Category Archives: Liturgy

Messing with the Prayer Book

Fr Tobias has been talking about Prayer Book changes; the post has been picked up over at Creedal Christian as well.

In my own understanding of the Benedictine roots and expression of the Episcopal Church, sticking with the texts of the authorized BCP is a matter of both stability and obedience that (quite naturally in Benedict’s ascetical theology) lead into conversion of life. As a Prayer Book Catholic I am committed to using the ’79 BCP but I sometimes find my “catholic” warring with my “prayer book”. That having been said, I entirely subscribe to what Fr. Tobias and others are saying. The American ’79 BCP is the authorized book of our Province. It is the definition of Common Prayer for American Episcopalians and as such should be regarded as the foundation of our “lived experience” and the beginning of our pathway into life with the Triune God.

Is the language used by the prayer book outside of the normal vernacular? Does it need to be fiddled with again to make it more accessible? Not to my ears—for two reasons. First, it was last revised thirty years ago. The English language has not changed that much in 30 years. (No…just…no)

Second, as someone who works primarily with language, let me say that language matters and the ways that we choose to be sloppy or precise with our language says a lot about both our action and our thought. I could, for instance, use the word “book” and most of the time it’ll get the job done. words like “manuscript” and “folio” might be synonyms in some cases—in others they mean something quite specific.  It makes quite a lot of difference if I’ve found a liturgy in a “book” or a “manuscript”. Questions of provenance, accuracy, scribal tendencies, completeness suddenly jump to the fore with “manuscript” that simply don’t exist or to a much lesser degree if I say “book”.

Similarly, I see a desire to “translate” “churchy language” as, more often than not, not only as a dumbing down but a deliberate choice in favor of imprecision and loss of meaning. Yes, I can say I’ve made a “mistake”; but don’t be confused that this is the same as saying I’ve committed a “sin”. Different words mean different things. We—okay, I—don’t use “churchy language” for the sake of “being churchy”; I use it because it’s accurate. If “mistake” would work I’d use it—but it doesn’t, so I don’t… There is a distinctive Christian vocabulary that is necessary to transmit specifically Christian thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs. It shouldn’t be used to “exclude” but if we don’t use it then we’re not transmitting the faith that we have received.

Language is acquired primarily in two ways. First by definition, second by context. From Sunday School, to Youth Group, to seminary, to graduate work, many people have defined the word “sin” for me in different ways. But I’ve also heard and seen it in literally tens of thousands of contexts which teach me far more about the word’s true meaning. That’s how vocabulary gets acquired. What, therefore, does it do if we begin dropping such language from our liturgies? Unless you equally begin editing these “churchy” terms out of, oh say, the Bible and 99.9% of English language Christian literature than you are depriving the people to whom you give a dumbed-down liturgy the tools they need to understand the Scriptures and other Christian literature.

Enough… Here endeth the rant. For now.

RBOC: Mostly Ecclesiastical

  • The Episcopal Cafe is reporting that the Bishop-Elect of N. Michigan has received too many “No” votes from Standing Committees to be confirmed. I’ll draw your attention in particualr to Dr. Carroll’s comment: “In this case, I think history will remember this as the point when the Episcopal Church began to show some backbone about basic Christian doctrine. For too long, we have allowed our respect for difference to mean anything goes. There are boundaries. . . . The danger for us has not been witch hunts. It has been an amorphous Christianity that does not adhere to the standards it sets for itself. I could see us tilting too far in the opposite direction, but there is no present danger of that.”
  • Across the Tiber, a beautiful new thing has been born: the Cistercian monastery of Spring Bank has a newly-produced psalter and antiphonary. The news and shots come courtesy of Br. Stephen’s blog which is also well worth following if you’re not already. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: with modern computer technology, there’s absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t have liturgical works that are simultaneously beautiful and functional; this work looks to be a case-in-point. However, as I understand it, there are no plans for mass-production/publication.
  • There are mass schedule changes at Smokey Mary’s. Due to likely upcoming staffing issues (i.e., the anticipated departure of Fr. Mead), daily evening low mass will no longer be offered. I have fond memories of this service; this service (along with preceding EP) was one of the things that helped keep me going when M and Lil’ G were in Philly and I was in NYC.  Even with these reductions, however, a full rota of Morning, Noon, and Evening Prayer and a daily mass will continue to be offered. This is the pattern our prayer book lays down for us; may Smokey Mary’s long be a beacon for catholic liturgy and spirituality in the Episcopal Church.
  • Speaking of solid catholic liturgy and spirituality, I’m still reading Martin Thornton’s Christian Proficiency. I understand less and less why Morehouse (now a division of Church Publishing) who holds the copyright has let this gem go out of print. What a shame.
  • Dissertation feedback is trickling in from my readers. Looks like some minor but no major changes will be required. Fr. Director is talking about a late August/Early September defense date.

