Category Archives: Anglican

A Guiding Ideology of the Liturgical Renewal Movement

I was working up a post on the Kalendar in Holy Week when I encountered a concept that really deserves a post of its own. In thinking through the changes to Triduum (Maundy Thursday through Holy Saturday including the Vigil), I put some pieces together. This is one of those odd insights where the pieces have been in plain view the whole time and stating it out loud is an absolute no-brainer—it’s just never clicked to the degree that it has now…

One of the central—if not the central—ideology of the Liturgical Renewal Movement (LRM) was to shift the liturgical churches from a eucharistic piety to a sacramental piety. That is, instead of focusing on and primarily referencing the Eucharist as the central sacrament of the Church, they sought to focus on the two chief sacraments, placing Baptism alongside the Eucharist. I would suggest that many of the liturgical and theological differences between the Church of the ’28 BCP and the Church of the ’79 BCP can be directly attributed to this shift.

From the perspective of the Church of the ’79 BCP, the Church of the ’28 and its piety focus on the Eucharist in fundamental relation to the events of the Passion. Note, for a moment, the piety captured in this collect, variants of which had wide circulation in the Anglican world of the early 20th century:

O Lord, who in a wonderful Sacrament hast left us a memorial of thy passion, grant us so to venerate the sacred mysteries of thy body and blood that we may evermore perceive within ourselves the fruits of thy redemption through Jesus Christ…

Here the Eucharist is pre-eminently a memorial of the Passion and also a participation within Christ. The reverse is also true: the events of the Passion are understood eucharistically.

Again, from the perspective of the Church of the ’79 BCP, the anthropology of the Church of the ’28 is eucharistically derived with a focus on unworthiness, particularly an unworthiness to receive the Eucharist. The Prayer of Humble Access is typically People’s Exhibit A in prosecuting this line of thought:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

Note in particular the theological function of the bit of this prayer that was edited out of the ’79 BCP’s Prayer of Humble Access: “that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood.” I suggest that this change was made for three fundamental reasons. The first was to remove the separation of bodies and souls which the ’79 editors saw as too dualistic (see Hatchett), the second was to remove the suggestion that the body/bread effected one thing and the blood/wine effected another, but the third—and the pertinent one here—is that “washing” is connected to the Eucharist rather than Baptism.

The epicenter of this theological Change was expressed liturgically in the restructuring the Triduum. The centerpiece is the Easter Vigil as the great Baptismal Feast of the Church.This recapturing enabled the reorientation of Lent as a preparation for Baptism which takes the previous penitential character of the season and recasts it. We’re no longer just heading towards the Cross; we’re also heading towards the font.

Another noticeable change is the emphasis on the foot-washing on Maundy Thursday. While foot-washing has always been part of this day, I think that the LRM gave it a new emphasis and importance as a type of Baptism performed by Jesus on the apostles.This emphasis places Baptism as equal in importance to the Eucharist at the Last Supper, a uniquely momentous point in the Church’s consciousness.

The underlying point of these changes is the make the central festivals of the year, the liturgies of Triduum and Easter, to be centrally about both Eucharist and Baptism, then to portray the Easter Vigil as the paradigmatic act of Christian worship to which all Sunday Eucharists point. From there, the LRM and the ’79 BCP derive an anthropological shift. The sacramental center of this theological anthropology is not the Eucharist and our unworthiness to receive it, rather it is Baptism and our worthiness as members of Christ.  It is from this anthropology that a host of other changes have resulted.

(On a side note, I hypothesize that it would be very instructive to look at the exegesis of John 19:34 through the 20th century. This is the verse where the mingled blood and water flow from the side of Jesus. My guess is that at the beginning of the century, most liturgical exegetes would interpret this theologically as a reference to the Eucharist—see the number of depictions where this flow is caught by a chalice. As the LRM made headway, however, I think you’ll see a shift towards seeing it as a sign of Baptism which is how it was presented to me at seminary…)

In short, then, I think that one of the most profound theological differences between the Church of the ’79 BCP and the Church of the ’28 BCP can be traced to the impact of the LRM. Obviously there are other theological and cultural factors in play here too but I’d argue that this is how those factors were expressed liturgically. The reshaping of Triduum , the pre-eminence of the Easter Vigil, and the representation of all other Sundays as a reflection of the vigil serve to reinforce a sacramental anthropology that plays down a penitentially-rooted eucharistic anthropology in favor of a “higher” baptismal anthropology.

The Daily Office in Lent

The Fore-Office

The Angelus, should you use it, is said through Lent into Holy Week.

The ’79 BCP provides 5 opening sentences. They should be used sequentially, the first serving the partial week following Ash Wednesday and the Week of Lent 1,  changing to the second sentence on Lent 2 and so on.

The Confession of Sin should be a more regular feature during Lent; daily use is ideal.

The Invitatory and Psalter

The use of “Alleluia” after the opening versicle is dropped.

There is one Invitatory Antiphon appointed for Lent, “The Lord is full of compassion and mercy: O come let us adore him.” which should be used for the whole period except on the three Holy Days. The Feast of St Matthias uses the antiphon for Major Saint’s Days without the Alleluias; the Feast of St Joseph and the Annunciation both use the antiphon for Feasts of the Incarnation.

The Daily Office Lectionary appoints Psalm 95 as the Invitatory for Fridays in Lent. Alternatively, the full Psalm 95 may be used throughout Lent rather than the truncated version of the Rite II Venite.

When “Alleluia” appears in the psalter during Lent it is omitted.

The Lessons

Year Two preserves the ancient tradition (as recorded in the 7th century Ordo XIII) of reading through Genesis and Exodus during Lent. Year One’s readings move through the prophet Jeremiah perhaps due to the soul-searching and personal suffering so eloquently described by the prophet. After a flirtation with Hebrews during the Week of Lent 1, Romans is read in Year One through chapter 11. 1st Corinthians is read through chapter 14 in Year Two, omitting chapters 15-16 on resurrection, then moves briefly into 2nd Corinthians before Holy Week. A new Gospel begins in Lent, John in Year One and Mark in Year Two.

