- Took some time off to get away with M and the girls—back to the grind today, however…
- M ran a great time in the Cherry Blossom 10 Miler on Sunday; I ran a local 5K and finished a minute slower than last time. I need to hit the pavement more seriously. The main goal at the moment is my first half-marathon at the Baltimore Running Festival.
- Oddly, one of the things that keeps me motivating with regular running is scanning the news at the Oil Drum. The idea of declining medical facilities as I age suggests that the time to get serious about being healthy is now…
- More on kalendars after other fires get sorted out—there were lots of good comments below I haven’t gotten around to addressing yet.
On Eves, Vigils, and First Vespers, I
I frequently mention various liturgical things in passing and, as a correspondent has noted, it never hurts to stop and define these every once in a while. A classic case is the term “First Vesper.” So, with that in mind, here are some definitions, explanations, and applications concerning the “First Vesper” and how it both appears in and impacts liturgies in the ’79 BCP.
Some Background
The Western Church has tended to sort days into one of two categories: feasts days and regular days (aka ferial days or simply ferias [Yes, that’s not a correct Latin plural—deal with it.]). A feria is reckoned the same way a secular day is; it starts and ends at midnight. Speaking litgurically according to the old canonical hours, therefore, ferias begin with Matins at 3:30 AM or so and end with the conclusion of Compline at around 8:30 PM. Feast days work on a slightly different axis.
Following Jewish tradition and therefore the practice of the first generations of Christians, feast days begin at sundown on the day prior to the feast and end at sundown on the day of the feast. However, sundown is easier said than scheduled. As a result, there’s a de facto “liturgical sundown.” On regular feasts—Simple feasts to use the technical term—the feast began at the Little Chapter during Vespers then would run through the end of the None Office the next day. Thus, a Simple feast is actually a little bit shorter than a full day; if back-to-back Simple feasts show up in the kalendar, it actually creates a little gap.
Example: on February 13th in 1486, the Feast of St Valentine started at Vespers with the Little Chapter. February 14th continued the feast as it ran through Compline, Matins, Lauds, and the Little Hours up to None. At that point, the feast of St Valentine ended. Vespers began as the Vespers for Tuesday, following the psalms appointed for Tuesday. After the opening and the psalms, though, the feast of Sts. Faustinus and Jovita starts and continues through the rest of the 14th and the 15th as far as None.
This looks confusing, but makes perfect sense if you recall one basic principle: the psalms for Lauds and the Little Hours were mostly static; to cover all of the psalms in a week (RB 18.22-25), 1-108 were covered at Matins and 109-147 were covered at Vespers (roughly). If proper psalms kept being appointed for feasts there’s no way they’d make it through the last third of the psalter!
Not all feasts are equal, though; not all feasts are Simple. The more important feasts were referred to as Doubles, presumably because at some point in the Early Church a regular Office of the day was said, then an additional Office was said for the saint or feast. By the time we have extant manuscripts and descriptions of Offices, though, this was not the case. Instead, a Double were lengthened according to their importance. A Double began at the beginning of Vespers on the Day before, continued through Compline into the feast day proper and did not end after None but continued on through a second Vespers and a second Compline. Thus, a Double had two Vespers, one on the evening before the feast and one on the feast itself. (It had two Complines as well, but Vespers is a much larger, more involved, and more variable Office than Compline, so a second Compline has little practical effect on the liturgy’s celebration.
In theory, you might expect that most feasts would be Simples and that the more important feasts would be Doubles. And perhaps that how it was at one point. By the modern period, however, it was not the case. Looking at the kalendar of Pius Xth from 1920, we see that of the 296 fixed festal days of the year, 256 were Doubles of some sort; only 27 were Simples. (And it may be alleged that the psalm issue had something to do with it—the festal psalm sequence used for Vespers on Doubles tended to be a bit shorter than the ferial sequences; messing with the psalms was sometimes the intention!)
So to recap, in the West through the reforms of Pius X there were three kinds of days reckoned differently in the church:
- ferial days ran from midnight to midnight, starting at Matins and running to the end of Compline
- Simple feasts ran from evening to evening in a shorter sense, starting from the Little Chapter at Vespers and running until the end of the None Office
- Double feasts ran from evening to the next night, starting at the beginning of Vespers the evening before and running through Compline on the day of the feast
This, then, is the origin of “First Vespers.” It designates the Vespers Office that begins a Double feast to differentiate it from Vespers on the next day. Furthermore, the liturgies of these days were often different, usually having different antiphons for the psalm and Gospel canticle and having different hymns.
The thing I need to point out now, though, is the implications of having a First Vespers.
In the example under Simples, I demonstrated how the system worked when two Simples were back to back. There was no problem since one Simple ended before the next Simple began and the ferial Office filled in the slack. Consider the Double, however—the longer day means that overlap between one feast and another is entirely possible. And if you have 296 of them, well, you do the math… And then you add in all of the Sundays which are semidoubles at the least…
Suddenly, figuring out which Vespers goes with which day and should be celebrated in which way becomes a lot more difficult.
As a result, the classification of Double feasts began quite an involved matter and there grew a range—from Semidouble to Double to Greater Double to Double of the Second Class and Double of the First Class—in order to properly arrange the feasts so that everything received its due ceremony. Sets of tables clarify the relation between them so that you can calculate what happens if two feasts fall on top of one another (quite common when you suddenly merge 52 Semidouble or greater Sundays into the pre-existing 296 Doubles) or, as happened almost daily, when adjudication had to be made between whether or how you ought to celebrate two feasts at the same time within one Vespers Office.
Example: Consider March 6th. The kalendar tells us that it is the feast of Perpetua and Felicity. This feast is a Double. So, Vespers on the 5th (and the 5th is a ferial day) is the First Vespers of the Perpetua and Felicity. The feast continues onto the 6th. However, March 7th is the feast of Thomas Aquinas—also a Double—which means that its First Vespers is abut to concur with the Second Vespers of the Perpetua and Felicity. What do you do? There are three options: division, commemoration, or suppression. In this case, since both feasts are Doubles the answer according to Tridentine rules is division: it’s the Second Vespers of Perpetua and Felicity from the opening and through the psalms until the Little Chapter. At that point (liturgical sundown), it becomes the First Vespers of Thomas Aquinas. Right after the collect of Thomas, though, is included a commemoration of Perpetua and Felicity which is created by bundling the Magnificat antiphon with the versicle which would have followed their hymn and concluding it with their collect.