Provisional Explanations: the Purpose and Effects of Liturgy

The thread below has turned to the purpose of worship and especially frequent reception of the Eucharist—what’s it all for anyways?

To push the discussion along, I thought I’d post something that I’m doing elsewhere that connects to part of this question. That is, it fusses with worship and liturgy, but not necessarily the Sacraments. Yet. So, critique away…

The Purpose of Liturgy

Worship grounds our experience of the life hid with Christ in God.

Q. What is corporate worship?
A. In corporate worship, we unite ourselves with others to acknowledge the holiness of God, to hear God’s Word, to offer prayer, and to celebrate the sacraments.
BCP, p. 857

Dearly beloved, we have come together in the presence of Almighty God our heavenly Father,

    to render thanks for the great benefits we have received at his hands,
    to set forth his most worthy praise,
    to hear his holy Word,
    and to ask, for ourselves and on behalf of others, those things that are necessary for our life and our salvation.

BCP, Morning Prayer: Rite I, p. 41

Our Life and Salvation

Salvation and the embrace of the kingdom of God is at the heart of the Christian life and experience. But how do we define “salvation”? All too often, it seems, our culture tends to equate Christian salvation with “going to heaven”. While this answer is not completely wrong, neither is it right and in choosing to answer this way, perhaps the most important facets of Christian salvation are lost.

What does it mean to be saved?

In the New Testament, one of the words most commonly used to discuss the Christian end/goal is the word “abide”. The Gospel and Letters of John in particular use it, but it is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. To abide, we in him and he in us.

The way St Paul phrases it in Colossians has especially captured my mind and heart. Speaking of Baptism, he writes, “For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” (Col 3:4).

This is what it means to be “saved”—to be hid with Christ in God. To be invited, through Baptism, to participate in the very life of God, to abide in and with the mystery of love who abides at the heart of creation, who loves each of us individual, who cares enough to take on our frail flesh, live and give his very life for each one of us. The abiding happens once we shuffle off this mortal coil—and in that sense I’ll agree that salvation is connected to “heaven”, the abode (hey, there’s that word ‘abide’ again…”) of God “after we die”. But more important is the invitation into God’s own life.

It doesn’t start once we’re dead.

It starts here. Now. We get to live it. Here. Now. Waiting ’til you’re dead means missing God’s party here and now.

Worship

Christian worship—Christian liturgy—is one of the ways that we open ourselves to the mystery of what this abiding/hiding means.

You see, I can’t really explain what it means to be “hid with Christ in God”. Words fail me. And that’s ok. Christian worship—when done well and with full, intentional engagement—is one of our great clues to teach us, to show us, to connect us to what it means to be hid with Christ in God.

Worship gives us the experiences, the sounds, smells, and tastes that we use to recognize, to remember, and to enact our on-going relationship with God when we’re outside of worship as well. It’s like an answer key that gets tattooed into our movements and feelings as well as our thoughts that help us decode the crazy world we find ourselves in—and to find even in the midst of it all the compassion, the love, of the God who created it all, who loves it all, and who waits for us to embrace our life in him.

The Effects of the Liturgy

Worship is habit-forming: it directs our affections and creates an ethos.

