Little Hours of the BVM Bleg

I had a question from a reader inquiring if I knew of an Anglican version/edition of the Little Hours of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I’m occasionally intrigued by the Little Hours of the BVM and the accompanying Little Hours of the Cross which were often said after the regular office in Cluniac and other monasteries in my period and which would later form the core of the Books of Hours. However, I’ve never delved into them deeply. I keep thinking I’ll get around to them one of these days and just haven’t yet.

I’m aware of: The Hypertext Book of Hours which, to my mind, is the premiere spot on the web for the Little Offices,

Also the Baronius Press Little Hours of the BVM with chant,

But I don’t know of an Anglican version. Does anyone else?

Cyprian on Baptism

I ran across this excerpt over the weekend in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Mark while looking at Sunday’s Gospel text:

Even to the foulest offenders, when they afterward believe, remiussion of sin is granted. On this premise2 no one is prohibited from Baptism and grace. How much more should an infant be admitted, who, just born, has not sinned in any respect, except that, being born of the flesh of Adam, has in his first birth contracted the contagion of the ancient deadly nature. Would not such a child obtain remission of sins with the less difficulty, because not his own actual guilt, but that of another is so remitted? Our sentence therefore, dearest brother, in the Council was that none by us should be prohibited from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to all. (Cyprian, Letters, Epistle 58)

Oh—CG, there should be a way to make the underlined blue items disappear at NewAdvent (linked to above), but it’s a little technical. I believe that a local style sheet would over ride their style sheet at which point you could (in essence) tell it not to display the hyperlinks. I’d have to research how you could do that; perhaps another reader with better css kung fu could comment…

What He Said. And Then Some

He being Christopher in this case.

And I’ll go a step further.

We have to have constant engagement between content and method. As Christopher reminds, at the end of the day it’s method that makes one patristic, not simply parrotting patristic content.

How about Scripture?

I will argue that Scripture is a different case as we recognize it to be of a higher order than the patristic writings. It is a more direct channel of God’s self-revelation. And yet Scripture points us continually beyond itself to God and the person of Jesus Christ the Word Made Flesh.

Content matters. Interpreting the content is a matter of method, however.

And watching Paul play with the Old Testament in passages like Gal 2 or Romans 4—or looking at the entire Book of Hebrews—we see them making unusual (even shocking) moves in light of the revelation of the reality of the Word Made Flesh.

That’s what keeps us Scriptural. Not just knowing the content but following the method to utilize the dead letter to assist us in encountering the Living Christ.

Of course, as I’ve said before and I’ll say again, I think Augustine totally nails method in On Christian Teaching, especially 3.10. That’s patristic content that delivers a key to the method.

Apocrypha in the Daily Office

In case you were wondering, the Daily Office contains:

  • Much of the first four chapters of 1 Maccabees (but none from the other 12),
  • 5 verses from 2nd Esdras,
  • Bits of Baruch 3 and 4
  • Quite a goodly selection from Ecclesiasticus,
  • Wisdom of Solomon gets some readings in there too.

Too, there are the stealth additions—Canticles 1/12, 2/13, and 14.

Thornton Thought for the Day

Do all members of the average Diocesan Conference, or of the House of Laity, live seriously and loyally by the Prayer Book pattern? Unless or until they do, those bodies are theologically incapable of making decisions of any real weight.

In the seventeenth century, individual liberty of conscience was firmly guarded, yet the “opinion of the Church” had real meaning. To-day it has not; not because individual Christians lack integrity or courage, but because they are not acting as, are not being, the Church. Our need is the same: spiritual guidance according to the Caroline pattern, based on the Catholic ascetical theology which the Prayer Book pattern embodies. To attain efficiency, we must either be true to our adult spirituality, or we must constitute a Sacred College through which the Archbishop of Canterbury can exercise total power!

Martin Thornton, English Spirituality, 238-9.

The Scotist–At It Again

The Scotist is attempting to bring forth yet another argument in favor of Communion Without Baptism. Frankly I’m not clear how this is different from his earlier attempt.

The fundamental flaw remains the same.

The Scotist has found himself a practice that he thinks has some merit. So he goes and tries to find a theology that will support it. Is this really the way we proceed?

How about this, Scotist: start with the fundamentals and work out. In most of your definitions so far you mention salvation—but you provide absolutely no sense of what you think this is or how it’s accomplished. I know what I think it is, but you’re clearly using another definition.

Start with that—then we’ll talk.

Couple of Things

First, the pondering I was pondering concerning the intersection of Scripture and the world has also struck the prior of (Chicago’s RC) Monastery of the Holy Cross from a slightly different angle.