Don’t ask what happens if either of these days turns out to be a Sunday, because then things start getting complicated…
It’s precisely these sorts of issues that led reformers from at least the time of Wyclif to condemn what had happened to the Offices, charging that clergy had to spend far more time figuring out their breviaries than preaching the Gospel. We can see many things that Cranmer did to simplify the Offices (following in the footsteps of other reformers frequently) but this is one of the most invisible to modern Anglicans. In simplifying the kalendar he, with one stroke, removed one of the major objections to the Offices as they had been practiced at that time. By removing all antiphons and hymns, the liturgical elements to be calculated dropped dramatically; only the collects were proper to feasts. The Office became simple again—no calculations required (certainly in comparison to what it had been). However, the Office also lost the richness and depth that it had and the connections between Mass and Offices were reduced to a single point, the collect.
Where we are now and what this means for our BCP will come in another post.
Easter Even Update
Triduum has come and gone and we stand in the Great Fifty Days. As usual at this point, I’m quite tired from life around the house and now have 95% of Easter dinner cleaned up.
The girls and I spent the liturgical portion of the week at Church of the Advent which delivered tremendously. It’s a pleasure to see a community in the area that embraces a robust Anglo-Catholic sensibility within the Rite II idiom. It reminds me of Smokey Mary’s more than any parish I’ve been to recently. (And that’s always a good thing in my book.)
I’ve not been near the computer much except to dash off the previous installment on the kalendar; I still have yet to find the perfect Easter image for the breviary—I need to at least put up the adequate if not the perfect… If you’re late to the party like me, you need to get over and read Christopher’s piece at the Cafe. It’s a challenging item that ties together several different issues from a variety of angles. I’m still reflecting on it.
The girls received The Princess and the Frog as an Easter present from my in-laws and I watched it for them tonight. Suffice it to say that American Studies majors have a decade worth of dissertation topics dissecting Disney’s latest engagement with issues of race, class, and gender.
I’ll continue to be more off than on over the next several days as life continues to occur.
The Kalendar in Easter
Overview
Easter is the preeminent season of celebration in the Church Year. The “Great Fifty Days” are established by the dates given in Luke’s Gospel and Acts, and correspond with the forty days from the resurrection of Jesus until his Ascension, then the remaining ten days from the Ascension until Pentecost. Accordingly, Easter is a period always having 8 Sundays, the first being the Sunday of the Resurrection and the eighth being the Feast of Pentecost.
There are three distinct periods within the Easter Season identified by the Church: the Octave of Easter, the regular Easter time from the Second Sunday until the Ascension, then Ascension-tide consisting of the ten days from the Ascension to Pentecost.
The Easter season may begin as early as March 22nd or end as late as June 13th. Thus, there is an 83 day period within which the 50 days of Easter will fall. No matter when in this span it falls, the 15 days between April 25th and May 10 will always occur within the Easter season.
Historical Treatment
Under the early 20th century Pian rules, the Easter Sunday of the Resurrection received highest honors as both a privileged Sunday of the First Class and a Double of the First Class with a privileged Octave. The Monday and Tuesday were also Doubles of the First Class in their own right, the other days being Primary Greater Doubles by virtue of their octave status. As a result, no feasts aside from these could be kept until the second week of Easter. After this Octave, however, the ordinal Sundays of Easter receive no special treatment, being Lesser Sundays.
The days between the 7th Sunday of Easter and the Ascension, though, were the Rogation Days; the Monday and Wednesday (which is also the Vigil of the Ascension) were non-privileged Greater Feria meaning that a Double feast would take precedence but even then the ferias would be usually commemorated. These were solemn penitential days and, even in the midst of Easter, the liturgical color for these days was purple.
The Ascension which always falls on a Thursday is also a Double of the First Class with a non-privileged Octave. The time from Ascension to the Vigil of Pentecost was its own mini-season with hymns proper to it. The Vigil of Pentecost only ranked as a Semi-double but was a privileged Vigil—no feast could be celebrated upon it. Pentecost received the same rank as Easter and therefore the week following was bound by the same rules: Monday and Tuesday in Pentecost week were Primary First Class Doubles, the rest of the weekdays were Primary Greater Doubles with the added twist that the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday were the Summer Ember Days. The Octave concluded on Saturday before the First Vespers of the Feast of the Holy Trinity.
Thus, there were three periods during the Pian Easter where the kalendar rules were in full play, first during the Octave of Easter itself, then in the days around the Ascension, and finally the Octave of Pentecost which effectively expanded the Easter season by an additional week.
Under the rules immediately before Vatican II, the ranks were altered but the effects were the same with one exception; the Octave of the Ascension was suppressed.
Thus the temporal days within Easter fell into the following categories; rank/order of precedence is per Ritual Notes:
| Rank | Class | Days |
| 1 | Feasts/Sundays, 1st Class | Easter day and Pentecost |
| 3 | Feast, 1st Class | Ascension of Our Lord |
| 6 | Sunday, 1st Class | Low Sunday (Easter 2) |
| 9 | Vigil, 1st Class | Vigil of Pentecost |
| 10 | Octaves, 1st Class | days in the Easter and Pentecost octaves |
| 15 | Sunday, 2nd Class | Sundays of Easter (Easter 3-7) |
| 21 | Vigil, 2nd Class | Vigil of the Ascension |
Within the “Rules to Order the Service” in the English 1662 BCP, rules 1 through 3 address, among other things, occurrence with the octaves of Easter and Pentecost. Rule 1 states that:
When some other greater Holy Day falls on . . . Palm Sunday or one of the fourteen days following, on Ascension Day, or on Whitsunday or one of the seven days following, it shall be transferred as appropriate to the . . . Tuesday after Easter 1 [Low Sunday], or the Friday after Ascension Day, or the Tuesday after Trinity Sunday: except that if Easter Day falls on April 22nd, 24th or 25th, the festival of St. Philip and St. James shall be observed on the Tuesday of the week following Easter 1, and the festival of St. Mark shall be observed on the Thursday of that week.
Thus, Holy Days are transferred after the Octave of Easter and special rules are in force when said transference might interfere with other Holy Days.