Worship is habit-forming…

Note, first, the choice of the verb: is. I’m not saying that it can be, that it may be, or that it should be habit-forming. It is habit-forming. Whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not, it simply is the case. Whether it’s sublime, inspiring, energizing, mediocre or down-right poor, the worship we experience will shape how we understand and experience the Christian faith. And let’s face it: there’s a lot of mediocrity out there. I can’t help but think that it has an effect on our churches and on our lives.

So if worship is going to form and shape us, we as active Christians need to 1) be informed about what the liturgy is, 2) where it came from and 3) be aware of how it shapes us. From a big pictureperspective, I’m going to identify the how under two major concepts: Affections and Ethos.

The Religious Affections

“Affections” isn’t a word we hear a lot, especially in the sense in which I’m using it. Thus, it requires a bit of explanation.

Religious language is often feeling language. We use emotional language to talk about our relationship with God and one another. Even our main virtues like “love” and “hope” have a feeling nature to them. And yet, emotions tend to be both spontaneous and transitory things. Love wells up, hope springs new—but then they go away again. Or, anger springs up in us, often unbidden.

Using the term “affections” is a way to talk about attitudes, orientations, ways of being in the world that relate to emotion or emotional states but are broader and deeper than the transitory surface feelings that we might have. Affections are complex constellations of feelings and thoughts that seek to pattern our lives and train us in certain actions.

Thus when Christians use words like “faith”, “hope”, “love”, “joy”, “expectation”, “penitence” we’re not just talking about emotions that may come or not come—we’re talking about affections. About ways of being undergirded by rational thought that shape how we act.

When affections and emotions get confused,we can start haviung problems. Worship can be seen as a means of manipulating emotions—whether through inculcating fear or else passing off a false fleeting joy as “real” Christian emotion. Both of these emotional extremes distort the message of love, hope, and joy in the Gospel and cause more harm than good.

The historic liturgy of the Church seeks to pattern people into the affections. This occurs preeminently through the seasons of the Church Year. I’ll say more about this later when I discuss the Church Year, but the major seasons show us the shapes and boundaries of the affections and help us try them on, make them part of our habits of living.

Instilling an Ethos

Where we participate in corporate worship has a major effect on our experience of the Christian life with God and thus shapes our theology and spirituality.

The ethos or “character” of a place is a combination of factors. It seems to me that a classic description of the English Anglo-Catholic stronghold, All Saints Margaret Street is one attempt to define a community’s ethos:

Music by Mozart, Decor by Comper; Choreography by Fortescue; but, my dear boy, libretto by Cranmer.

It’s fair to say that an ethos is a combination of:

  • Architecture
  • Music
  • Ceremonial
  • Liturgy
  • Decoration
  • Attitude and Execution of the Liturgy by the Clergy
  • Attitude and Execution of the Liturgy by the Congregation

The last two cannot be overlooked. Reverent, pompous, attentive, energetic, bored, sloppy: it’s remarkable how one community can project a completely different ethos from another even when many of the other elements are the same.

After hearing and participating in “worship wars” for well over a decade, I’ve come to the conclusion that most conflict is about ethos. Such discussions often fail by being too narrowly focused. That is, people argue over music, liturgy, and ceremonial. But more often I think what they really intend is the over-all package and the elements don’t—and can’t—create the whole ethos.

Anglican Gradual & Sacramentary Revisited

Prompted by some of my thinking on the place of the Lesser Propers in Anglican worship and due to a thread on the Ship, I took another look today at the Anglican Gradual & Sacramentary,

I come away with three convictions on the matter:

  1. The author put an awful lot of hard work into it.
  2. It is (as the author/editor states) an idiosyncratic work. Were I to have done it I would have made some different choices and would have followed them through in a different manner. Nothing necessarily against the work there—I’d just do it different.
  3. The one overt critique I will make is, the format chosen is a serious issue. While I recognize the desired output, a set of Word/PDF docs is simply not the technology to use for this kind of project.