Of all the Office elements, the canticles are most impacted by Lent. The Te Deum is usually suppressed during Lent and the Benedictus Es used in its place, save the three Holy Days. The Suggested Canticle Table brings in the Kyrie Pantokrator following the first reading on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays and the Gloria in excelsis is replaced by the Magna et mirabilia after the second reading. Alternatively, some uses, like that of the OJN, use the Kyrie Pantokrator as the invariable first canticle through the season, the three Holy Days excepted.

The Prayers

Anglican tradition from the English 1662 BCP through the American 1928 BCP appoints the Collect for Ash Wednesday to be read following the Collect of the Day from Lent 1 to Palm Sunday. 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 Great Litany should be used more frequently during Lent, Wednesdays and Fridays being most appropriate.

The first and simplest conclusion is best when the Great Litany is not used.

The Marian Anthem throughout Lent is the Ave Regina Caelorum which is used into Holy Week.

The Kalendar in Lent

Overview

Lent is a 40-day period spanning 46 days.  Sundays are excluded from the calculation and, in the Book of Common Prayer, are technically referred to as Sundays “in” Lent rather than Sundays “of” Lent.  Nevertheless, they share common liturgical traits and themes with the Lenten ferias.

Lent begins on Ash Wednesday. Despite being a Holy Day, Ash Wednesday is a ferial day and thus the day liturgically begins at midnight—there is no “First Vespers” of Ash Wednesday and it is technically incorrect to anticipate it on Tuesday night.

The ending of Lent is a matter of controversy due to how one construes Holy Week and Triduum. Ritual Notes (11th ed.) ends Lent just before the Mass of the Easter Vigil (p. 262); the BCP does not say; the Roman GNLY ends it at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Maundy Thursday (GNLY 28).

Due to the variability of Easter, the dates of Lent vary from year to year. The earliest Lent can begin is February 4th; the latest that Lent can end is April 24th. Thus, there is a 79 day period within which Lent will fall. No matter when it begins and ends, the days between March 10th and March 21st will always fall within Lent.

There are always six Sundays within Lent. They are numbered consecutively until the last which is officially entitled “The Sunday of the Passion: Palm Sunday.”

Historical Treatment

Lent is the season most affected by the changes of Vatican II. In the pre-conciliar period, Lent was, in essence, a graded season. the Pre-Lenten period proceeded it (starting at the 9th Sunday before Easter), liturgical Lent began at the First Sunday of Lent although the full penitential practices began a few days earlier on Ash Wednesday, and penitence was intensified at Passion Sunday which occurred on  the Fifth Sunday of Lent. Passiontide encompassed the last two weeks of Lent, the last week being Holy Week, concluding with the Triduum. (I will treat Holy Week and Triduum separately from Lent.)

In the immediately pre-conciliar Roman kalendar, the Sundays of Lent were of the first class, meaning that no observances or commemorations were permitted—the liturgical focus was entirely on Lent. The Sundays were (SBH):

  • Invocabit: First Sunday (or Quadragesima)/Lent 1
  • Reminiscere: Second Sunday/Lent 2
  • Oculi: Third Sunday/Lent 3
  • Laetare: Fourth Sunday/Lent 4
  • Judica: Passion Sunday/Lent 5
  • Palmarum: Sixth Sunday/Palm Sunday

The Fourth Sunday, Laetare (Rejoice), was the Rose Sunday, a day of penitential lessening before the on-set of Passiontide.

Leaving Holy Week aside, the ferial days of Lent were liturgically of the third class, meaning that they outranked any third class feasts; feasts would be commemorated rather than celebrated. First and second class feasts would be celebrated but the feria would receive a commemoration.

The prior Pian kalendar rules from the turn of the 20th century, still observed by those who use the Anglican Breviary, legislated that weekdays in Lent were Greater Non-Privileged Ferias meaning that they superseded Simple feasts. While the ferias gave way to feasts from Semidoubles on up, a commemoration of the feria was required.

Thus the temporal days within Lent fell into the following categories; rank/order of precedence is per Ritual Notes:

Rank Class Days
6 Sundays, 1st Class The Sundays of Lent
7 Feria, 1st Class Ash Wednesday
22 Feria, 3rd Class Weekdays in Lent

Current Status

Vatican II and the ’79 BCP put a very heavy emphasis on Lent’s early function as a preparation for Baptism. Theologically, the “grading” qualities of Lent were abolished. Liturgically, this meant the Pre-Lenten period disappeared, and Passion Sunday was collapsed into Palm Sunday.

The ’79 BCP does not differentiate the Sundays in Lent from other Sundays except to say that they may not be superseded by local feasts of dedication, patron, or title. Ash Wednesday is placed within Class 3 (Holy Days) and is one of two officially appointed fasts. The notes indicate that “Feasts appointed on fixed days in the Calendar do not take precedence of Ash Wednesday” (p. 17). The ferias of Lent are found in Class 4 (Days of Special Devotion). This is properly an ascetical category rather than a liturgical one; the instructions state: “The following days are observed by special acts of discipline and self-denial…Ash Wednesday and the other Weekdays of Lent…except for the feast of the Annunciation” (p. 17). The liturgical impact of these dates is not addressed.

The motu proprio on the kalendar following Vatican II, General Norms for the Liturgical Year (GNLY), make the Roman position a bit more clear.  As in the ’79 BCP, the Sundays of Lent have precedent over any other solemnity or feast (GNLY 5) which are equivalent to the BCP’s Classes 2 and 3. Ash Wednesday has precedence over any other celebration which could fall on this day (GNLY 16.1). All of the other weekdays of Lent have precedence over obligatory memorials (GNLY 16.3) which are equivalent to the BCP’s Class 5.

The order of precedence established in the GNLY 59 is:

Rank Class Days
2b I The Sundays of Lent
2c I Ash Wednesday
9c II Weekdays in Lent

Liturgical Days within Lent

Holy Days

There are 2 Holy Days that may fall within Lent and 1 that will always fall in Lent:

Date Class Feast DL Notes
Feb 24 Major Feast (3b) St Matthias the Apostle f Usually falls in Lent; may be in occurrence with Ash Wednesday
Mar 19 Major Feast (3b) St Joseph A Always falls in Lent
Mar 25 Feast of our Lord (3a) The Annunciation g Almost always falls in Lent

The Annunciation is the only feast excepted from the ascetical requirements of Class 4.