Rule 2 prohibits a greater Holy Day from superseding Easter day, Low Sunday or Pentecost. No other Sundays in the Easter season are protected in this way, however.
Rule 3 states, “A lesser Holy Day shall lapse if it falls on any Sunday, . . . on Palm Sunday or any of the fourteen days following, on Ascension Day, or on Whitsunday or any of the seven days following.”
Rule 4 concerns the Rogation Days and states that “a greater or lesser Holy Day” will supersede the feria but the collect of the Rogation Day should be said as a memorial.
Rule 5 states that the collect of the Ascension shall be used on the days following it until Sunday and also that the collect of the Ascension will be the only collect at Evening Prayer on that day (i.e., no memorials).
Rule 6 which gives permission for First Vesper services, explicitly forbids a First Vespers for Ascension day.
The Table of Precedence in the American 1928 BCP shows an expansion of protections to the Easter season. It gives precedence to “Easter Day and the seven following days [including Low Sunday (Easter 2)]; Rogation Sunday [Easter 6]; The Ascension Day and the Sunday after Ascension Day [Easter 7]; Whitsunday and the six following days.”
Current Status
The ‘79 BCP simplifies the Easter season. In following the greater tradition, it keeps the Octave of Easter as a privileged octave; feasts are transferred until after Easter 2 and every day is a named holy day with its own collect and propers. Ascension Day and the Day of Pentecost are Principal Feasts but they have no octaves. The days following Pentecost are explicitly those of the next numbered proper of Ordinary Time and thus the collect of Pentecost is only said on the Day of Pentecost itself.
The Sundays of Easter have received a promotion, though, and no feasts may replace them. Indeed, the Easter season as the great baptismal season of the church has received a boost in the ’79 BCP and the practices around it and many parishes again make reference to Canon XX of Nicaea which forbids kneeling “during the Days of Pentecost [Easter]” and on Sundays. I’ll take no hard position on this either way except to make note of three things: 1) An appeal to 4th century practice completely by-passes the next 16 hundred years within which it became the standard Western practice to kneel on Sundays and during Easter; 2) the 4th century insistence on not kneeling was a reference to and was set in the context of the usual daily practice of multiple prostrations—to enforce the “no kneeling” without reference to lots and lots of kneeling the rest of the time seems to throw the practice off-kilter; 3) The current trend in the Episcopal Church tends not to revere the other actions of the Council, perhaps I’d be more enthusiastic to follow this canon if the other were equally promoted.
One other point on Easter is that the ’79 BCP attempts to restore the Vigil of Pentecost, making it an evening baptismal service analogous to the Easter Vigil. Despite this intention, I have never seen or heard of this being put into practice.
The current Roman rules concur concerning the new prominence of Easter and likewise give Sundays of Easter precedence over other feasts and solemnities with one exception—the Ascension may be transferred to Easter 7 (GNLY 7.2). The Octave of Easter is observed, each of the days being a solemnity of the Lord (GNLY 24). The status of Ascension-tide seems rather ambiguous; the norms say only that “The weekdays after the Ascension of the Lord until the Saturday before Pentecost inclusive are a preparation for the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete” (GNLY 26) but fail to note whether this preparation has any liturgical implications.
The order of precedence established in the GNLY 59 is:
| Rank | Class | Days |
| 1 | I | Easter triduum of the Lordʼs passion and resurrection |
| 2a | I | the Ascension of the Lord, and Pentecost |
| 2b | I | Sundays of the season of Easter |
| 2d | I | Days within the octave of Easter |
| 13c | III | Weekdays of the season of Easter from Monday after the octave of Easter until the Saturday before Pentecost inclusive. |
Liturgical Days within Easter
Holy Days
There are 5 Holy Days that may fall within the Easter season:
| Date | Class | Feast | DL | Notes |
| Mar 25 | Feast of our Lord (3a) | The Annunciation | g | Always in the Easter Octave if in Easter |
| April 25 | Major Feast (3b) | St Mark the Evangelist | c | May fall in Easter Octave |
| May 1 | Major Feast (3b) | Sts Philip and James, Apostles | b | Rarely falls in Easter Octave |
| May 31 | Feast of Our Lord (3a) | Visitation of the BVM | d | |
| June 11 | Major Feast (3b) | St Barnabas the Apostle | d |
The Octave of Easter may fall any time between March 22nd and May 2nd. As a result, the first three feasts may fall within this span and require transference. In each case, the feast is transferred outside of the Octave of Easter as stated in the BCP: “Major Feasts falling in [this week] are transferred to the week following the Second Sunday of Easter, in the order of their occurrence” (p. 17). Current Roman practice seems to be that transferred feasts are placed on the Monday of the week (GNLY 5), but Sarum and the example of the 1662 BCP suggest that transference to the next Tuesday is optimal allowing full celebration of the prayer book appointed Eves/First Vespers.
If the Annunciation falls within Easter, chronologically it must fall within the Octave and cannot be celebrated on the 25th.
St Mark the Evangelist will always fall within the Easter season and, when Easter is late, may fall within the Octave. As it precedes the feast of Sts Philip and James by six days, transferences around this time must adequately accommodate both occasions; the recommendation of the 1662 BCP seems solid, suggesting that when Easter is on April 22nd (and thus Philip and James naturally fall on the Tuesday after Easter 2) or when Easter falls on April 24th or 25th (and thus Philip and James also fall within the Octave), that Sts Philip and James be celebrated on the Tuesday and St Mark receives the Thursday.
Some uses have special material for feasts of apostles within Easter, however, not all have Commons for Evangelists (yes, English Office, I’m looking at you…). If such supplementary materials are used, St Mark should receive the honors as an apostle within Easter-tide.
As noted above, Sts Philip and James will only fall within the Octave of Easter if Easter lands on one of its two latest days. In most years, therefore, the feast may be celebrated on its appointed day.