Liturgical Renewal: Mass Propers

In the Roman Use

One of the major emphases in the current Roman “Reform of the Reform” is the move to replace the Chant Propers into their correct place. A quick review is in order here. Following the handy “Division of the Mass” in my (1962) Roman Missal, there are nine variable parts or propers in the Mass:

  1. The Introit
  2. The Collects
  3. The Epistle
  4. The Gradual
  5. The Gospel
  6. The Offertory Verse
  7. The Secrets (offering prayers over the gifts just before the Canon)
  8. The Communion Verse
  9. The Postcommunion prayers

I’ve bolded the sungpropers. Note: there are no hymns in this line-up. Classically, hymns weren’t sung at Mass—they belonged in the Office. Thus, the items sung at Mass were the chant propers. After Vatican II, the use of the chant propers diminished and vernacular hymnody was introduced. The Roman Gradual (where these propers are found) was never officially translated into vernaculars that I know of. Certainly, there has never been an authorized English translation. This was a kiss of death in the post-conciliar years. As a result, many Roman Catholics today don’t know that these exist and are the normative forms of music to be used at Mass. Hence the efforts by the Reform of the Reform.

I want to make two points here:

  • The Chant Propers have always been and are now part of the historic Western liturgy.
  • The Chant Propers for the Temporal cycle are all drawn exclusively from Scripture.   (I don’t know if that’s the case for the Sanctoral cycle)

In the Anglican Use

Clearly the early BCPs simplified the Roman Mass. However, of these four sung propers, only one—the Gradual—was dropped by the 1549 BCP. The others were transformed:

  1. The Introit was a whole or a section of a psalm (rather than the Antiphon/Ps Verse/Antiphon/Gloria Patria/Antiphon pattern of the Roamn Rite) appointed for all Sundays and major days along with the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel.
  2. The Offertory was no longer “proper” and a list from which one to be chosen was given. These were now exhortations to give money, rather then Scriptures for meditation tying in with the meaning of the season or mass.
  3. The Communion also became a list of Scriptural sentences from which one was to be chosen. These too tended towards moral exhortation.

The 1552 book dropped all but the Offertory sentence. While Elizabeth’s 1559 book allowed the rite to start with a hymn or metrical psalm, none were appointed. The concept of the introit was preserved; the texts were not.

The High Church party would sometimes smuggle the chant propers back in when they could and, sure enough, inclusion of the chant propers, is one of the key points of the Anglican Missal and its relatives.

The American BCPs and the current book do not include these propers. However:

  1. We have a “hymn, psalm, or anthem” opening the service
  2. The Psalm in the RCL and the “Psalm, hymn or anthem [which] may follow each Reading” serve as the Gradual and the Alleluia with verse/Sequence
  3. The Offertory sentence is retained and the option given of “some other sentence of Scripture.” Furthermore, “During the Offertory, a hymn, psalm, or anthem may be sung”
  4. “During the  ministration of Communion, hymns, psalms, or anthems may be sung”

In short, then, the rubrics of the BCP give space for the retention of these classic parts of the historic Western liturgy that would give our congregations yet more exposure to Scripture…

Points to Ponder

  • If many of our great liturgical stride over the past decades have been ecumenical in nature, isn’t this something to keep our eyes on?
  • It’s permitted, it’s classical, and it’s Scriptural; what’s not to like?

A few of my scattered thoughts:

Pro

  • See bullets one and two above
  • Furthermore, it opens more (and more interesting) musical options
  • I know of at least one Chant Gradual (Fr. John-Julian’s) that uses the RCL psalms for precisely this purpose

Con

  • Yes, it’s historical and all—but how much of this is about recovery and revitalization and how much of it is Romish affectation?
  • Using the Roman cycle raises exactly the the same problem that we currently have with the collects. What is the true shape of the Temporal cycle: is it a one-year cycle or a three-year cycle? Given the rotation of readings it seems to be three; reintroducing another one year pattern would reshape the answer. Not necessarily a bad thing, but one to be intentional on.
  • Hymns are part of our heritage. Granted, most English language hymnody is not strictly Anglican, but hymns at Mass are what American Episcopalians are familiar and comfortable with. Where would this scheme leave room for hymns?

Obviously, I’m not in any way suggesting that chant propers be made mandatory. I don’t even see them being included in the next BCP. Rather, I’m offering food for thought. Is a recovery of the sung propers even something to be interested in?