Second, go read Marshall on a church for adults. I’m totally feeling him here… As a child we “technically” were not required to attend church after Confirmation. Functionally, we were obligated to go unless sick unto death. It didn’t see to have hurt me at all—but doesn’t seem to have taken in my brother’s case. I agree with bls; some of us are more hard-wired for the spiritual than others.

Diss Selection on Paul the Deacon

I figured I might as well throw this into the mix—it’s a selection from the diss on Paul the Deacon. The context is a discussion of “critical conversations”; that is, formalized, stylized and (most importantly) bounded discourses common to both modern biblical scholarship and the early medieval monastic situation:

——————————-

Paul the Deacon (†799)

The next point in the tradition is the great homiliary of Paul the Deacon. Appointed by Charlemagne to pluck flowers from amongst the Catholic Fathers,[1] Paul collected 244 items representing 125 liturgical occasions for the Night Office. Following the needs of the Night Office, Paul supplied most Sunday and festal occasions with two texts: a “sermo” for the second nocturn and an “omelia” for the third.[2] For his texts, Paul used homilies of the Fathers whenever possible, preferring works from Bede, Gregory the Great, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, and using passages from commentaries or other works when an appropriate homily was not available. For instance, of the fifty-six works attributed to Bede in the original collection, thirty-six are homilies and twenty are sections drawn from Bede’s commentaries on the two less popular gospels, Luke and Mark.

In each case, the source was identified so that those hearing would know from whom the teaching came and that it stood within the tradition. Inevitably, though, some of these attributions were incorrect. In fact, of the fifty texts attributed to Maximus, modern scholarship believes that only fourteen of them are actually his;[3] of the nineteen attributed to John Chrysostom, only one is certifiably the work of Chrysostom.[4] In addition, other material was added as the centuries passed[5]—and included more dubious material: many of the so-called Augustinian sermons added later were not written by Augustine.[6]

In one sense, Paul only transmits materials previously written by others and introduces no changes. In another, he exercises important editorial power by shaping the transmission of the tradition. Paul provided all of these texts with a new and uniform context—the Night Office. Each homily or commentary pericope selected by Paul was newly contextualized by the sermon paired with it and the responsories that would interrupt it two or three times in the course of its reading. Furthermore, he was, for all practical purposes, drawing the bounds of the critical conversation by what he included and excluded. For many monasteries with limited libraries, Paul’s homiliary served as the primary repository of patristic wisdom. While more texts were added as the centuries passed, Paul the Deacon’s homiliary passed into the heart of the tradition and became the source for the readings in the Roman Breviary.[7] Like Bede, Paul the Deacon’s work was intended to remain within the critical conversation as well as establishing its foundation. It is directed specifically to the clergy and monastics participating in the Night Office.

Neither the works of Gregory nor Bede were in any way “official.” They were widely read and eagerly sought out,[8] but had no official standing. Paul the Deacon’s work was different. The prefatory letter originally accompanying it documents Charlemagne’s commission to Paul and authorizes the homiliary as the official text for the Frankish kingdom. Charlemagne demanded the establishment of a purified core tradition, and Paul’s homiliary was an important aspect of that program of reform. The texts were to be strictly orthodox, coming from the recognized Fathers, and compiled by one whose orthodoxy and commitment to the tradition was known to the authorizing powers.

[1] Idque opus Paulo diacono, familiari clientulo nostro, eliminandum iniuximus, scilicet ut, studiose catholicorum patrum dicta percurrens, veluti e latissimis corum pratis certos quosque flosculos legeret, et in unum quaeque essent utilia quasi serum aptaret. (Wiegand, Homilarium, 16).

[2] Smetana notes that there are 151 texts identified with the title sermo, 93 identified as omelia and that the distinction in the texts closest to Paul’s original work seems to have accurately reflected the difference between the two. (Cyril Smetana, “Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Anthology” in The Old English Homily & its Backgrounds, Ed. Paul E. Szarmach and Bernard F. Huppé.  (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1978), 75-97, 78. See the discussion of the difference between the two in the discussion of the Night Office in Ch. 3.

[3] Smetana, “Patristic Anthology,” 80.

[4] Smetana, “Patristic Anthology,” 83.

[5] Migne’s edition in PL 95 is representative of the expansion of the collection—it contains 298 texts, up 54 from the original scope.

[6] Smetana, “Patristic Anthology,” 82.

[7] Smetana, “Patristic Anthology,” 75.

[8] The letters of Boniface constantly request copies of Bede’s works from his English patrons and relatives.