The Feast of St Matthias is the only one of the three that may be in occurrence with Ash Wednesday. When this happens, St Matthias should be transferred to the Friday.

In each case, the feast should be kept and, if commemorations are used, the feria should be commemorated. If the feast falls on a Sunday it should be transferred to Tuesday unless this would place it into Holy Week.

Days of Optional Observance

The BCP is not clear on what happens during Lent with Days of Optional Observance (Class 5). As noted above, all weekdays of Lent appear in Class 4, however, this class seems to be more ascetical than liturgical. Lesser Feasts and Fasts, however, includes collects for each day of Lent and states that:

“In keeping with ancient tradition, the observance of Lenten weekdays ordinarily takes precedence over Lesser Feasts occurring during this season. It is appropriate, however, to name the saint whose day it is in the Prayers of the People, and, if desired, to use the Collect of the saint to conclude the Prayers.”

Roman practice concurs based on the precedence of Lenten weekdays to memorials.

Ritual Notes, 11th Ed. states that third class feasts receive no commemorations on Sundays in Lent; on weekdays they receive commemoration only at Matins and low Mass. (p. 283)

There are a few significant Days of Optional Observance that should be mentioned:

Date Feast DL Notes
Varies Ember Days n/a The Wed, Fri, & Sat after Lent 1
Mar 1 David of Menevia d Patron of Wales
Mar 2 Chad of Lichfield e
Mar 12 Gregory the Great A sent missionaries to England
Mar 17 Patrick f Patron of Ireland

The Spring Ember days always fall in Lent. Under the old rules they were ferias of the second class taking precedence over the weekdays of Lent; according to the ’79 BCP they are Class 5 but are not recognized in the weekdays of Lent section within Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

The other saints listed my either be patrons of dioceses or regions or may be saints of title. If so, patronal festivals or feasts of title may not displace the Mass of the Day on a Sunday. They may, however, be observed on a Saturday or any other open day as a Local Feast of the first class/Class 3. Alternatively, they may be transferred outside of Lent.

Potential Issues

  • When does liturgical Lent start? At Morning Prayer of Ash Wednesday or at the First Vespers of Lent 1? I would suggest that since Ash Wednesday and the other initial days of Lent no longer fall under Pre-Lenten rules, Lent should begin liturgically on Ash Wednesday.
  • Should Days of Optional Observance be kept during Lent? I would say that the Ember Days have precedence, but that the ferias should be commemorated. In other cases, if they are not patrons or titular saints, the day is of the feria and the saint is commemorated. In the case patrons, the feast is celebrated and the feria commemorated (Gregory the Great is one of the patrons of the St Bede’s Breviary). If commemorations are not utilized, the saint is omitted.
  • How long is Passiontide? According to both Episcopal and Roman rubrics and practice, Passiontide and Holy Week are identical.

Prayerbook Appreciation: Core Principles

Building on my previous post and the 3 axioms stated there, I’d like to talk out loud about how to maintain a consistent and coherent method of using the BCP.

I’ll confess, not everybody needs to do this… For some this may well be a very simple exercise—do what the book says. For me, as for many Anglo-Catholics, it’s not so easy. We know the richness and depth possible in the Western liturgy. At the same time, the BCP is supposed to be a reformed and streamlined version of the Western liturgy, a revolt against the flowering of excesses that required great and arduous study to perform a theoretically simple liturgy. We don’t really want to go back there—but neither do we want to miss out on what a properly reformed, patristic, catholic, Scriptural  liturgy could be. So, that’s the heart of the problem: can/how do we accomplish that within the bounds of the BCP and in coherence with its intentions?

The first principle must be:

1. Do what the book says when the book says you have to. No omissions, no substitutions.

This is pretty straight-forward. There are a number of items that are simply not optional. Morning Prayer proper starts with some variant of “Lord, open our lips.” Period. Unqualified items printed to be said and direct rubrics should be followed.

You can’t put in your own Creed or Eucharistic Prayer.

You can’t substitute the Confiteor for the Confession of Sin. (dang…)

2. Order matters, and the current shape of the rites should be respected. This especially goes for interpolations.

Furthermore, there’s an order concerning what things must follow what other things. That’s just the way it is—respect it. I’m guilty of offending this one…

As it currently stands the St Bede’s Breviary (hence SBB) interpolates the hymn in its pre-Vatican II place before the antiphon on the Gospel Canticle. However, this offends the shape of the ’79 Daily Office in three ways. First, it disregards that there is a place appointed for the hymn—after the Collects. Second, it interrupts the pattern of reading/canticle/reading/canticle by turning it into reading/canticle/reading/hymn/versicle/canticle. Third, it messes up the parallel structure with Evening Prayer since in the evening it’s reading/hymn/versicle/canticle/reading/canticle.

I think I’ve persuaded myself to put the hymn and accompanying versicle where the book says they ought to be. Which is OK. Having the hymn before the Gospel canticle made a lot of sense in the pre-Vatican II Offices—but it doesn’t function the same way in our Office and even putting it there now doesn’t make it serve that function.

3. The BCP contains intentions about its use;  some of these are explicit, some are apparent, some are only evident through study. Explicit intentions not directed by the rubrics should receive primary consideration. Apparent and the more concealed should be carefully weighed among the other options.

The point here is that not everything in the BCP is presented as law. Some are options or suggested recommendations. A case in point concerns the canticle tables on pp. 144-5. These are explicitly labeled as “Suggestions” but these suggestions reveal some clear intentions about the use of the BCP. For instance, I find these three principles at work:

  • Canticles generally move from OT to NT to Church Compositions. We’ve discussed this plenty on other posts.
  • More Scripture is the general rule… Again, we’ve discussed this before (along with the pros and cons thereof).
  • …But, the more traditional options are engaged on Sundays and Feasts. This should be noted. The tradition appealed to is that of the ’28 and earlier BCPs and thus indirectly to Sarum/pre-conciliar practice. The Benedictus and Te Deum are appointed but reversed from their traditional order more in accord with temporal movement noted in the first point.