State of the Liturgical Renewal

In some correspondence we’ve been having  Donald Schell  recently raised the question of the state  of the liturgical renewal in the Episcopal Church. He wondered if it were distingrating.

I replied that I’m not sure which verb is most appropriate: has it dissipated, stagnated, bifurcated, fragmented, polarized—or something else entirely…

I think it’s an important question but first we must take stock of several indeces before the question can accurately be answered.

  • How do we measure the state of liturgy or liturgical renewal overall? One of the major indeces that people “check” is web/forum/blog chatter. And I don’t know how reliable this is. For every anecdote about an exploding parish with liberal or charismatic or anglo-catholic liturgy, I can point to conter-balancing anecdotes. Meanwhile the majority of parishes keep doing what they’re doing (don’t they?). But what exactly is that? What does MOTR look like regionally and nationally—and how much effect are the ultra-progressive or totally traditional “shrine” churches having on what MOTR looks like?
  • Where are clergy receiving their liturgical formation? Is it residual formation from home parishes? Is it from what they learned in seminary? Is it adjusting to whatever their parish they land in is used to?
  • What exactly are clergy learning in seminary? Not just what books are they reading, but what are their chapel experiences designed to do—root them in a particular tradition or show them the range of “what’s out there”?
  • What exactly do we mean be “liturgical renewal”? Do we mean the teaching and discipling process that ought to accompany teaching the liturgy, or do we mean the tide of thought referred to as “the Liturgical Renewal Movement” spearheaded by Aidan Kavanaugh, Don Saliers, Gordon Lathrop, Gail Ramshaw, et al.?
  • What else is going on in the American religious landscape? Let’s not be too inwardly focused here. A large part of what we refer to as the “Liturgical Renewal Movement” (essentially the reforms of Vatican II that filtered into the mainline protestant churches)  was fundamentally ecumenical. What happened in the ’79 prayerbook was deeply related to what happened at V-II. Now when we look around, a—if not “the”—major movement in Roman circles is nothing less than the “Reform of the Reform”.  You can’t tell me this isn’t having an effect…
  • One generation is starting to lose its ascendancy; another is on the rise. Major sticking points and differences between these generations include their approach and attitude towards authority and their approach and attitude towards the past. However, anything as broad as an appeal to generations is tarring with a broad brush—what size brush is the right size?

What’s your sense? Furthermore, how do we move beyond “senses” and figure out where people are? Or, alternatively, is the church best served by the presentation of a new synthesis?

The ’09 “BCP”: The New American Missal?

As has been noted hither and yon, Lancelot Andrewes Press is coming out with a new book called The Book of Common Prayer. While it is not an officially authorized book of any jurisdiction, it’s safe to say that its intended audience is Western Rite Antiochene Orthodox and American Anglo-Catholics of whatever hierarchical loyalty.

Note, for instance, that it includes the Litany with the 1544 invocations of the BVM and other saints as well as the Proposed ’28’s prayers for the Dead.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament begins on p. 63; the Asperges on 485…

There’s only one serious question that I have about it—what Canon does it use? While the documentation mentions some additions, it doesn’t say to what they have been added. The 1662 Canon has some nototrious issues from a catholic perspective. I mean, there’s a reason why most Anglo-Catholic churches in England now use the Novus Ordo as opposed to the prayer book and in earlier days inserted the Roman Canon around the authorized one.

Well, we shall see. And yes, I do indeed plan on picking one up as time and funds allow.

Liturgy News from the Blue Book

The Blue Book (to be sporting a red cover this year) was released today. For those not invested in the gobbelty-gook of Episcopal Church inner workings, this is the “Big Book ‘o Resolutions To Be Voted on at General Convention That Come Through Official Channels”

Needless to say, I took a quick stroll through the Liturgy & Music section…

Two major items struck my attention, one on daily prayer, the other on the proposed revision of Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

The first item I post here in full given its importance to many of the readers here:

ENRICHING OUR WORSHIP – DAILY PRAYER MEETINGS
April 2007, Oviedo, FL; January 9-11, 2008, Berkeley, CA; May 12- 15, 2008, Seattle, WA
SCLM members: Ernesto Medina, Devon Anderson, Clay Morris
Consultants: Mark Bozutti-Jones, Rebecca Clark, Paul Joo, Lizette Larson-Miller, Julia McCray-Goldsmith,
Elizabeth Muñoz, Cristina Smith, Carol Wade, Julia Wakelee-Lynch, Louis Weil.

