Random Items

Extreme busyness continues–I need to catch up on emails but haven’t had a chance…

  • Don’t miss Heavenfield’s introduction to St. Adomnan. I do wonder a little how far I’d want to push the lawyer thing. What would seal the case for me (so to speak…) would be a clear presentation of how the three books of the Life of Columba fit into the categories of stasis theory—the “official” lawyerly way of arguing according to period texts like Cicero, the ps-Ciceronean Rhetorica ad Herennium, and Quintillian.
  • LP’s got a new call! I’m happy for him—and worried at the same time. This will be a huge challenge both professionally and in juggling a growing family. Many prayers for Mrs. LP too!
  • Continued prayers are requested for M’s job search, of course…
  • bls has an article on a renewed push on Confession.
  • NLM has some links that clarify the place of music in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass that are helpful for both students of the liturgy and current practicing church musicians.
  • Great question from bls on Why Saturdays on the Ember Days. Wednesdays and Fridays were traditional fast days for Christians going back to the Didache. So why Saturdays? Good question… My most recent thought on the matter is that I read an expectation in the fifth through eighth centuries that Western Christians would be at mass on those days. My logic is based on what we see in the lectionaries—proper Gospels are ideally provided for Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. I say “ideally” because the manuscript evidence is mixed. Sometimes all three ferial days are provided, sometimes only the Wednesdays and Fridays. For instance here’s a page where the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany has a reading for Sunday (EBD V), Wednesday (FR IIII), Friday (FR V), and Saturday (FR VI) But the following two weeks only have readings for Wednesday and Friday. Very fascinating is this page from the same lectionary for the time after Pentecost where there are blank spaces for the ferial Gospels under the appointed Gospels for the Sunday. The scribe knows that these readings *ought* to be there—but he seems not to have the readings… There was a major push to fill all of this in that only hits English lectionaries in the tenth century or later (Lenker’s Type 3 alt.). I’m not sure what happens to these ferial readings after this point…

Tradition–And Lutheran Stuff Again

In the face of a spate of recent criticisms of the new (ELCA) Lutheran worship book, the Lutheran Zephyr raises an important set of questions and issues. He writes:

When large numbers of congregations reject the beloved traditions
enshrined within Lutheran Book of Worship (and Service Book and
Hymnal), what is the ELCA to do? 

  • Should the ELCA just sit there and do nothing while an
    increasing number of congregations fish around for worship resources
    from other traditions?
  • Should the ELCA whip these congregations into Latin-rubric
    submission and simply give them more of the traditional liturgies that
    they are already rejecting?
  • Or should the ELCA venture to create liturgies that embrace the
    spirit – if not the letter – of the church’s grand liturgical
    tradition, while simultaneously welcoming new language, tunes and
    theology?

The ELCA had to create a book for the church we have – a diverse
church whose identity 20 years post-merger is not yet formed – not for
the church some of us wish we had.  We’re a church, for
better or worse, with a congregational polity, freedom in matters of
worship, diverse heritages, and pieties that range from evangelical
catholic to haugian.  Would a Lutheranized Book of Common Prayer be the
prescription for this church?  That seems to be the answer Pfatteicher
and others would provide, but it is not the right answer for our
church. 

I note in this passage the many times and many ways in which the word tradition is used. In particular, I want to draw attention to the ways that the word is used in the three bulleted points. (Let me preface this by saying that I’m not criticizing the Zephyr here, rather I’m interested in how the word is functioning rhetorically.)

In the first case, “tradition” is that which is alien–given the contrast with “ELCA”, these would appear to refer to non- and un-Lutheran traditions. I’m thinking he means praise choruses and “contemporary” music from low-church denominations and para-church movements. But I find myself wondering if “Catholic” traditions would be included in this category or not.

In the second case, “traditional” is both natively Lutheran and pejorative. Traditional is that which is being rejected. Interestingly, this same use is modified by “beloved” in the opening paragraph of the quote, clearly drawing a distinction  between those for whom these traditions are “beloved”  (i.e., Pr. Pfatteicher, LutherPunk, myself, etc.) and the greater majority of Lutherans who are rejecting them.

In light of these two, the third use is particularly interesting. Here “tradition” is modified by “grand” and “liturgical.”  The rhetorical intent identifies liturgies that are, once again, natively Lutheran but are distinguished from those being rejected. The “grand” implies  (for me at least) both a broader scope—perhaps implying that the (or a) reason for the rejection in the liturgies in 2 is that they were narrowly or parochially Lutheran—and implying an aesthetic difference.

The Zephyr is confronting, I believe, one of the major issues that faces church leaders and liturgists of our generation. That is, in the face of disjunctive upheaval in our societies and our denominations, how do we connect or reconnect with the “grand traditions”–liturgical and otherwise–from which we believe we should take our bearings? At the root, it’s a question about identity.

Furthermore, it’s a question about direction. Here we are at this time and in these places. Where do we go from here and where should we look for guidance? How do we talk about who we are and how do we shape who we will be?