One of the consistent push-backs from Anglo-Catholic parishes is a half-way adoption of the morning table. That is, the first option is taken, the second is rejected and the Benedictus takes its place as the invariable second canticle in recognition of its foundational place in the pre-conciliar Office of Lauds and as affirmed in its place in the Liturgy of the Hours.

This, then, is one way that the intentions of the BCP have been honored, but where the Historic Western Liturgy has won out. We do have freedom in this matter, and the chosen policy described here is an accommodation of both the suggestion and long-standing practice.

But that brings me to the second canticle table. I’ve never liked this one, but I may be changing my mind. What’s changing my mind has nothing to do with the shape of Evening Prayer in the ’79 BCP but the recognition that this book (at last) includes Compline. As we recall, the classical form of Anglican Evening Prayer/Evensong was formed by the aggregation of the secular Sarum Vespers and Compline. The Magnificat was the invariable canticle for Vespers while the Nunc Dimittis was the invariable canticle for secular Compline (not monastic, I’ll note, which does not employ a canticle).

The change in the ’79 Book is that it is the first American BCP to contain Compline. (The English Deposited 1928 had it as well but no authorized English BCP has contained it either.)

Whither the Nunc Dimittis? If the rule of prayer laid down by the ’79 BCP is to pray all four Offices: Morning, Noon, Evening, and Compline, then it seems fitting that, if four readings are used requiring two canticles at Evening Prayer, it makes sense to utilize the very same adaptation as above: use the first canticle from the table and use the Magnificat as the invariable second canticle, reserving the Nunc Dimittis for its more appropriate place at Compline. (But what to do on feasts and Sundays—put the Nunc first?)

To back up a little, I’d like to emphasize a few things here about these decision-making processes and what they mean for use of the principles. First, parishes make decisions about their practice. Where there is suggestion rather than legislation, the intentions of the BCP are given a primary place but are balanced by other factors that matter to the parish, in this case Anglican practice and the traditions of the Historic Western Liturgy.

4. Where the intention of the BCP is not clear, if the liturgy in question is Rite II, a liturgist’s first recourse should be to the liturgical documents proceeding from Vatican II, particularly the General Norms on the Liturgical Year (PDF), General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours. More general principles are found in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the declaration on the liturgy from Vatican II.

We’re obviously not Roman Catholic  and these documents are not binding on us. But as far as Rite II is concerned, it makes sense to recognize the relationship between Vatican II and the ’79 BCP. Again, I’m not necessarily saying we need to incorporate elements from these rites into our liturgy where the BCP does not have them, rather, these rites lead us to the intentions that may well be present in the BCP.

5. Actual elements to be added should privilege traditional Anglican, pre-conciliar Roman and specifically Sarum sources over Vatican II items, however.

This may seem a little counter-intuitive after the previous principle. The point here is that as much as the liturgical theology of the ’79 BCP participates in the same world-view as Vatican II, this council is not actually part of our Anglican heritage. Pre-Reformation Roman rites are part of our heritage, most specifically the Sarum Rite.

That having been said, this heritage principle must be balanced with what we’ll call the living tradition principle: Sarum’s great but it hasn’t been actually used in worshiping communities for centuries. Those who use it now (or embrace elements of English Use) are not in organic continuity  with Sarum practice. Sometimes continuity with present Roman tradition is a good thing. Clearly when both pre- and post-conciliar uses coincide, (or largely do), then it’s for the best.

Furthermore, when old Anglican and pre-Conciliar Roman materials are used they must be adapted for the current context. Specifically, anything dealing with the liturgical year must factor in the absence of the pre-Lenten season and the reality of the Revised Common Lectionary.

The obvious issues here would be the Minor Propers and the antiphons for the Gospel Canticles. The second is the easier of the two—since the whole point of the antiphon is that it picks up a line from the appointed Gospel, then a new sequence is required. As for the first, well, that goes back to the whole argument over the degree to which the Minor Propers are connected to the readings… I still haven’t made up my mind but am leaning towards using the Propers as determined by Vatican II.

6. Additions/interpolations to be added into the BCP liturgies should be added where directed, added consistently, added following the intentions of the rest of the liturgy, and should, ideally, come from a single source. If not a single source, then the sources to be used should be identified with a clear hierarchy of use.

For instance, page 935 allows the use of psalm and Gospel Canticle antiphons drawn from Scripture. How to go about implementing this?

The most obvious answer is to go back to Roman resources; the problem is that our Offices use the psalms differently. That is, we read through all of the psalms in Morning and Evening Prayer whether you use the new lectionary or the monthly method.  The Roman Little Hours tend to group several psalms under a single antiphon meaning that many of the psalms have their own antiphons but not all. So what’s an Anglican to do? Fill in the missing sections, groups psalms under antiphons (like A Monastic Breviary) or use a new sequence under a different guiding principle (like the English Office)? In the case of the SBB, I chose the latter.

One of Bede’s compositions was an abbreviated Psalter where he took a line or two from each psalm; in the SSB, I use those as the psalm antiphons when the antiphon is ordinary. Psalm antiphon propers come from the Tridentine breviary.

The Gospel Canticle antiphons required a similar decision, I use a modern Roman version for the Sunday antiphons that match with the RCL. Festal antiphons come from the Tridentine. Propers of the Season I compiled myself based on the Little Chapters of the pre-conciliar Office and appropriate lines from the most seasonally appropriate canticles.

7. Once a decision has been reached, use it for at least a season before changing it.

Liturgy must be lived with. When I say season, I don’t mean a set time. Jumping willy-nilly from option to option makes no sense for a community and isn’t that great for individuals either. So, explore the options, think them through, discuss them—especially if you’re going to be foisting them on other people in which case discuss it with them, then be prepared to live with them for a while before going on to the next great thing.

Ok—that’s all I can think of for now. What are your thoughts?

Prayerbook Appreciation: The Fundamentals

Scott once referred to this blog jokingly as the ’79 Prayer Book Society and it does have a certain truth to it. As much as I love my medieval liturgies, I pray from the ’79 BCP at least twice a day (or at least intend to…).