The SCLM was directed by the 75th General Convention in Resolution A069 to develop liturgical material for inclusion in the Enriching Our Worship series. The Commission was also directed to develop these materials
innovatively drawing on and reflecting our church’s liturgical, cultural, racial, generational, gender and ethnic
diversity. Recognizing that our current daily offices are based on a monastic model of prayer, the SCLM decided
to focus its work on the daily offices in order to develop cathedral-style ways of prayer.
The nine liturgists who gathered at the first meeting in Florida in April 2007 prayed, listened, sang and discerned
together over a period of five days. Out of this came the basic shape of the project heading forward from that
point, as well as a clear sense that the project would require more time than initially anticipated. It was clear the
scope of the project would be much larger than we had first thought.
The basic outline reclaims the practice of praying the hours. Daily Prayer allows for prayer at eight specific times
of the day:

  • Daylight
  • Start of Day
  • Mid Morning
  • Noon
  • Mid Afternoon
  • Evening
  • End of Day
  • Late Night

In addition to prayers being written for these specific times of the day, sets of prayers are being written for the
liturgical seasons of the church year. They are identified as follows:

  • Advent
  • Christmas
  • Epiphany
  • Lent
  • Eastertide
  • Ordinary Time (Two tracks are being developed for Ordinary Time: “Rest” and “Grow”)

The Rev. Julia Wakelee-Lynch was asked to serve as first round editor/consultant for the project, and a second
meeting with three additional consultants was held at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, CA,
in January 2008. At that gathering, a rough draft for the season of Lent was developed, which was then tested out
in a wide variety of settings in parishes, small groups and by individuals. The response was very positive.
In May 2008, six consultants gathered in Seattle, WA, to assess feedback from the initial draft and begin work on
a broader draft which would provide sets of prayers for each season of the church year, adaptable for corporate,
small group and personal use. This draft is still in progress, as well as a scholarly introduction, which will provide
a broader context for the work, and an end section with notes and appendix of prayer resources.
Our plan is as follows:

  1. Complete the whole set of prayers in 2009 and send to a liturgical proof editor;
  2. Present to the first full meeting of the SCLM in the new triennium;
  3. When the collection is acceptable, send the prayers out for informal trial use in the remainder of the triennium; and
  4. Report in full to the 77th General Convention.

RESOLUTION A089 DAILY PRAYER
Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 76th General Convention direct the Standing Commission on
Liturgy and Music to complete the work on Daily Prayer and report back to the 77th General Convention; and be
it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention direct the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance
to consider a budget allocation of $15,000 for implementation of this Resolution.

Hmmm. This could be interesting. I think I’m going to “receive” this for “reflection” for a bit…

As far as Lesser Feasts and Fasts goes, it seems that we’re going for more of a Roman-Kalendar-Just-Before-V-II feel where every single day has got somebody orther—or several somebodies!

I confess to still being really unclear on what inclusion in LFF means due to a fundamental fuzziness (deliberate I believe) around the Episcopal Church’s understand of the place, nature, and theology of sanctity. If, as Lutherans believe,” the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling” (CA 21.1) then let’s pile ’em on because we can use as many good examples as we can get.

If, however, as catholic theology teaches the saints are the Church Triumphant who, through grace, stand in the presence of God almighty now and intercede on behalf of us sinners then a special kind of discernment is called for.

Or to put it in a way more familiar to our medieval ancestors in the faith, are these individuals who have so imitated Christ that God uses them as vessels of eschatological power to extend divine grace and holiness into our daily world?