Days of Optional Observance
The only Days of Optional Observance that are impacted by Easter are those that fall within the Octave and lapse. There are a few feasts that fall within the March 22nd to May 2nd window that may be feasts of title or patron. Too, the Rogation Days are explicitly classed and listed as Days of Optional Observance in the BCP. Here are the significant Easter-tide feasts that may need to be transferred or otherwise noted:
| Date | Feast | DL | Notes |
| Mar 22 | Gregory the Illuminator | e | May fall on Easter |
| April 19th | Alphege of Canterbury | d | May fall in Easter Octave |
| April 21 | Anselm of Canterbury | f | May fall in Easter Octave |
| April 23 | St George, Patron of England | A | May fall in Easter Octave; lately added to HWHM, though not in ’79 BCP |
| April 29 | Catherine of Siena | g | But note that most “St Catherine’s” are named for the VM of Alexandria (Nov 25) |
| May 2 | Athanasius | c | Falls on Easter 2 if Easter falls on Apr 25 |
| varies | Rogation Days | n/a | Fall on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday before Ascension |
If any of these days fall in the Octave of Easter and would be feasts of patron or title, they should be transferred to the first open day in the week after Easter 2. They may not replace the Mass of the Sunday during Easter.
Seminaries in Jeopardy
Word has been coming to me through both public and private channels that things are in a very bad way at General Theological Seminary. As most readers know, I have a special place in my heart for General as M did her Anglican Year there; ever since then, I’ve hoped to some day return there to teach in some capacity. How long the seminary will be in operation, though, seems to be a live issue.
Between events at Seabury-Western, the unfolding events at General, and similar situations at other places, we can no longer pretend that the twentieth-century models for clergy education will remain stable and static through the twenty-first. Free-standing denominational seminaries are becoming endangered species.
The very real—and realistic—discussion that needs to happen throughout our church needs to center around clergy formation. This is related to, but is a different beast from, clergy education. There are certain academic competencies that clergy must have beyond a typical four year degree. However, I don’t believe that the core competencies that clergy require can be met solely through academic instruction. Formation rooted in our distinctive spiritual practices are essential for the production of clergy who are both effective and Episcopal.
Some Observations on the Dialogues of Suplicius Severus
The Dialogues of Sulpicius Severus are a fairly little-known work by one of the more obscure Western Fathers. Nevertheless, he forms an important part of the flow of information and theology of the early monastic movement from East to West. When we think Gaulish monastic father figures these days, John Cassian springs to mind; however, Sulpicius Severus played a complementary role.
More needs to be said about Sulpicius than what I will say now, but a few items must be mentioned to give a proper context for these notes.
First, while Cassian used the dialogue form for the purpose of teaching ascetical practice, spirituality, and theology, Sulpicius preferred to describe lives and events that focused upon proofs rather than techniques. That is, his works tended to be stories about Martin of Tours (his main work being the principal Life of St Martin) and other monks but while Cassian used stories to identify practices or to make an ascetic point, Sulpicius preferred tales of the miraculous to confirm the efficacy of the monastic way of life. (If I had to offer one theory as to why modern students of Christian spirituality know Cassian and not Sulpicius it would be the modern disdain for miraculous elements that strain the bounds of credibility. Sulpicius tends not to strain the bounds of credibility, rather he blows past them at a tremendous speed…)
Second, Sulpicius stood in conscious literary relationship with Jerome. This deserves an examination in its own right—there are some very interesting passages in the Dialogues that wrestle with Jerome as a teacher and author where Sulpicius both attempts to cast himself in direct relationship with Jerome but also attempts to supplant him literarily. In any event, Sulpicius was very much a student of Jerome’s writings and if Sulpicius tended to the miraculous, it was a technique he learned from Jerome and his three monastic lives: the Life of Paul, the Life of Hilarion, and the first monastic novella, the Life of Malchus the Captive Monk.
In the literature from the desert there are a number of fairly common topoi that serve as miraculous confirmation of ascetic practices. These include clairvoyance, miraculous healings, ascetics appearing in dreams, vivid encounters with demons, vivid encounters with angels, supernatural feeding, ascetics exhibiting angelic properties, and honor shown to holy men by wild and vicious creatures. Jerome especially picks up the last in his two more imaginative lives, the Life of Paul and the Life of Malchus. In the Life of Paul, Antony is given directions to Paul’s cave first by a centaur (VP 7), then by a satyr (VP 8), and finally by a wolf whom he sees entering Paul’s dwelling (VP 9). During their conversation, a raven brings them bread (VP 10). Likewise, in the Life of Malchus, the centerpiece of the dramatic escape of Malchus and his chaste wife comes when they take refuge in a desert cave that turns out to be a lions’ den and their pursuers are killed by the fierce beasts but the chaste couple are left unharmed.
So—these are the literary models from which Sulpicius is drawing. The whole point of the Dialogues is similar to that of Cassian’s Conferences, namely, how can the life and piety of the Eastern monks be translated into religious life in the West? Sulpicius seeks to establish that this translation has successfully occurred in the preeminent person of Martin of Tours. Indeed, Martin has so successfully accomplished this feat that his signs and wonders surpass those of the Eastern monks.
To make his point, he casts a first-person narrative where a far-traveling friend, Postumianus, returns from a voyage East and regales Sulpicius and his companion “the Gaul” with tales of the Eastern monks. This occurs in the first book of the Dialogues; the second and third books are the rejoinder where Sulpicius, the Gaul and a host of other eyewitnesses describe tales of Martin of Tours and his mighty miracles.
Stepping back from the particulars, Sulpicius seems to be working with a particular problem of place and social location. The lure of the desert is bound up with the solitary life, the pure life. Even the Eastern monastics who lived in communities were living away from the rest of sinful humanity. How, then, could Martin have the same kind of holiness without the physical remove from society? Furthermore, one of the wonders of the Egyptian monks in these early days was their refusal to distinguish between persons based on their status. A bishop would receive the same reception as a peasant; rulers and prelates came to them in the desert. In the West, it was Martin who was traveling to see the royal and the powerful. How could these be explained without compromise?
Sulpicius begins by focusing his first book on three miraculous topoi in particular: supernatural feeding, ascetics with angelic properties and the reception of ascetics by vicious beasts. I’m going to suggest that he selects these for a very particular reason and that in doing so, he is communicating one of the theologies at the root of the early Eastern monastic movement: the return to Eden. That is, the solitary monk through the ascetic process can conditionally recover elements of the Edenic state where, like Adam, he dwells in constant communion with God, enjoys an angelic state of being, the little food he requires is supplied without toil by nature itself, and he lives in harmony with the wild beasts.