For Episcopalians, the ’79 BCP is the book that we have. It’s not perfect, it’s not the prayer book of my dreams, but it’s Pretty Darn Good. Furthermore, it’s in the canons. As Christopher and bls have pointed out, having a set text may seem boring to some, but it is also a contract and a form of protection for the laity. Respect for the BCP on the part of the clergy is a act of respect towards the people in the pews. Endless clerical tinkering and liturgical innovation—particularly those changes done in the name of inclusivity and egalitarianism—are simply new expressions of the old disease of clericalism. If the sign out front says “Episcopal,” then the liturgy celebrated inside should be found within the book. This is our liturgical text—period.

However…that period isn’t quite as solid as it sounds. For a number of reasons, most of them good, the ’79 BCP is a very gracious and permissive book, allowing quite a number of options within its core liturgies. “May” and “or” are frequently used words.

If consistency and coherency are to be honored as an act of honoring the whole congregation, of providing what the laity have come to expect and aiding in the process of liturgical formation, are there fundamental principles that we can use to determine which options we select and how we fill in these blanks the the BCP allows? Yes and no.

On one hand, No—there’s no one size that fits all. The generosity is there for a reason. Given the three great traditions within the Episcopal Church and the myriad subgroupings therein, one set of rules for all completely defeats the purpose of the book and would, in any case, be roundly ignored anyway.

On the other hand, Yes—in the name of consistency and coherency, I believe that it is incumbent upon congregations to develop a sense of themselves and their patterns in and with this book. Congregations, their constituent members, and like-minded comrades should have a sense of how they regard the book, how they understand its options, and why they make the choices they make.

What I propose, then, is to think through some fundamentals in regard to the use of and formation in and through the ’79 BCP. I’m a layperson myself, so there’s obviously nothing official in these thoughts; they’ll be directly actionable only in that they reflect what I’m hoping to embody in and through the St Bede’s Breviary and related materials. I’m not trying to set anybody straight or to come up with one rule to rule them all—as the foregoing statements ought to make clear.

All that having been said, I’ll begin with a few axioms concerning what the BCP is that we can return to for guidance along the way.

  • Axiom 1: The 1979 American Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church is a legitimate heir of the Western Liturgical Tradition especially as read through the reforming work of the Roman Catholic Second Vatican Council.

That is, somebody didn’t just sit down and make up the BCP. It stands in organic continuity with the wider Western (and preeminently catholic) understandings of what the Mass, Office, and other liturgies are and contain. While there is a family resemblance between the texts of the current BCP and the classical Western liturgical texts, the similarities are closest between this BCP and the liturgies as reformed by Vatican II. Indeed, both the Vatican II liturgies and the ’79 BCP (and a host of other recent protestant liturgies including the now superseded Lutheran Book of Worship, the current PCUSA Book of Common Worship, and the United Methodist Hymnal and Book of Worship) all drew from the ecumenical Liturgical Renewal Movement. Whatever one thinks of Vatican II—and I think a number of things, not all flattering—Roman Catholics must recognize it as an authoritative Council and, pragmatically, its changes are magisterial teachings implemented in all but the most recalcitrant Roman parishes today.

  • Axiom 2: The 1979 American Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church is a legitimate heir of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer tradition rooted in the original prayer books of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and mediated by such notable ancestors as the 1637 Scottish (Laudian) BCP, the 1662 English BCP, and the American 1928 BCP.

Yes, there are changes, yes, Cranmer would be less than thrilled at our current Daily Office Lectionary, but nonetheless, there’s no doubt that this volume is, in fact, a Book of Common Prayer.

This axiom both builds on and says something different from the one before it. On one hand, Anglican is an acknowledged subset of the great Western Liturgical Tradition. On the other, there are distinctive Anglican practices and theologies (a “patrimony” for lack of a better word…) embedded within it.

  • Axiom 3: Adherence to the BCP is a spiritual discipline intended to form those who pray it into certain liturgical, theological, and devotional patterns that express the Christian life as Anglicans have received it. It offers a rule of life simple enough for all Episcopalians to embrace it.

The point is for the liturgy to change you, not for you to change the liturgy. Don’t mess with what you don’t fully understand—and there aren’t many Episcopal clergy I know who I’d say fully understand this stuff. (And, oddly, you won’t catch most of them trying to make changes to it either. Hmmm…)

Next: A set of Principles moving from the Axioms

Scripture Interpreting Scripture

A number of things have floated across recently including this discussion of English Mass Propers at PrayTell, the appearance of this classic set of Anglo-Catholic Minor Propers and Gospel Canticle Antiphons materials at NLM, and the discussion below and attending link.

Particularly in terms of the discussion at the last link, at Fr. Gregory’s blog, one way to construe the discussion is as the Office either/or; a protestant approach tends to privilege the encounter with Scripture, while the catholic approach tends to privilege the encounter with interpretation. My research indicates that it’s not an either/or but polarities on a sliding scale.

Psalm and Gospel Canticles in the Offices and the Minor Propers in the Mass occupy a particular position  that splits the difference. (We could also throw in Matins responsaries, particularly those of the Temporale but as these are less familiar to most moderns, I’ll leave them aside for now…) That is, these materials are predominately scriptural and yet their function is interpretive.

I’ve suggested before that there are three fundamental mechanisms by which interpretation occurs within the liturgy. Here’s how I’ve spoken about that elsewhere:

I’d like to focus today on three major methods through which the liturgy interprets Scripture: discursive analysis, selection, and pregnant juxtaposition. Discursive analysis appears in composed liturgical texts like prayers, gospel antiphons, proper prefaces, hymns and homilies. This is where a liturgical text explicitly makes an interpretive move—often applying some point from a Scriptural text to the congregation in a moral or typological sense. Examples of this  include the Proper Preface and Benedictions from the Leofric Missal:

From the Proper Preface for Lent I:

…through Jesus Christ our Lord who, for a period of forty days and nights, dedicated this fast—but without hungering. Afterwards he did hunger, not for the food of humans, but their salvation; nor did he lust after dishes of worldly foods, but desired more the sanctification of souls. For his food is the redemption of the people, his food is the complete devotion of a good will. It is he who teaches us not to work for bread alone from which one receives transitory sustenance but it is he himself from which one receives the lesson of the divine Scriptures. Through whom…

(Missal of Robert of Jumièges & the Leofric Missal)

From the Benedictions for Lent I:

May the Omnipotent God bless you (pl.), he who consecrated for the fast the number forty through Moses and Elijah and likewise our mediator [Christ], and grant you (pl) accordingly to steward this present life like the denarius received from the master of the household as a reward, traversing through to the forgiveness of all sins and to the glorious resurrection with all of the saints. Amen.