In any case…

I’m of two minds on the current state of the kalendar—on one hand I’m thrilled to see that John Cassian made it in. I’m taken aback, however, at the rubrical difficulties caused by the placement of his feast: Feb 29. What—he gets sanctoral honors once every four years? What’s that about!

St George is back (March 23)!

Again, (see above) I’m unclear on the observance of March 24th: Genocide Remembrance. I think we who have survived the 20th century have to be more aware of the sheer numbers of people who died in the previous century through genocide starting with the oft-forgotten Armenian genocide and on to on-going genocides in Africa. But is this the right way to do it? I’m quite torn on this one…

(I’ve also been concerned for a while about our martyr to non-martyr ratio. I feel that they need to be fairly on par . If we’re not remembering that death is sometimes a consequence of true faith, then we’re missing part of the scandal and the danger incumbent on all who embrace the cross. And our martyr ratio is falling fast…)

John Calvin (May 28th).

John XXIII (June 4) ?

Bach, Handel, and Purcell (July 28th). Yay!!

Catherine Winkworth to be observed (or at least commemorated) alongside J. M. Neale (Aug 7). Yay!

Cuthbert and Aidan have been combined—they no longer “warrant” separate days…

Gruntvig & Muhlenburg? Great Lutherans but… Asbury & Whitefield??

Byrd, Merbecke, and Tallis–and St Cecilia’s been restored!!

Some new commons were added including an additional set for the BVM:

The Blessed Virgin Mary

I
Collect: Almighty God, by thy saving grace thou didst call the blessed Virgin Mary to be the mother of thine only Son: inspire us by the same grace to follow her example of courage and faithful witness to our Savior Jesus Christ; who with thee and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

II
Collect: Almighty God, of your saving grace you called the blessed Virgin Mary to be the mother of your only Son: inspire us by the same grace to follow her example of courage and faithful witness to our Savior Jesus Christ; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Lessons
Psalm 34:1-8
Isaiah 43:9-13, 19a
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
Luke 1:42-55

I
Preface: Because even as our sister Mary didst consent to become God-bearer for thy people, thou hast called us to bear thy word of hope, healing and resurrection to a world in need of thy mercy and grace.

II
Preface: Because even as our sister Mary consented to become God-bearer for your people, you call us to bear your word of hope, healing and resurrection to a world in need of your mercy and grace.

No new Marian observances, though…

So—there’s a lot here; you heard it here first…

Canticles. Again.

I keep going back and forth on the whole canticle issue. Deirdre has a nice article at the Cafe that looks at the Song of Judith and reminds us that when singing the canticles, it’s important to learn the stories from whence they come. That is, the canticle means a lot more when you consider its proper context and how it portrays God acting through Judith.

I note (indirectly) in the comments that the Song of Judith is one of the new canticles given us by EOW. I’ve discussed these in the past—especially with Christopher—concerning whether more canticles is a better choice. Following Deirdre’s logic, more is better because we get exposed to more songs that have literary contexts that folks may then be interested to go and learn. More Bible is always good.

My fear is that more canticles mean that we we don’t learn any of them well. In order for more canticles to be better they have to be sung/read regularly and in a discernable order.

I’m also a complete stick in the mud and refuse to budge on the Benedictus (Song of Zechariah) as the invariable second canticle of morning prayer which means that there’s really only one free spot in the rotation—the canticle after the first MP reading.

Ack! Fewer, more, what’s a liturgy geek committed to Scripture to do! Perhaps the Benedictine option is the best—weave more canticles in amongst the Psalter…

Out of the Mouths of Babes

G (the 5 and a half year old) and I just had the following conversation:

G: Oh good, we get to go to the later service today…

Me: Why’s that good?

G: Because it’s later—we get to sleep in more!

Me: So, what are the differences between the early and late services?

G: Well, the later service starts later.

Me: Is that the only difference?

G (thinking): Well—the early service is shorter and the later one is longer.

Me: Is there any difference in, oh say, the language between the two?

G: …No.

The earlier service is our Rite I without music; the later service is the Rite II with music. I find this fascinating. My pre-school/early school-aged children see no distinction between Rites I & II, or at least can’t come up with it at the Sunday morning breakfast table.

Hmmm…