As the character Postumanius narrates his trip through Egypt, we see this theme playing out in a number of ways. Section 1.13 gives us a solitary who, through the help of an ox and a well has created a garden paradise in the desert:
There was also a garden there full of a variety of vegetables. This, too, was contrary to what might have been expected in the desert where, all things being dry and burnt up by the fierce rays of the sun produce not even the slenderest root of any plant. But the labor which in common with his ox, the monk performed, as well as his own special industry, produced such a happy state of things to the holy man; for the frequent irrigation in which he engaged imparted such a fertility to the sand that we saw the vegetables in his garden flourishing and coming to maturity in a wonderful manner. On these, then, the ox lived as well as its master; and from the abundance thus supplied, the holy man provided us also with a dinner.
Further, even the desert provides this holy man with the fruits he needs complete with a requisite vicious beast:
Then after dinner, when the evening was coming on, our host invites us to a palm-tree, the fruit of which he was accustomed to use, and which was at a distance of about two miles. For that is the only kind of tree found in the desert, and even these are rare, though they do occur. I am not sure whether this is owing to the wise foresight of former ages, or whether the soil naturally produces them. It may indeed be that God, knowing beforehand that the desert was one day to be inhabited by the saints, prepared these things for his servants. For those who settle within these solitudes live for the most part on the fruit of such trees, since no other kinds of plants thrive in these quarters. Well, when we came up to that tree to which the kindness of our host conducted us, we there met with a lion; and on seeing it, both my guide and myself began to tremble; but the holy man went up to it without delay, while we, though in great terror, followed him. As if commanded by God, the beast modestly withdrew and stood gazing at us, while our friend, the monk, plucked some fruit hanging within easy reach on the lower branches. And, on his holding out his hand filled with dates, the monster ran up to him and received them as readily as any domestic animal could have done; and having eaten them, it departed. We, beholding these things, and being still under the influence of fear, could not but perceive how great was the power of faith in his case, and how weak it was in ourselves.
The lion not only does not eat the ascetic but has returned to the vegetarian state of the garden.
Similarly, section 1.14 gives us a she-wolf who eats bread from an ascetic’s hand and who apologizes in canine form when she takes two biscuits one night instead of her accustomed one. In 1.15 a lioness beseeches healing from an ascetic for her five cubs born blind. He heals them and she brings him the skin of a rare animal as a cloak as thanks. In 1.16, an ascetic new to the desert ate poisonous roots which put him in torment. Accordingly, an ibex came and taught him which roots were safe and which were dangerous.
Section 1.17 makes a deliberate connection with the two great (literary) monastic exemplars, Antony and Paul. Within this same section, connected as it were to these figures, is the preeminent Edenic anchorite:
I saw the Red Sea and the ridges of Mount Sinai, the top of which almost touches heaven, and cannot, by any human effort, be reached. An anchorite was said to live somewhere within its recesses: and I sought long and much to see him, but was unable to do so. He had for nearly fifty years been removed from all human fellowship, and used no clothes, but was covered with bristles growing on his own body, while, by Divine gift, he knew not of his own nakedness. As often as any pious men desired to visit him, making hastily for the pathless wilderness, he shunned all meeting with his kind. To one man only, about five years before my visit, he was said to have granted an interview; and I believe that man obtained the favor through the power of his faith. Amid much talk which the two had together, the recluse is said to have replied to the question why he shunned so assiduously all human beings, that the man who was frequently visited by mortals like himself, could not often be visited by angels. From this, not without reason, the report had spread, and was accepted by multitudes, that that holy man enjoyed angelic fellowship.
Like (the pre-Eve) Adam, the anchorite was entirely solitary, he held converse with angels and, like both prelapsarian humans, was naked yet not ashamed. While Postumanius goes on to describe some marvels in a monastery, he then goes on to recount ascetics who failed. Though he continues on for several more sections, it becomes evident that the nameless ascetic of Sinai is the pinnacle of the Eastern monastic exemplars.
After Postumanius finishes, the Gaul begins to hold forth on Martin. The central thesis of the Dialogues is laid out in 1.24 thusly:
Indeed, Postumianus,replied I [Sulpicius],while I was listening attentively, all this time, to you talking about the excellences of the saints, in my secret thoughts I had my mind turned to my friend Martin, observing on the best of grounds that all those things which different individuals had done separately, were easily and entirely accomplished by that one man alone. For, although you certainly related lofty deeds, I really heard nothing from your lips (may I say it, without offense to these holy men), in which Martin was inferior to any one of them. And while I hold that the excellence of no one of these is ever to be compared with the merits of that man, still this point ought to be attended to, that it is unfair he should be compared, on the same terms, with the recluses of the desert, or even with the anchorites. For they, at freedom from every hindrance, with heaven only and the angels as witnesses, were clearly instructed to perform admirable deeds; he, on the other hand, in the midst of crowds and intercourse with human beings— among quarrelsome clerics, and among furious bishops, while he was harassed with almost daily scandals on all sides, nevertheless stood absolutely firm with unconquerable virtue against all these things, and performed such wonders as not even those accomplished of whom we have heard that they are, or at one time were, in the wilderness.
The holiness of the Eastern ascetics cannot only be matched but entirely surpassed. While their virtues and miracles were spread amongst many men, all of these virtues and miracles can be found in Martin himself. By extension, therefore, if Martin can surpass the Eastern ascetics, there is no good reason why western ascetics (especially through the intercessions of Martin) cannot thereby equal or surpass them as well.
I’ll not go through Dialogues books 2 and 3 in detail here but will make some pointed observations in regard to the foregoing section. Two items in particular seem to occupy the attention of Sulpicius. First, can the active life of a bishop be as virtuous as the monastic life? Second, Can the more active life impart virtues and benefits that the solitary life cannot?