And may he give you (pl.) the spiritual power of the invincible weapons [cf. 2 Cor 6:7]—which is the example of the Lord—that you may mightily subdue the exceedingly keen temptations of the ancient enemy. Amen.

In him in whom a man may not live on bread alone, but in all the words that proceed from his mouth receive spiritual food, through the observation of this fast and the example of other good works, may we be worthy to attain to the imperishable crown of glory. Amen.

(Leofric Missal)

Homilies clearly fall into this category even though we don’t always consider them as textual elements of liturgies.

Selection is a broad category that ranges from highlighting individual verses—say, for use as Little Chapters at Vespers or Lauds—to identifying large chunks of text as particularly suitable for certain occasions—like selecting Gospel or Epistle texts for Mass. Isolating a single verse out of a text highlights. And even more so if that verse gets repeated for the whole rest of the liturgical season! For instance, the two little versicle and response pairs  from Ps 90 are repeated daily until Mid-Lent.

Versicle/Response following the Lauds Hymn daily until Mid-Lent:

R: He shaded you with his wings; V: And under his pinions you shall trust. [VgPs 90:4]

(Portiforium of St Wulstan)

Versicle/Response following the Vespers Hymn daily until Mid-Lent:

R: God has commanded his angels concerning you; V: That they will keep you in all your ways. [VgPs 90:11]

(Portiforium of St Wulstan)

The effect is that these two verse snippets become an integral part of the monastic experience of Lent. So, whether big or small, selection makes a difference and alters, sometimes subtly, sometimes profoundly, how a monastic would encounter that same passage again whether inside or outside of the liturgy.

This principle of selection is the starting place for the third and final interpretative method found in the liturgy. Pregnant juxtaposition starts with selection, but kicks it up a notch by putting two or more selections in relation with one another. That is, the liturgy may take two passages from two entirely different parts of the canon but by placing them next to each other has created, in essence, a new Scriptural concept or narrative. Some of these juxtapositions are smooth—like this one:

Responsory for the Night Office

R: Hide your alms in the bosom of the poor and [the alms] will pray for you to the Lord. For just as water quenches fire, so alms quench sin. [Sir 3:33]
V: Honor the Lord out of your substance, and out of your first fruits give to the poor. [Prov 3:9] For just as water…

We have two gnomic statements on the same theme and they flow into one another without a hitch. Others are more challenging and take on the character of a fundamentally under-determined text. That is, you have two concepts intentionally placed together but with no discursive direction as to how they relate. The under-determined character requires the reader and the whole reading community to actively participate in the process of meaning making by creating comprehensible connections. The second example gives a flavor of a more under-determined juxtaposition:

The Introit for Lent I

Ant: He called upon me and I will hear him, I will deliver him and glorify him. I will fill him with length of days. [VgPs 90:15-16]

Ps: He who dwells in the help of the Most High will remain in the protection of the God of heaven. [VgPs 90:1] Glory be…

Ant: He called upon me… [repeated]

Therefore I modify this connection with “pregnant” because the connection between texts is loaded with potential meaning, but the liturgy leaves it in a potential state, not making it quite explicit.

So—these are three major mechanisms through which Scripture interpretation happens in the early medieval monastic liturgies: discursive analysis, selection, and pregnant juxtaposition.

Christopher mentioned below the possibility of a fuller set of antiphons for the Gospel Canticles within the BCP tradition. Obviously, I’m all for that and, alongside traditional resources and current offerings like The English Office and A Monastic Breviary have sought to include both psalm and gospel canticle antiphons in the St Bede’s Breviary.

If we’re going to talk about these antiphons, though, we might as well include the Minor Propers within the discussion as they are perfectly analogous to these antiphons albeit appearing in a different liturgy—the Mass rather than the Office.

I’d love to see a supplement—whether authorized or not (and I’m guessing that “not” is much more likely at the current time)—that is rooted in both the historic Western liturgy (i.e., Sarum and Roman sources) and is sensitive to the Post-Vatican II realities of our present liturgies that offers interpretive Scripture to enrich the BCP. I believe that there have been some useful starts towards this but nothing that fully embraces this scope.

What are your thoughts? Is it even worth the effort to proceed on a project of this magnitude?

Must Read on Anglo-Catholicism

Here’s a must-read piece pointed out by Scott: On Being Anglo-Catholic.

In particular, it points out the fact that a properly executed Solemn High Mass is a literal celebration of the priesthood of all believers, correctly noting that of the 20-some people required only two are ordained according to our current system; sure we can’t have Mass without a priest—but a priest can’t have a Solemn High Mass without us either…

Readjust Expectations

Apparently I didn’t read the list of contributors at Pray Tell close enough; the latest post is a screed against Rite I by none other than Richard Giles, liturgical designer of the Philly Cathedral.

Update

Here’s the comment I left there that I think gets at the heart of the situation:

The case that the author is trying to make is that when the ‘79 BCP came out, there were certain people who refused to accept those reforms. Those people were then placated with an early service where, in the author’s opinion, they could pretend the reforms had not happened and did not exist. These 7:30/8 AM Eucharists thus became the “Institutionalized Dissent” where the Episcopal Church mistakenly allowed the recalcitrant to maintain their delusions.

That’s the argument I see being put forward. But there’s a serious flaw with it, and it’s this—the BCP is 30 years old. The Reforms have happened and the reforms have been deeply embedded in the culture of the Episcopal Church. The ‘79 BCP has succeeded so well that it has almost inadvertently stamped out the venerable Anglican practice of Choral Morning Prayer that could (and perhaps should) happen in concert with the Principal Eucharist.

