Category Archives: Liturgy

Incense

Here’s a good incense source from NLM.

Take particular note of the first comment. The charcoal used is critical. Many people (and choirs in masse) are under the impression that they are allergic to incense. Some of them actually are—but most are not. Rather, they have a reaction to bad charcoal! The self-lighting stuff will work in a pinch, but should not be used for a proper liturgy. Smokey Mary’s smoke room has an electric table-top burner on which they light up regular briquettes of Kingsford to stoke the thuribles there. I’d even go the extra step and get natural, less-processed charcoal. This can be obtained rather easily at places like Whole Foods.

All the hypoallergenic incense in the world will not help if you are burning it on bad charcoal…

Office Music Posts

In lieu of substantive content, I’ll point you to those who have it…

bls has discovered a cool music search tool and has been busily putting it to work. Here’s a first post on Office Hymns and mp3s; here’s a second.

On bls’s topic—the search for tunes that fit the Office Hymn texts—I’ve been intending for a while now to scan and post the hymnal of the Order of Julian of Norwich; Fr. John-Julian created a number of fresh translations and adaptations of the classical material and fit them to traditional tunes in square notation chant. Unfortunately, every time I think I have time to start on it something else intervenes…

Fr. Chris offers up a good review of this attractive—yet pricey—book.

Maybe if we beg nicely, Scott and others will add their wisdom to this topic as well…

Future Pointers

AKMA is quite right as usual: technology is proceeding apace–we need to be informed about the change and be intentional about discovering both its promises and perils.

An example of how we can use these technologies is this site on liturgy and liturgical spirituality with a monastic bent from New Zealand. The Rev. Bosco Peters has put together a strong site with a growing number of resources. This is the kind of site that I think is at the forefront of what is emerging and is representative of what some have called “blog-level ecumenism”; looking it over I wasn’t immediately clear whether it was Anglican or Catholic or liturgical protestant—and that’s not a bad thing. In touch with the Tradition, liturgical, spiritual with a monastic grounding, yet engaged with contemporary realities for the sake of proclaiming the Gospel with power and integrity in our local times and places.

I’d include Full Homely Divinity in the same category…

Sarum Office Hymns

I took a walk on the wild side of M’s hymnal collection. Poking through them I found a 1904 edition of Hymns Ancient & Modern (which I’m 99% sure was a gift from the Lutheran Zephyr). This was the edition that was roundly mocked at the time of its publication for its attempt to be too “historical.” (IIRC, Percy Dearmer was in on this edition but I don’t see the editors listed.) In the front is a table of “Sarum Office Hymns”; happily, the entire contents of this volume are posted online at Oremus.org. [Update: Or not. It seems some hymns had to be removed for reasons of copyright.]

Here is the list of Office Hymns as they appear in the front of Hymns Ancient & Modern, 2nd Ed., 1904. The hyperlink will take you to where the English text ought to be at Oremus.

Warning: Many of these files no longer exist on the Oremus server. Furthermore, the links that are active will begin playing a midi version of the hymn when you open it.

Table of Ancient English Office Hymns*

Advent
43 Creator of the starry height (Conditor alme siderum) E.**
44 O Word, that goest forth on high (Verbum supernum prodiens) M.
45 Loud rings the warning voice round (Vox clara ecce intonat) L.
34 To Thee before the close of day (Te lucis ante terminum) C.

Christmas
55 O come, Redemeer of the earth (Veni Redemptor gentium) E.
57 O Christ, Redeemer of our race (Christe Redemptor omnium) M.
56 From east to west, from shore to shore (A solis ortu cardine) L. & E.
58 Of the Father’s love begotten (Corde natus ex parentis) C. (York)
67 O Saviour of the world, we pray (Salvator mundi Domine) C.

Epiphany
79 Why doth that impious Herod fear (Hostis Herodes impie) E. & M.***
80 The Father’s sole-begotten Son (A Patre unigenitus) L.
67 O Saviour of the world, we pray (Salvator mundi Domine) C.

From the Epiphany to Lent
2 O splendor of God’s glory bright (Splendor paternae gloriae) L.
15 O blest Creator of the light (Lucis Creator optime) E.
34 To Thee before the close of day (Te lucis ante terminum) C.