In regard to the first, Sulpicius makes acknowledgment that the purely contemplative life is more perfect. He is, after all, an ascetic writing for ascetics. This point is made most specifically in section 2.4 in the words of the Gaul:
I have often noticed this, Sulpitius, that Martin was accustomed to say to you, that such an abundance of power was by no means granted him while he was a bishop, as he remembered to have possessed before he obtained that office. Now, if this be true, or rather since it is true, we may imagine how great those things were which, while still a monk, he accomplished, and which, without any witness, he effected apart by himself; since we have seen that, while a bishop, he performed so great wonders before the eyes of all. Many, no doubt, of his former achievements were known to the world, and could not be hid, but those are said to have been innumerable which, while he avoided boastfulness, he kept concealed and did not allow to come to the knowledge of mankind; for, inasmuch as he transcended the capabilities of mere man, in a consciousness of his own eminence, and trampling upon worldly glory, he was content simply to have heaven as a witness of his deeds. That this is true we can judge even from these things which are well known to us, and could not be hid; since e.g. before he became a bishop he restored two dead men to life, facts of which your book has treated pretty fully, but, while he was bishop, he raised up only one, a point which I am surprised you have not noticed.
Thus, Martin the monk raised two people from the dead while Martin the bishop restored only one. (This is Sulpicius’s idea of “less power” when it comes to extolling his patron!)
What I’d like to focus on, though is the second point. Martin orders around some domestic animals—a possessed cow in 2.9 (compare the possessed camel in the Life of Hilarion)—but Sulpicius makes a deliberate transfer of the “domesticating” power of ascesis.
Martin does not dwell in the deserts; he is in the cities. As a result, his power isn’t over the savage animals of the wastes but over the nobility. While desert ascetics have the power to tame creatures, Martin is given power over kings and queens. Furthermore, while the desert ascetics can only save themselves and their comrades from beasts, Martin’s effect upon the nobility has the potential for much wider social change.
The Gaul presents an extended narrative that lays the foundation for this. First, he shows the hostility against which Martin contended:
Well, just about the time when he first became a bishop, a necessity arose for his visiting the imperial court. Valentinian, the elder, then was at the head of affairs. When he came to know that Martin was asking for things which he did not incline to grant, he ordered him to be kept from entering the doors of the palace. Besides his own unkind and haughty temper, his wife Arriana had urged him to this course, and had wholly alienated him from the holy man, so that he should not show him the regard which was due to him. (2.5)
Mere royalty, however, are no match for Martin:
Martin, accordingly, when he had once and again endeavored to procure an interview with the haughty prince, had recourse to his well-known weapons— he clothes himself in sackcloth, scatters ashes upon his person, abstains from food and drink, and gives himself, night and day, to continuous prayer. On the seventh day, an angel appeared to him, and tells him to go with confidence to the palace, for that the royal doors, although closed against him, would open of their own accord, and that the haughty spirit of the emperor would be softened. Martin, therefore, being encouraged by the address of the angel who thus appeared to him, and trusting to his assistance, went to the palace. The doors stood open, and no one opposed his entrance; so that, going in, he came at last into the presence of the king, without any one seeking to hinder him. The king, however, seeing him at a distance as he approached, and gnashing his teeth that he had been admitted, did not, by any means, condescend to rise up as Martin advanced, until fire covered the royal seat, and until the flames seized on a part of the royal person. In this way the haughty monarch is driven from his throne, and, much against his will, rises up to receive Martin. He even gave many embraces to the man whom he had formerly determined to despise, and, coming to a better frame of mind, he confessed that he perceived the exercise of Divine power; without waiting even to listen to the requests of Martin, he granted all he desired before being asked. Afterwards the king often invited the holy man both to conferences and entertainments; and, in the end, when he was about to depart, offered him many presents, which, however, the blessed man, jealously maintaining his own poverty, totally refused, as he did on all similar occasions.
But that’s not all… Section 2.6 describes in servile detail how the queen, wife of Maximus, used to serve Martin hand and foot:
[Maximus] frequently sent for Martin, received him into the palace, and treated him with honor; his whole speech with him was concerning things present, things to come, the glory of the faithful, and the immortality of the saints; while, in the meantime, the queen hung upon the lips of Martin, and not inferior to her mentioned in the Gospel, washed the feet of the holy man with tears and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Martin, though no woman had hitherto touched him, could not escape her assiduity, or rather her servile attentions. She did not think of the wealth of the kingdom, the dignity of the empire, the crown, or the purple; only stretched upon the ground, she could not be torn away from the feet of Martin. At last she begs of her husband (saying that both of them should constrain Martin to agree) that all other attendants should be removed from the holy man, and that she alone should wait upon him at meals.
And it goes on like that for a while. The point Sulpicius is making is that Martin has totally domesticated one of the most dangerous creature in his environment, a woman who was royalty. Some of the ascetics of the desert would not so much as look at a women (see Historia Monachorum in Aegypto, 1.4-9) let alone allow themselves to be touched by one. Sulpicius uses this opportunity for scandal to reveal Martin’s greater power than the ascetics. Not only can he be safely touched by a woman, he is able to use it for godly ends. When Postumanius expresses wonder at a woman touching Martin, the Gaul responds:
Why do you not notice, as grammarians are wont to teach us, the place, the time, and the person? For only set before your eyes the picture of one kept in the palace of the emperor importuned by prayers, constrained by the faith of the queen, and bound by the necessities of the time, to do his utmost that he might set free those shut up in prison, might restore those who had been sent into exile, and might recover goods that had been taken away—of how much importance do you think that these things should have appeared to a bishop, so as to lead him, in order to the accomplishment of them all, to abate not a little of the rigor of his general scheme of life? (2.7)
Implicit is the revelation of Martin’s greater power. Due to his power over the king and queen, he is able to have profound effects upon the actions and policy of those in government.
The theme of the domestication of beasts is set forth explicitly in the description of Martin’s dealings with a nobleman named Avtianus, described in Book 3:
You knew the too barbarous and, beyond measure, bloody ferocity of Avitianus, a former courtier. He enters the city of the Turones with a furious spirit, while rows of people, laden with chains, followed him with melancholy looks, orders various kinds of punishments to be got ready for slaying them; and to the grave amazement of the city, he arranges them for the sad work on the following day. When this became known to Martin, he set out all alone, a little before midnight, for the palace of that beast (ad praetorium bestiae). (3.4)
Martin torments Avitianus in his sleep, he awakes, finds Martin there, and sets all of his prisoners free, departing from the city. Avitianus comes up later in the book as well:
But to return to Avitianus: while at every other place, and in all other cities, he displayed marks of horrible cruelty, at Tours alone he did no harm. Yes, that beast (illa bestia), which was nourished by human blood, and by the slaughter of unfortunate creatures, showed himself meek and peaceable in the presence of the blessed man. I remember that Martin one day came to him, and having entered his private apartment, he saw a demon of marvelous size sitting behind his back. Blowing upon him from a distance (if I may, as a matter of necessity, make use of a word which is hardly Latin , Avitianus thought that he was blowing at him, and exclaimed, ‘Why, you holy man, do you treat me thus?’ But then Martin said, ‘It is not at you, but at him who, in all his terribleness, leans over your neck.’ The devil gave way, and left his familiar seat; and it is well known that, ever after that day, Avitianus was milder, whether because he now understood that he had always been doing the will of the devil sitting by him, or because the unclean spirit, driven from his seat by Martin, was deprived of the power of attacking him; while the servant was ashamed of his master, and the master did not force on his servant.
