Feast of the Purification

It always interesting to me to note the continuities and discontinuities between the Anglican and pre-Reformation lectionaries, for both the Divine Office and the Mass.

In general, the lectionary for the Divine Office in the traditional Western rite was not independent from the lectionary for the Mass. The brief "chapters" (usually consisting of a single sentence) of the Day Hours were typically partial quotations from the Epistle of the day, while the antiphons at Lauds and Vespers were often taken from the Gospel to be read at Mass that day. While there is certainly some overlap, this is very different from the independent Office and Eucharistic lectionaries that subsequently became the norm in Anglicanism.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer appoints readings from Exodus 13, 1 Samuel 1, Haggai 2, Romans 12, Galatians 4, and Hebrews 10 for Matins and 1 & 2 Evensong of the Feast of the Purification. Malachi 3:1ff and Luke 2:22ff are appointed for the Eucharist, just as they were in the Roman lectionary for the Mass. The Monastic Night Office also appointed Exodus 13 to be read, along with passages from Leviticus, commentaries by Augustine and Ambrose on the Gospel, and the Mass Gospel itself (including the Nunc Dimittis, as in the 1662 BCP). The "Little Chapters" at Lauds, Vespers, and the Minor Hours consist of portions of the verses from Malachi appointed for the Mass. The 1979 lectionary appoints 1 Samuel 2:1ff, Haggai 2:1ff (as in the 1662), 1 John 3:1ff, and John 8:31ff for the Daily Office, and Malachi 3 (as in the Roman Office), Hebrews 2, and Luke 2 (also as in the Roman Office) for the Eucharist. So there is actually a fair amount of continuity between the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and both the 1662 Prayer Book and the traditional Roman/Monastic Office. Interestingly, both the 1662 and 1979 BCPs retain the old Roman Collect for the day, juxtaposing the irony of recognizing the child Jesus as the light to the Gentiles while in the Jewish Temple (of all places), with the need to acknowledged as "pure" by the Father (which the Gentiles as such were not), by assimilation to the image of his Son. The Feast is also one of those rare instances when a reading from a Prophet takes the place of the usual Epistle reading at the Mass.

Despite the similarities, what we see here are in fact two different approaches to instilling the meaning of the Feast Day in the heart and mind of the believer:

• The traditional Anglican approach, exemplified not only by the 1662 but also by the 1979, involves the reading of a lot of Scripture, but over the course of fewer services (3 altogether: Matins, Eucharist, and Evensong).
• By contrast, the traditional Roman Office, while containing fewer readings overall, involves a lot of repetition that is not limited to the readings but also includes the antiphons for Lauds that are repeated at the Minor Hours and Vespers. Parts of the Malachi passage are recited at Lauds, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers, while the antiphons for the Psalms, Benedictus, and Magnificat not only consist of excerpts from the Gospel of the day but also connect each Office with the Mass (along with the Collect for the Feast, which is also repeated at each Hour except for Prime and Compline).

Which way is better? Which method produces the better fruit, and the more resilient remembrance of God?

 

Can you approximate what the Roman office for the day would look like? I'm not familiar with their liturgy and the repetitions which you reference.

Also just thinking about it more broadly, the Roman monastic office would not be intended for anyone except those in the orbit of monastic communities. Thus I'm curious what the RCs overall would experience, if just the regular Mass was their only exposure?

 

I think both are good to be honest. I don't know which one is better honestly. Will Romans make all those services? Probably not. Would Anglicans make all three services probably not. So I would say the Anglican way edges out the Roman way only because I am biased

 

I guess a better way to frame the question would be to ask which method more effectively communicates and instills the meaning of the Feast (as summed up by the Collect)? It’s a very interesting contrast of real alternatives, and is given far too little attention as we muddle our way through “doing” the liturgy, in my opinion.

 

I am not familiar with Roman liturgies enough to know which way would be better. I would say that the more services, if all were attended, would do the better job but I don't see that happening outside of monestaries and maybe some priests. So for the lay person the two robust services of the Anglican Church are probably better. Just a guess.

 

This post by a priest in the ACC does a good job of breaking down the differences in layman’s terms. Basically it’s a question of what element of the liturgy should be tasked with formation: (a) the Calendar, with all that implies, or (b) Scripture readings.
https://theanglicanbreviary.wordpress.com/2017/10/22/to-use-or-not-to-use/

 

Thanks for posting that article. It is quite revealing.

It seems, to me, as though some past Christians placed greater importance on preserving a pattern of mystical numerology than on the message of Christ Himself.

Growing up RC, I never was taught ( by my devout mother, in catechism, or in homilies) to utilize any structured, printed prayers on a daily basis. I had no awareness of any RC equivalent to a BCP or anything like it. Coming to Anglicanism, I perceived the BCP's Daily Office and suchlike as a tool to get people into prayer and the word of God when they are not otherwise able to independently structure their time and thoughts toward devotion to God and Bible reading. The BCP is a touchstone that facilitates building a rigorous habit and lifestyle of such devotion.

Such a habit and lifestyle is good and beneficial. But use of a tool such as the BCP is not the only way to form that habit and lifestyle. Nor is everyone disposed to such a structured, inflexible way of relating to God. It is fine for some, yet not for all.

Form should not be elevated over function. I think perhaps folks like Fr. Gregory have a bit of a tendency to do that when it comes to the printed devotional aids (which are just that: aids).

 

When I first discovered Anglicanism several decades ago, I was completely unaware that the Daily Office was not only not uniquely Anglican, but that its reform was the catalyst for the liturgical reform of the English Church during the Reformation in the first place. In fact, the phrase "Book of Common Prayer" in the title of the Prayer Book is itself referring specifically to the Daily Office:

The Book of Common Prayer AND Administration of the Sacraments, AND other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church According to the Use of the The Church of England, together with the Psalter or Psalms of David
(Note that this book was considered separate from the Ordinal and the Articles of Religion, though these were and still are printed with the Prayer Book proper in a single volume as a matter of custom.)