[Before Septuagesima
89 Alleluia, song of sweetness (Alleluia, dulce carmen) (Anglo-Saxon Hymnals)]

The first fortnight of Lent
92 By precepts taught of ages past (Ex more docti mystico) E.
93 O Thou Who dost to man accord (Summi largitor praemii) (8.8.7 D) M.
94 O merciful Creator, hear (Audi, benigne Conditor) L.
105 O Christ Who art the Light and Day (Christe, qui lux es et dies) C.

The second fortnight of Lent
95 Lo! now is our accepted day (Ecce tempus idoneum) E.
96 It is the glory of this fast (Clarum decus ieiunii) M.
97 O Jesu, Thou didst concecrate (Jesu quadragenariae) (CM) L.
105 O Christ Who art the Light and Day (Christe, qui lux es et dies) C.

From Passion Sunday**** to the Wednesday before Easter
106 The Royal banners forward go (Vexilla regis prodeunt) E.
107 Sing, my tongue, the glorius battle (Pange lingua gloriosi praelium certaminis) M. & L.
108 Servant of God, remember (Cultor Dei, memento) C.

Eastertide
141 Up, new Jerusalem, and sing (Chorus novae Jerusalem) E.
142 Light’s glittering morn bedecks the sky (Aurora lucis rutilat) M. & L.*****
143 The Lamb’s high banquet call’d to share (Ad cenam Agni providi) E.
145 O Christ, the heav’ns’ Eternal King (Rex sempiterne caelitum) (Anglo-Saxon Hymnals)
163 Jesu, the world’s redeeming Lord (Jesu Salvator saeculi) C.

Ascensiontide
167 O Thou, Eternal King most High (Aeterne rex altissime) E. & M.
168 O Christ, our Joy, gone up on high (Tu, Christe, nostrum gaudium) L.
176 Jesu, our Hope, our heart’s Desire (Jesu nostra redemptio) (CM) C.

Whitsuntide
178 Now Christ above the starry floor (Iam Christus astra ascenderat) E. & M.
179 O joy! because the circling year (Beata nobis guadia) E.
67 O Saviour of the world, we pray (Salvator mundi Domine) C.

Trinity Sunday
188 Be near us, Holy Trinity (Adesto, sancta Trinitas) E. & M.
189 Father most Holy, merciful and loving (O Pater sancte) L.
190 All hail, adored Trinity (Ave colenda Trinitas) (Anglo-Saxon Hymnals)

From Trinity to Advent
15 O blest Creator of the light (Lucis Creator optime) E.
36 O Trinity, most blessed Light (O lux beata Trinitas) E. (Saturday)
34 To Thee before the close of day (Te lucis ante terminum) C.

There are sanctoral propers after this point—I’ll add them later as I have the chance.

* Unless it is otherwise specified, the Hymns represent the Sarum use, and are translated in their original metres.
** The initials represent the Ancient Services of Evensong, Mattins, Lauds, and Compline.
*** My note: IIRC, this is an abcedarian hymn by Sedulius and only part of it is contained here.
**** My note: Passion Sunday is the Sunday before Palm Sunday in the old kalendar.
***** My note: This hymn is split into three parts suggesting some were sung for Mattins, the rest was sung for Lauds.

Liturgy and Seekers

Jim challenged us in the earlier thread to think about how liturgical worship and seekers should fit together. This line of his struck me: We can’t expect people to get out of bed on Sunday mornings to attend a service they don’t understand, or that emphasizes their non-membership, so that they can enjoy 20 minutes of fellowship at the coffee hour or catch an occasional adult ed. lecture. I had a conversation with a student this morning around just this same topic. So—I’ll think out loud around this theme for a little bit.

A few points:

First off, let’s all remember what we’re fundamentally about on Sunday morning—we’re there first and foremost for the worship of God. While we do more things than this and while we do many things for more than one purpose, this one must always be central. That means that everything done in the service is only secondarily oriented towards the people present because everything is primarily oriented towards God.