I’m 35. I know *nothing* except the new environment. To put a finer point on it, I grew up Lutheran with the LBW (Green Book) that itself taught the same reforms as the ‘79 BCP and the Novus Ordo. When I moved to the Episcopal Church 10 years ago it was strictly into a ‘79 BCP environment. And yet I find that I and many others my age have a love for Rite I. For those of us who grew up in the most media manipulated culture ever, we’re looking for something with integrity and authenticity. If I can find that–and a healthy dose of poetry–in the language of Rite I, why is that a problem?

What I see in many of the Roman fans of the NLM and the usus antiquor is the same. The Reform is already in their bones! They’ve never known a time where the mass wasn’t in the vernacular! They are not the same opponents you faced in the post-conciliar years and if you treat them as such you will fail by dint of your own refusal to listen and understand what it is that they are hungering for.

It’s not the early eighties any more. People who take issues with certain ways that the ’79 BCP and Novus Ordo are implemented are not simply knee-jerk reactionaries who want the old ways back. This new generation of which I am a part are looking back at the older rites and materials from an entirely new perspective and that is what many of our critics fail to grasp.

Is This Constructive Diversity?: Responding to Cody Unterseher

Introduction

There’s a new group blog up which looks quite promising. Whether of their own volition or in response to the New Liturgical Movement (or some combination of the two), a group of moderate mainline Catholic liturgists have begun Pray Tell. It’s not exclusively a Roman Catholic endeavor, though—a piece by an Episcopalian went up today.

Fr. Cody Unterseher presents a piece entitled Living with Diversity, Living in Charity. To my eye, it’s a piece designed to gently persuade Roman Catholic readers that liturgical diversity is possible within a given parish without the acrimony and rancor that such change can often inspire; different liturgical “factions” really can live together in peace. As an introduction to Roman readers, it is a calming voice that soothes those who fear social upheaval in liturgical spaces.

I enjoyed his piece and, following the various links, I suspect I’d quite enjoy worship at his parish (hark, a Dearmerite!). However, as an insider, I have some concerns with the picture that he presents.

I have four main concerns which I’ll introduce here, then lay out in detail below. My first point is that he creates an overly irenic picture of liturgical diversity. While he draws a quick sketch of the diversity within American Anglicanism, this diversity is less present in the description of his parish. My second point is that the presentation of the three worship options that he outlines are, in my experience, not considered equal options by the leadership of the parishes with which I’m familiar. My third point is that even this picture of diversity is, in fact, contained within a relatively narrow range for representing the Anglican heritage within the Episcopal Church. My fourth point returns more closely to the topic at hand and ponders how closely the Episcopal and Roman contexts map onto one another.

On Liturgical Diversity

The author begins with a quick nod to the standard threefold division of liturgical styles within the Anglican fold:

Episcopal parishes describe themselves variously as “high,” “low,” and “broad,” terms that reflect both preferences in liturgical style, and degrees of theological commitment to principles articulated during the reforms of the sixteenth century. And in spite of all the headline-grabbing difficulties in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion, there remains a lot of room for positive, healthy diversity in expression, especially on the level of parish life.

He also explains the presence of Rites I and II in our parishes for the benefit of his Roman readers:

When the 1979 Book of Common Prayer appeared, it included two series of services: “Rite I” in traditional (though faux) Tudor-Stuart English, and“Rite II” in contemporary English. Some parishes adopted one, some the other, and some made use of both. Likewise, some parishes adopted a versus populum style of liturgy, with the celebrant facing the congregation over the altar, while some retained ad orientem or eastward-facing worship.

This is a non-controversial assessment of what you’ll find within any given Episcopal parish. What I will raise, here, however, is a point which the author makes but fails to develop. He states here, accurately, that “Some parishes adopted one, some the other, and some made use of both.”  In the first quote above, he correctly notes that “Episcopal parishes describe themselves variously as ‘high,’ ‘low,’ and ‘broad,’…” and that’s the beginning of my concern.

Episcopalians tend to group themselves by parishes. There is tremendous diversity between parishes, but we typically do not find the span originally described—high, low, and broad— and the diversity represented by these factions within parishes as exhibited in their public liturgies. I’ll unpack this further in a moment.

As a demonstration of the irenicism prevalent at his parish, Fr. Unterseher describes the following procedure:

The parish I serve, in a suburb of New York City, makes use of a mix of these styles every Sunday: the early Eucharist is eastward-facing and uses Rite I texts. The principal celebration is also eastward-facing, but uses the modern language of Rite II. And at the evening Eucharist, celebrated in contemporary English, the the congregation gathers closely around all four sides of the freestanding altar. Each of these styles, each of these approaches has historical precedent, and can be justified by sound theology. Moreover, each approach has been adopted for significant and carefully considered pastoral reasons. Taken together, our three regularly scheduled Sunday liturgies represent a large cross-section of American Episcopal worship.

Both the description here and pictures of the parish (look—riddel posts!) make clear that this is a High Church parish. The dead give-away even without the pictures is an eastward-facing principle service. Many Broad and most Low Church Episcopalians would not stand for this—and east-facing Eucharists at Broad Church parishes are rarer than hen’s teeth.

From his description it looks like he has indeed incorporated services of two styles at his parish: High and Broad. The first two are High while the evening service seems to be Broad (gather ’round the altar being a now-classic piece Broad/Progressive ceremonial) and possibly unvested clergy.

Yes, there is a cross-section represented here, but it’s also unusual. In my experience most parishes will strongly identify with one of the three camps, and all of the liturgies will reflect that view. The choices at my current parish, for example are Broad, Broad, and Broad. (This is most evident on the very rare occasions when they think that they’re being “High”—which ends up being a Broad caricature of High.)

One blend which I have seen recently is Broad parishes introducing Low services with worship bands and such. The parish near our house does this as does the congregation where M is at the moment. Tellingly, these services tend to be 1) in two different spaces (it’d be really hard to do “authentic” Low in a sanctuary with riddel posts!) and 2) the congregations tend to be distinct with little cross-over. I’d suggest that Broad can go either way, but that you won’t—and probably shouldn’t—find a Low parish incorporating a High service and vice-versa. And this reality seems to undermine the irenicism Fr. Unterseher describes.