I’ve wrestled with these same questions before on this blog. In a piece I linked to yesterday I talk about my reaction to the construction of liturgy and tradition in the Anglican Missal while in this post I discuss the elusive quality of tradition especially when it’s backed by historical research. Yes, research and historical knowledge complicate rather than simplify the issues.

I’m guessing that the Zephyr and I agree on the big picture: tradition is not a thing to be grasped for its own sake but rather is a thing to be pursued because of the ways that it enables us as individuals and as “traditions” to proclaim the Good News of what God has done for us through Jesus Christ and the effect that this Good News should have upon our lives–what we think, what we do, how we choose to be incarnate in the world.

I also know we have some disagreements on the little picture –how this works out on the micro-level, especially liturgically. As a Lutheran I was very much for a “Lutheranized Book of Common Prayer.” Indeed, I argued that given the freedom of liturgies enshrined in Augsburg Confession, Article 7, there was no reason why Lutheran congregations couldn’t use the BCP as is…

Disagreements aside, this conversation about how we uncover, construct and utilize a “grand tradition” is an essential one. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, and others should not only be having these conversations in their own groups but should be sharing methods, findings, and dead ends on the road. Personally, that’s one of the things I’m hoping to achieve with this blog. So, while I disagree with some of the choices that the Lutheran Zephyr might make in his construction, I heartily encourage and support his process of discovery and construction as I parallel it with my own.

Notes

  • Today’s the first of the Fall Ember Days. More on this later.
  • It’s also the feast of Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury
  • Yesterday was the Day of Decadent Dessert. As some of you know, cooking ranks high among our hobbies in the haligweorc household; M is, among other things, an incredible baker. Yesterday I got to taste the fruits of her latest brownie recipe that she had located somewhere. It was nothing short of amazing. I didn’t know something without hydrogenated vegetable oil and high fructose corn syrup could taste that good. Then, she made one of her famous apple pies. You couldn’t have asked for a better crust. She insists that the filling recipe needs to be tweaked a bit to get the spice mixture right, and I’ve heroically offered my services in testing just as many pies as she wants to make…
  • Fr. Marshall Scott has a great piece on blogs and blog commenting at the Cafe today.
  • Holy crap–what happened to my blogroll!? I know I had more people than that on it. I hope this is just a temporary WordPress glitch… [it seems to have been]
  • Lutheran Chik reminds us that today is, in fact, International Talk Like a Pirate Day. [Lil’ G will be thrilled. She’s already informed me that I will be a pirate for Halloween…]

More Lutheran Discussion

Sure enough, LutherPunk, Chris and Christopher have all weighed in on Pr. Pfatteicher’s article trashing the ELW’s renditions of the Daily Office. (And it looks like Christopher may be offering a series on it…)

I want to lift up in particular Chris’s point in which he cited Augsburg Confession Art. 7: not only is the particular use of liturgy not specified in the Confessions, it is also true to say that the Office has not historically been a major part of Lutheran piety.

Chris is quite right to note this. I have observed this before and, indeed, it is one of the several reasons why I left the Lutheran Church.

Must-Read Article on the New Lutheran Service Books

Lee points us to a must-read article by Philip Pfatteicher, one of the Grand Masters of American Lutheran liturgy.

He writes a devastating critique of the new ELCA work, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, and damns the new LCMS Lutheran Service Book with faint praise. In particular, he focuses upon what these books have done to the Daily Office.

If you run in any sort of protestant liturgy circles (and if you’re reading this you do…), don’t miss this article!

Both the Lutheran Zephyr and Lutherpunk left notes at Lee’s place indicating they might say more; I’d be interested to see what they have to say about it.

From the Rubric Police to the TechnoScribes

The Rubric Policeman who lives within me and who I normally suppress is busting forth this morning…

I ran through MP online this morning. When I can do this, I normally open up both MissionStClare and the C of E’s 1662 MP and use the 1662 ordo with the readings and collects from MissionStClare. Thus, I’m in line with the lectionary and weekly collects so when M and I pray EP together I don’t get liturgical whiplash. (MSC doesn’t maintain a consistent Rite I—hence the English book…)

Neither of these sources had the Collect for the Feast of the Holy Cross. MissionStClare didn’t have the readings for it either. What’s up with that?! I’ll note that Josh’s Daily Office site had both the readings and the collects… (I would have used the Festal Canticles but again—that’s just me.)

I know that to 99.9% of Christians this kind of detail focus comes across merely as nit-picking and a show of liturgical arrogance and that’s really not my point—and why I try to keep my inner rubric cop on a short leash. (I’m trying to repent of years of liturgical arrogance… ;-)) Rather, the point is about formative patterns. What is the rota that we adopt or have adopted by which we will form ourselves? Liturgical formation is a process that happens over a period of years if not decades. And I’ll freely admit, these things jump out at me because I struggle with them—I’m always tempted to toss my current plan out the window in favor of the next great breviary.

The real issue and explanation in terms of the online offices, of course, is that these aren’t really liturgy issues or rubrics issues—as I see them, they’re database issues. That is, the best way to set these things up is not to put them in place manually, rather it’s to program your pie (kalendrical calculations) to seamlessly plop in all the right pieces at all the right times. In fact, as I see it, missals and breviaries are materials that exist only imperfectly in manuscripts or books. These things have pleaded and cried out for integration with relational databases for centuries and our computer technology has finally caught up to our liturgical vision.