Second, if worship is primarily oriented towards God and secondarily oriented towards the people present, what does that secondary orientation look like? Forming community seems to be part of it; our communal participation seems to be part of it; reminding one another what’s going on in the larger world seems to be part of it; moral teaching, spiritual teaching, practical help for one another all seem to be part of it… If I had to tease out one strand out of all of these things going on, however, I would suggest that the key part of the secondary orientation is gaining an awareness of who we are as transcendent Body. Now let me unpack that a bit…

When Christians gather together to worship God, we’re doing something unusual, something altogether different than getting a bunch of folks together. A worship service isn’t a committee meeting or even a Bible study. It’s something deeper and more profound. Do we believe what we read in Holy Scripture? Do we believe the words of Paul: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor 3:16) and further “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own” (1 Cor 6:19)? What’s hid from our eyes by modern English is that in Paul’s Greek, all of the “you”s are plural—he speaks to us not as individuals but as a body, a community. As he hammers his point home later in the letter: “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (1 Cor 12:27). This is what Matthew is recording in 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” Worship is when the Body of Christ comes together to be Body. This is when we join to not just symbolize but enact a promise of the eschatological Body, to realize the vision of St. John the Divine which consummates not only the Book of Revelation but the whole Scripture of which I have written elsewhere. Here the the local community participates in the mystery of the Church who is the Bride of the Lamb, joined with Christ in intimate communion. Here too, through deep meanings, Bride and Groom cleave into one flesh and we—knit into the Body by the Spirit—participate in the dialogue between Christ and the Godhead.

 

I’ll apologize if some of this sounds a little strange, if some of this sounds a little mystical. However, I know of no other way to talk about—it’s the nature of the reality that we’ve entered into…

Ok—so what does this little burst of mysticism have to do with seekers? Just this: the key part of the secondary orientation of the liturgy is to offer all present a taste of the transcendent reality experienced by the Church. This reality is our life day in and day out but we so conceal it from ourselves that we need reminding. For the baptized this reality is brought up to and (hopefully) breaks through the surface of our awareness as we join in holy song and holy discourse, as we fulfill our created purpose in the act of praise. Discipleship results in cultivating this awareness and facing the hard decisions and consequences that come when we start to take the reality of a life hid in God seriously. For those who are not baptized, the liturgy should invite them into this reality alive in God, should invite them to learn and discern and enter into the life-giving waters.

Brass tacks, then. How can a liturgy hope to achieve this? When “worshiping the Lord in the beauty of holiness” is more than just a tagline—rather, when it’s tangible:

  • Cultivate reverence among the clergy and among the laity regarding this thing that we do together. And no, reverence is neither stuffiness nor snootiness. Rather, it’s thoughtful attentiveness to what we are doing and for Whom we do it.
  • Cultivate beauty. In the music, in the flowers, in the liturgical actions. It’s one thing to be informal; it’s another entirely to be sloppy. Yes, this means practicing…
  • Cultivate community. This is where we have to be what we are attempting to enact: a body. In the most basic terms, it means knowing the people around you. We humans are creatures of habit—many of us like to sit in the same place each week if at all possible. Can we give a friendly nod to the person one pew over? Can we call them by name? Do we know who “we” are so if a stranger enters in we know to invite them to be one of us as well—or at least to help with the hymnal or answer a question?

Take a second to notice that I’ve said so far absolutely nothing about how high up the candle the liturgy ought to be… Low Church, High Church, it doesn’t matter; these things transcend liturgical boundaries.

Third, hospitality is critical—and we need to be sensitive to the breadth of what hospitality can be. I think there are a very big set of assumptions in the air about who “seekers” are and what “they” want. This set of assumptions is related to the success of Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Church. Yeah, I’ve read it. Multiple times. And learned a lot from it each time—but I don’t buy it hook, line, and sinker. Warren—presumably based on research he and his team have done—emphasize that “seekers” are uncomfortable with Christian signs, symbols, and traditions. So, chuck the cross, the candles, the chant, the colored windows and the other things that warm my heart so… But his experience isn’t mine. Especially here in the South we’re not dealing with the “unchurched”—people who have no familiarity with Christianity except for negative stereotypes—rather we’re dealing with the “dechurched” who grew up in a church but left for a variety of reasons. Furthermore when they come back they’re doing so for a whole host of reasons. Many my age are returning because they have kids they want to raise in a church—they don’t expect a sterile auditorium, they expect a church! But that’s only one of many, many reasons people walk through our doors.