Here the topos is made explicit. The beast is tamed by the holy man.
Thus, in Sulpicius’s writings about Martin, he both envisions and responds to the role of the holy ascetic in Western culture explicitly different from the Eastern model. In the East, the monk inhabits the deserts. He is a solitary. In his solitude, he can recapture the peace of Eden. In the West, though, the holy ascetic is no less a man of prayer, but is one who acts upon the whole social structure by means of his relations at the top. Through the moderating influence of holiness upon the nobles, a “peaceable kingdom” may be achieved.
In a sense, Suplicius tries to pull off quite a number of things here, some of which should probably give us pause. Not only does he translate Eastern piety into Western culture but in doing so, he reverses the monastic approach to the Constantinian state of the Church. While the monks reacted by retreating from it, Sulpicius fully embraces it. Martin by no means holds himself apart but actively engages the machinery of the state at its highest levels, using his influence to moderate the vicious state of the State.
The Daily Office in Holy Week
Initial Considerations
The disposition of the Daily Office in Holy Week is perhaps the single most complex area where the current shape of the ’79 BCP must be reconciled with the practices of the historic Western liturgy. Three major factors are in play here:
- The simplifying principles of the BCPs and post-conciliar liturgies in general
- The shifting of Passion Sunday from Lent 5 to Lent 6
- The renewed emphasis upon Triduum in post-conciliar liturgies
The Offices of Holy Week in the Tridentine breviary are some of the most unusual and irregular of the year. On one hand, it reverts back to a more primitive shape of the Office that drops a number of usual features, most notably the Opening Versicles and the Invitatory. On the other, it adds a new layer of liturgy and ceremonial appropriate to the events of Triduum. The “Tenebrae” services celebrated in many mainline protestant churches involving a set of readings and a progressive extinguishing of candles is an adaptation of these offices wherein Vespers was dropped and Matins and Lauds were anticipated on the evening before.
Due to the simplifications of the previous Books of Common Prayer, the changes and elaborate ceremonial involving the hearse (a triangular wooden candelabrum containing 15 candles) were dropped. Furthermore, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite with its simplification of the Liturgy of the Hours has left these liturgies in an ambiguous state. The General Instructions on the Liturgy of the Hours (GILH) directs that Evening Prayer not be said on Maundy Thursday or Good Friday by those who participate in the proper liturgies of these days (GILH 209). It advocates a public celebration of the Office of Readings and Morning Prayer (GILH 210). Exactly how or if the ceremonial of the older form is retained is left to the discretion of the celebrant. One method is described in Appendix Seven of +Elliott’s Ceremonies of the Liturgical Year.
Perhaps the more significant issue is the reversion to a primitive form. Part of the simplification of the Books of Common Prayer is that they maintain a constant form of the Office that does not change. Thus, occasional reversions to primitive forms as in this case are silently removed for the sake of simplicity. That having been said, not all Anglicans have retained this simplicity and have chosen to cleave more closely to primitive practice; Ritual Notes, 11th ed. provides a model for adapting the 1662 Office to historic liturgical norms while the Order of the Holy Cross’s A Monastic Breviary offers a contemporary adaptation based on the precursors to the ’79 BCP.
The second issue regards the movement of Passion Sunday. Under the previous perspective where Lent had been seen as a tiered period of increasing penitence, the shift into Passiontide adds an additional grade up with Holy Week and Triduum providing the final steps before Easter. The leveling of Lent included the shift of Passion Sunday off Lent 5 and combining it with Lent 6/Palm Sunday. There is a useful pastoral rationale here, namely that those who do not or cannot attend mid-week public services do not go straight from the Triumphal Entry to the Empty Tomb thereby skipping the passion, death, and burial of Christ. This shift impacts the Office as a few reversions to the primitive form had historically occurred on Passion Sunday. Specifically, the Gloria Patri was removed in some places—the Opening Versicles, the Responsary Prayers, and the Invitatory—but not others—it was still said following the psalms and canticles.
The third issue reflects the intention of the Liturgical Renewal Movement concerning the importance of Triduum. This emphasis suggests that changes to the liturgy to highlight this time would be appropriate and in line with the priorities of the ’79 BCP.
Triduum Recommendations
Based on the core principle of using the ’79 BCP in continuity with the historic Western liturgy, I think that it would be most appropriate to abridge the Offices during Triduum for the sake of contituity. The alterations suggested by A Monastic Breviary serve as my main model, being a respectful attempt to incorporate the historic patterns into the contemporary Offices.
Therefore, in Triduum:
- Offices begin with the Psalms (and antiphons if used) except for Compline; Compline begins with the Confession and Absolution, then jumps to the Psalms.
- All Gloria Patris are omitted.
- A penitential responsory replaces the 1st canticle at Morning and Evening Prayer
- All hymns are omitted
- The Offices conclude early. After the Gospel/second canticle of Morning and Evening Prayer, the Lord’s Prayer and the Collect of the Day are said at which point the Office ends. At Noon Prayer the Lord’s Prayer and Collect of the Day complete the Office immediately after the Psalm(s). At Compline, the Nunc Dimittis without Antiphon follows the Psalms, then the Lord’s Prayer and Collect conclude the hour.
It would also be my recommendation to omit the Gloria Patris during the first four days of Holy Week as well.
Fore-Office
The Angelus, should you use it, is said through Wednesday in Holy Week.
Two Opening Sentences are provided for Morning Prayer in Holy Week. Presumably the first is for the first four days and the second is for Triduum. If Opening Sentences are omitted during Triduum, however, either may be used.