What I’d love to see is a Daily Office site where you could select from a range—what version you wanted to use, which lectionary, which kalendar, with Office Hymns and antiphons or without, with each possible Office either readable on screen or printable as a PDF. The technology’s in place—it’s just a matter of the time…

The big liturgical news of the day, though, isn’t about the Office… Rather, M has been invited at the last minute to celebrate mass at our alma mater’s contemplative Eucharist today so I’ll be spending my lunch hour with her there—hopefully in the service if Lil’ H will permit…

Busy…

Life is extremely busy and will be for some time to continue.

In the meantime, here’s a random collection of quotes worth pondering:

“The principle literary sources of monastic culture may be reduced to three: Holy Scripture, the patristic tradition, and classical literature. The liturgy. . . is the medium through which the Bible and the patristic tradition are received, and it is the liturgy that gives unity to all the manifestations of monastic culture.”
Jean Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture (trans. Catharine Misrahi, New York: Fordham University Press, 1982), 71.

“The various [monastic] rules were merely so many individual expressions of the tradition. All the ancient monks considered their real rule, in the sense of the ultimate determinant of their lives, to be not some product of human effort but the Word of God himself as contained in the Scriptures. Monasticism was simply a form of the Christian life itself, and hence it drew its inspiration from divine revelation.”
Claude Peifer, “The Rule of St. Benedict”, pp. 65-112 in RB 1980: The Rule of St. Benedict in English and Latin with Notes, Edited by Timothy Fry, (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1980), 85.

…[W]hen a monk is endeavouring after the plan of monastic life to reach the heights of a more advanced perfection, and, having learned the consideration of discretion, is able to arrive at the very summit of the anchorite’s life, he ought by no means to seek for all kinds of virtues from one man however excellent. For one is adorned with flowers of knowledge, another is more strongly fortified with methods of discretion, another is established in the dignity of patience, another excels in the virtue of humility, another in that of continence, another is decked with the grace of simplicity. . . . And therefore the monk who desires to gather spiritual honey, ought like a most careful bee, to suck out virtue from those who specially possess it, and should diligently store it up in the vessel of his own breast; nor should he investigate what any one is lacking in, but only regard and gather whatever virtue he has. For if we want to gain all virtues from some one person, we shall with great difficulty or perhaps never at all find suitable examples for us to imitate. For though we do not as yet see that even Christ is made “all things in all” as the Apostle says; still in this way we can find Him bit by bit in all. For it is said of Him, “Who was made of God to you wisdom and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption.” While then in one there is found wisdom, in another righteousness, in another sanctification, in another kindness, in another chastity, in another humility, in another patience, Christ is at the present time divided, member by member, among all the saints. But when all come together into the unity of the faith and virtue, He is formed into the “perfect man,” completing the fullness of His body, in the joints and properties of all His members.
John Cassian, Inst. 5.4; NPNF 2.11.234-235.

Benedict XVI on the Daily Office

There’s a full transcript here of B16’s remarks on the Daily Office made at an Austrian Abbey. My only disappointment in these remarks is that he seems to address them specifically to the ordained and the consecrated. The steady procession through Scripture as mediated by the liturgical year and the constant repetition of the Psalms does not belong only to the consecrated and ordained—it belongs to all Christians and should be encouraged among all Christians.

Even if the pattern presented is less than the 7+1 offices of the monastic rota, I encourage you to make the discipline your own. Posted on my side-bar are links to Anglican and Roman sources for the hours, both contemporary and traditional. Too, the purpose of this page is promoting the Office.

Lastly, here’s a little taste of the Pope’s comments:

Our light, our truth, our goal, our fulfilment, our life – all this is
not a religious doctrine but a person: Jesus Christ. Over and above any
ability of our own to seek and to desire God, we ourselves have already
been sought and desired, and indeed, found and redeemed by him! The
roving gaze of people of every time and nation, of all the
philosophies, religions and cultures, encounters the wide open eyes of
the crucified and risen Son of God; his open heart is the fullness of
love. The eyes of Christ are the eyes of a loving God. The image of the
Crucified Lord above the altar, whose romanesque original is found in
the Cathedral of Sarzano, shows that this gaze is turned to every man
and woman. The Lord, in truth, looks into the hearts of each of us.
The core of monasticism is worship – living like the angels. But since
monks are people of flesh and blood on this earth, Saint Benedict and
Saint Bernardo added to the central command: “pray”, a second command:
“work”. In the mind of Saint Benedict, part of monastic life, along
with prayer, is work: the cultivation of the land in accordance with
the Creator’s will. Thus in every age monks, setting out from their
gaze upon God, have made the earth live-giving and lovely. Their
protection and renewal of creation derived precisely from their looking
to God. In the rhythm of the ora et labora, the community of
consecrated persons bears witness to the God who, in Christ, looks upon
us, while human beings and the world, as God looks upon them, become
good.