As far as I can tell, they bring more and more complicated reasons and expectations than we can know. We can’t hope to meet them all. So do we try and conform to what we imagine they might want, or do we present them with an honest understanding of who we are?

Another facet of hospitality involves not just we in the local community and those seekers out there; it also includes wandering Episcopalians—travelers away from their local community who stop by as they can. The sign out front offers hospitality in the promise of “common prayer.” Are we offering hospitality to the “sojourner in our midst” if our Book of Common Prayer is nowhere to be seen or experienced?

The most we can reduce it, it seems to me, is to two basic points: people who take the trouble to get up and seek us out on a Sunday morning are either looking for God or they are looking for a community. So why not be intentional about offering both? We offer God in the best way we know how with the full awareness and realization that not all will find God in the places and ways that we do. See points on both the first and the second above. Furthermore, we must realize that there is no substitute for human contact. A loaded bulletin is great—but even better is a friendly human with a sensitivity towards when a seeker needs help and when they need space. A handshake from the priest on the way out the door is great but even better is a midweek follow-up phone call from the priest reiterating what it pleasure it was to have them there and an offer to answer any questions they might have. (Present but not pushy…)

Fourth, clear teaching must be offered to all—regular attendees and newcomers alike. Liturgy is theology in kinetic form. We do what we do for a reason! But we seem to not be terrible good at sharing what that reason is… Learning Episcopal liturgy and learning Episcopal theology should be nigh inseparable because they are mutually interrelated. As I said in my comments below, so often people want to radically alter the liturgy and throw the baby out with the bathwater because they’ve never been taught that there’s a baby there in the first place!! We need clear, simple explanations of the centers of our theology and how these are both reinforced and found in the liturgy. While every seeker may not stick around for adult ed. such knowledge in the congregation will perk and offer itself to others when we least expect it–because once again this leads directly into discipleship. Learning theology, learning liturgy isn’t about learning what to think—it’s about learning what to do. It’s about learning who to be in answer to our high calling as members of the Body. But even deeper than that’s it’s learning what it means to live a life hid in God.

Liturgy at the Cafe

There’s a post up on The Lead at the Cafe on liturgy. It follows the general thesis that anything traditional must therefore be inhospitable. I disagree…

Hospitality is essential but there any many ways of embodying hospitality. I believe that it is far more hospitable to invite someone to get to know your true self than than to dissemble or disguise. Speaking liturgically, this means that traditional liturgy need not be dispensed with simply because it is unfamiliar. It sends a strong theological message if we dispense with various elements of the liturgy for the sake of convenience—and the message sent is not a positive one…

NLM and the Reform of the Reform

The Roman blog New Liturgical Movement is a frequently if not daily read for some of us non-Romans/protestants who point our liturgical eyes across the Tiber. Long militating for recognition of the splendors of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) and the reform of the reforms of Vatican II, some readers have wondered what its role is now that the Benedict the 16th’s motu proprio has clarified the Roman position on the TLM, a clarification that enables its wider and broader use. Would the site focus exclusively on the TLM and leave the Novus Ordo (the V II version) to hang? The authors have been engaging in public discussion about this and one of today’s posts hits it on the head: to be of continuing use to the church is to refuse the inclination to head into a TLM echo chamber; the reform of the reform should move hand in hand with the restoration of the TLM.

I’m happy they’ve made this statement because it means the site and its resources will continue to be of use to us non-Roman readers. We’re never going to do a TLM; ain’t gonna happen. However, we too could stand to experience, learn, and thoughtfully and theologically reflect on the riches of a TLM done properly and how its qualities of prayerfulness and Godwardness can further our corporate and private worship of God.

New–and Better–Materials at OJN

Independently Fr John-Julian and Jonathan have both pointed me to new materials up at the Order of Julian of Norwich’s download page. Posted there are both the full chant offices and the Psalter broken into two parts (which doesn’t have the repeated pg. 50 error that mine does…). These files are not scans and are from the source documents and so are much cleaner than the ones I posted.

Random Items

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

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

Tradition–And Lutheran Stuff Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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