prayer services to other deities or from other faith traditions, but precious few that offer the daily offices on a daily basis.

Go read the rest of it.

Off to the Conference

Things have been much crazier than I expected recently, and though I’ve been doing quite a bit of writing, very little of it has made it to the blog.

I’m sitting on a plane with M beside me, heading off to the Society of Catholic Priests’ Annual Meeting. I’ll put up my presentation later in the week and, in the meantime, I’m intending to post on the conference as I’m able.

More later!

Breaking News: Fire at VTS Chapel

There’s apparently a fire at VTS. What’s odd is that M was just there for an SCP Solemn High Mass. I sure hope the low-churchers there knew how to put the thurible out properly!

Update: M said that the SCP didn’t do the mass—it was the seminary’s worship group that did it; the SCP group was only there in attendance.

Further Update: This has been picked up by the Lead and ENS and other places and the news is not good at all. From FaceBook:

“Seminary chapel is definitely consumed. Windows are melted and roof is completely gone. All that is left is brick.”