I do congratulate  Fr. Unterseher on achieving the diversity he has at his parish but this does not represent the norm in our church.

Liturgical Inequalities

Fr. Unterseher does acknowledge that his parish may be unusual (and I think it is) and further states that his parish understands all three of their services as equally valid expressions of worship:

Noticeably absent, however, is the divisive acrimony that often attends communities with multiple liturgical styles. Everybody knows that they are part of one parish, one church, one body. This is not the case in every Episcopal parish, and I won’t pretend that either the church as a whole or the parish doesn’t have fissures around some significant issues. But regarding the parish, I suspect that when it comes to worship, we’ve simply refused to buy into the posturing that so often seems to go along with issues of liturgical difference, and becomes so evident in conversations about liturgical reform. We refuse to suggest that one style is more “authentic” or more pleasing to God than another.

This statement warms my heart. If only this were so everywhere… The situation I’m familiar with where three services is the norm the inequalities are evident and sometimes even stated.

The early Rite I Mass is explicitly for the “old folks” and the assumption and hope is that this demographic and the service will die out together. I find the timing of the service to be the literally marginalizing issue here. It’s very difficult for me as a father to get myself and my girls ready and out the door for a 7:30 AM service. When I wake them up for it, I pay for it with cranky tired behavior later in the day. And yet—this is the service I’d rather attend at my current parish. If I do, then we have to go home and come back two hours later for Christian Ed. Why do few families show up at this service? In my context, at least, it’s because the logistics are torturous.

Interestingly enough when we went to the cathedral in Atlanta, there was a 9 AM Rite I service which led right into the Sunday School hour. The chapel where it was held was always full to bursting and I’d guess it was equally split been the expected “old folks” and families with small children. Despite the big Rite II choral Eucharist going on right across the hallway.

The evening service tends to be the one identified as perfect for children and families and (unlike Fr. Unterseher’s parish) has the “contemporary” music (of the ’80’s and 90’s). Despite this conception the demographic that seems to dig it the most is the Baby Boomers.

What I’m suggesting is that while some liturgical diversity may exist between early, middle, and evening services, not only do the groups tend to be distinct, but the early service with its Rite I language tends to be tolerated as a short-term inconvenience (although I note they’ve held on in most places for lo these thirty years giving the lie to the theory that only old folk like them).

The Breadth of Diversity: The Case of Morning Prayer

The third point I’d like to raise is breadth of diversity represented. It’s a little off-topic from the article itself, but I couldn’t help but notice it… All three of the services at the example parish are Eucharists. As a result, there’s a certain limitation of the true diversity of Anglican liturgy at that. In fact, it demonstrates the way that liturgical diversity has been flattened across the board since the release of the ’79 BCP.

I’m in hearty agreement with and very supportive of the norm laid down by the ’79 book: Holy Eucharist should be the principal act of worship in Episcopal parishes on Sundays and Holy Days. However, there’s no law that says that a parish can’t do both Morning Prayer and the Eucharist. From looking around the Episcopal Church you’d be excused from thinking that such a law is written in stone. One of the key treasures of the Anglican Patrimony has been effectively cut from the public worship experience of Episcopalians over the last thirty years.

A genuine and helpful move towards liturgical diversity would be the inclusion of a Morning Prayer service before the principal Eucharist on Sundays. But that’s not on the radar for 99% of the church.

The Roman and Episcopal Contexts

I don’t know that the Episcopal situation described here maps onto the situation that faces liturgical diversity in the Roman Church. The elephant in the middle of the room is the culture war.

Liturgy is all too often one wing in a broader battle, and outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible disposition. From my outsider’s view, the battle-lines seem to be much more firmly fixed within the Roman context than the Episcopal. That is, some of the most progressive churches I have attended have been High Church—St Luke in the Fields, NYC springs instantly to mind; some of the most conservative churches I have attended have been High Church—Mt. Calvary, Baltimore likewise appears. In the Episcopal Church, liturgical preference does not map directly onto the social and theological beliefs that tend to generate the true acrimony that liturgical wars appear to produce.

Of the admittedly small number of traditional liturgy Roman churches that I’ve visited, and from the discussions I frequent on the internet, traditional liturgy tends to travel with social and theological conservatism. I have not met a progressive Roman Catholic who is for traditional liturgy, the use of Latin, ad orientem celebration, and the usus antiquor.  These are seen as signs of the counter-revolutionaries who seek to depose Vatican II. I can, however, rattle of a list of progressive Episcopalians who favor all of these (with the recognition that our true usus antiquor is Rite I/the 1662 BCP rather than the Traditional Latin Mass…).

It is this cultural divide that makes me most wary of the picture that Fr. Unterseher paints. I need more convincing that the liturgical lines in the Roman Church are more fluid than they appear.

Summing Up

In summary, I think that Fr. Unterseher’s piece presents an idealized view of worship within the Episcopal Church. Charity in liturgical diversity is possible, but is unusual. First, finding actual diversity between parish services is rare. Second, parishes tend to self-select and identify with one style or another. As a result the diversity and charity tends not to have to happen. Third, I’m not clear that our situation maps onto the situation for which Fr. Unterseher is writing. Deeper cultural and social issues afflict liturgical change in the Roman Church in ways that they do not in ours.

There’s one more point that I must make though, and it involves my hopes for further posts at Pray Tell. Most clergy don’t have the liturgical knowledge or interest to make the diversity work—and that’s what Fr. Unterseher didn’t talk about (yet) and where I hope he goes in the future.

From just a quick look at his parish’s website, I notice that the worship page has a succinct explanation of what the Sarum Use is and an explanation of eastward celebration. There’s catechesis going on here! There’s teaching and explanation that 1) these differences in worship actually do exist and 2) there are real reasons why they are different—they are expressing something theologically.  That’s got to happen to make liturgical change, liturgical awareness and liturgical diversity work. I look forward to seeing more on this in the future!