The Confession of Sin should be used on the first four days of Holy Week. If opening matter is omitted during Triduum, this should be omitted as well.
The Invitatory and Psalter
“Alleluia” after the opening versicle is not said when the Versicle is used.
Holy Week does not receive its own Invitatory Antiphon. You may either use the text provided for Lent or omit the antiphon altogether.
The Daily Office Lectionary appoints Psalm 95 as the Invitatory for Good Friday and Holy Saturday in place of the Venite.
When “Alleluia” appears in the psalter during Holy Week it is omitted.
The Gloria Patri may be omitted during Holy Week at your discretion.
The Lessons
Palm Sunday and Good Friday use the almost the same lessons in both years. Four readings are appointed; two are designated for Morning Prayer and two for Evening Prayer. For the Palm Sunday Texts, the first two are “Palm” readings and the second two are “Passion” readings, mirroring the division in the prayer book’s Palm/Passion Sunday liturgy. The morning’s Zechariah text contains the prophecy of the king of Zion riding triumphant, victorious, and humble on a donkey rather than a war-horse and presents the paradox of a large prosperous nation without weapons. The second lesson from 1 Timothy includes one of the few instances of Paul appealing directly to a Jesus narrative, reminding Timothy of Jesus’s confession before Pilate. The evening lessons carry a darker tone, presenting another prophecy from Zechariah concerning “him whom they have pierced” and describing the weeping and mourning of Jerusalem. The second reading alternates by year between Matthew and Luke’s rendering of the Cleansing of the Temple which, in the Synoptic timeline, follows upon the morning’s palm procession.
Four readings should be used on Good Friday but five options are given. The preferred morning first reading is from the Book of Wisdom which describes the wicked speaking together, plotting against the righteous one, with heavily prophetic overtones. For those with allergies to the Apocrypha, the other option is the typological sacrifice of Isaac from Genesis 22. The second reading for the morning is Peter’s insistence to Jesus that he will remain faithful and Jesus informing him that he will deny three times before the cock’s crow. The first reading for Evening Prayer comes from 1 Peter and speaks of the sufferings of Christ, exhorting the faithful to obedience and holiness. The second reading is from John describing the giving of Christ’s body to Joseph of Arimathea.
For the rest of the week, Year One retains the use of Jeremiah, following medieval tradition, and uses the second half of Philippians until Triduum. The Gospel is from John, following his account of the triumphal entry and the following dying seed discourse with the Last Supper/High Priestly Prayer for Maundy Thursday. Year Two uses Lamentations, which in medieval tradition was read over Triduum, and provides the opening portions of 2 Corinthians until Triduum. The Gospel follows Mark’s narration of the entry and last days including his Last Supper account for Maundy Thursday. Holy Saturday appoints Hebrews 4 for the morning on account of its description of God’s rest on the seventh day; Romans 8 is appointed for the evening foreshadowing the Vigil.
If first canticles are used, the Kyrie Pantokrator is most appropriate with the Gospel Canticles for the second.
The Prayers
The American 1928 BCP appoints the Collect for Palm Sunday to be read following the Collect of the Day from until Good Friday. While this option is not mentioned in the ‘79 BCP, it seems a good practice in keeping with this book’s heightened emphasis on the seasons of the liturgical year.
The Marian Anthem is used Through Wednesday of Holy Week.
On Transferences and “Open Days”
There was a discussion a little earlier concerning the feasts transferred due to occurrence with Sundays or Privileged Octaves like Holy Week and Easter Week. Here’s a brief historical note which some may find of interest.
While browsing through the Ordinale Sarum for Primum E (one of the earliest possible dates for Easter) I noted the following entries:
- After March 16th (Palm Sunday) it states: “Festa Sanctorum Edwardi, Cuthberti, et Benedicti differantur vsque ad eorum translationes” (The feasts of Sts Edward [3/18], Cuthbert [3/20], and Benedict [3/21] should be delayed until [the feast of their] their translations [which celebrate the moving of their relics and which fall respectively on 6/20, 9/4, and 7/11]). (St Joseph isn’t on March 19th in the old Sarum kalendar—he won’t show up for a while…)
- After March 23rd (Easter Sunday) it states: “Festum Annunciationis differatur in terciam feriam post octaua Pasce.” (The Feast of the Annunciation should be delayed until Tuesday after the Octave of Easter.)
I find the first very interesting as it explains a few feasts that I’d noticed but not understood such as the Feast of the Ordination of Gregory the Great on September 3rd. (As ordination dates for popes aren’t typically feted.) Gregory’s usual Sarum feast day is March 12th. Thus, it’s one of the days that will always fall within Lent (March 10th-21st). These unusual extras allow for a full celebration of these Lenten saints who might otherwise get suppressed altogether.
The second confirms that the English 1662 BCP’s Rule 1 on transferring bumped feasts to Tuesdays and Thursdays does seem to be a continuation of medieval practice.
Evening Prayer and Smokey Mary
I’ve been involved in all manner of business over the past few weeks and it’ll be continuing for the next several as well. In lieu of thoughtful content, I’ll offer up a little gem off the hard-drive. Back when I was dwelling/squatting in New York and attending Smokey Mary almost daily for Evening Prayer and Mass, I took some brief notes on how Evening Prayer was conducted there. I’ve turned to this a couple of times recently for persons interested in the public recitation of the Offices, and have been considering posting it here.
Which I am.
So, if you’d like to see how one parish celebrates public evening prayer, here is: StMV Evening Prayer.
So Nice…
M and I really haven’t been thrilled with the Lenten midweek programs in our area (see below on the “Celtic” thing…). Admittedly, we qualify as a Tough Crowd. We’re aware of that; we have high standards when it comes to Christian formation.
I tried another area mid-week program last night at the Church of the Advent—this one turned out to be “how to do a close reading of the Gospels.” I loved it! The evening started with Stations of the Cross and Solemn Benediction, then a great dinner (where I had the opportunity to chat with John) and a solid non-fluffy presentation on attending to the text of the New Testament. It was such a delight to see clergy so familiar with and passionate about the Gospels. Too, their whole line-up of sessions is a back-to-basics set of topics that look closely at the bedrock of Anglican spiritual practice: the Daily Office, Confession, the catechism, etc. Take note, local clergy, this is what a Lenten program ought to look like!
I’ll definitely be back for more…