The first generation of Christians maintained the pattern of praying privately at set times of the day, as well as attending sacrifices and times of prayer in the Temple if they were able. What exactly these prayers consisted of remains a subject of intense debate (and not a little speculation) by scholars. As Judaism and Christianity became institutionally separate, the two patterns began evolving in different directions, each making its own unique contributions to the preexisting pattern. By the time of the 4th century, two distinct patterns emerged within Christianity:

1. A "Cathedral" pattern of public prayers in the morning and evening, consisting of fixed psalms and readings;
2. a "Monastic" pattern of (often) private prayers throughout the day (and night), consisting of continuous psalmody and (sometimes) lengthy, and often continuous, readings from Scripture, when/where possible.

By the 6th century, these two patterns had been merged and were the basis of clerical prayer patterns, both secular and regular. The Rule of St. Benedict is an important source for understanding this development. The offices consisted of 7 or 8 set times of prayer, containing both fixed and continuous psalmody, along with readings, antiphons, collects, hymns, etc. The overall pattern was common to East and West, though there were of course some significant differences. Over the course of the Middle Ages, with the multiplication of Saints' Days and the addition of new devotions to precede and follow the Offices for each day, the overall system became quite complicated and burdensome, and in the West was the province solely of the clergy, and shifted from being primarily sung in choir to being read in private outside of monasteries. One of the key goals of the English Reformation, as described in the Preface to the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, was to take this system, whose original intent had been to fulfill the command to "pray without ceasing" given to every Christian, lay and clergy alike, was to reform this system back into something that could be realistically done daily by clergy and laity in common, i.e., in a congregational setting, and in a language that the laity could comprehend. Obviously, when a congregational setting is not practical (or not possible, as was the case during the Commonwealth), clergy are required and laity are encouraged to say the Office privately. Fast forward 4 centuries, and the basic pattern that Cranmer established has remained intact in all further revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, including in the U.S. and Canada.

What many Anglicans do not realize is that the Roman Catholic Church also reformed the Divine Office during the Reformation, and continued to revise it down to something more and more manageable over the centuries, but in a far more conservative fashion, at least until the mid-20th century. The 1911, 1955, and 1962 revisions progressively cut out most of the additional devotions and reduced the impact of Saints' Days on the Office - similar to what the English Reformers had attempted to do - so that the Monastic Office performed according to the 1962 rubrics is about as close to the original plan of St. Benedict in its pristine form as it is possible to get. In 1970 the Roman Church more or less reinvented the Divine Office as "The Liturgy of the Hours", and the result is remarkably similar to the form of the Daily Office practiced in contemporary Anglicanism: two "main" offices in Morning and Evening, combined with one midday office, a bedtime office (Compline), and the repurposing of the old night "Vigils" to a floating "Office of Readings", which, combined with the current RC Morning Prayer, is almost identical to the "Morning Prayer" found in modern versions of the Book of Common Prayer. Although undoubtedly a minority, there are nevertheless probably more Roman Catholic laypeople who pray either the 1962 secular or monastic breviary, or the Novus Ordo Liturgy of the Hours, than there are Anglicans total.

With all this borne in mind, we are in a position to do something that Cranmer was not: we can evaluate the merits of his reformulation of the Divine Office, by comparing it not against the bloated medieval burden that he knew, but rather against something very closely approximating its originally intended (and completed) form in the time of St. Benedict, made possible by the mid-20th century Roman reforms. Measured against that standard, does Cranmer's achievement truly represent a net gain over St. Benedict? If so, isn't it a bit peculiar that 20th century revisions of the Daily Office in the U.S., Canada, and the UK, have been in a Catholic (dare I say, Benedictine) direction, by adding more traditional offices like one for midday (which is intentionally designed to be adaptable to the medieval schema of 3rd hour (9:00 am), 6th hour (noon), and 9th hour (3:00 pm), and bedtime (Compline)? It is a question that occupies my mind whenever I come up against the stark contrasts between the two systems, occasioned by major Feasts and other High Holy Days of the Church (such as the Sacred Triduum, Easter, or the season of Advent).

 

https://northamanglican.com/book-re...SIrZOeyLFXXWWl3j1dM6YjkNCLyVQFkp18OrQbpSmWQvg
@Invictus that is my book review on a book that deals with the early church, liturgy, and a few other things. I think you would enjoy the book

 

Thank you! I look forward to reading it.

 

Very interesting review. I believe this book has some of the answers you were seeking regarding the development of the earliest stages of Christian prayer from Jewish antecedents:
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1606081055?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2_dt_b_product_details

 

Thanks added it to my read to list. Hope to get to it soon

 

The early Christians attended synagogues. If we want to know how they worshiped and if we want to worship the way they did, perhaps we could learn things from how an orthodox Jewish synagogue service is conducted?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xCupu0AJ4o

 

Unfortunately no, because those services weren’t fully developed until several centuries later. One might suppose that because the traditional Siddur contains Psalms 148-150 in the Morning Prayer, and so does the traditional Roman/Benedictine and Eastern Orthodox morning service, that the Christians derived the practice from the synagogue. However, not only is there no evidence from the 1st century to suggest such a practice, but it is not at all clear that synagogues were places of worship in the 1st century at all. The NT never describes them as such. I once had the same thought, though.

 

The synagogue system was not fully developed until about the 3rd-4th century. Until the destruction of the temple the early Christian community in Jerusalem was focused on worshipping in the Temple. Interestingly enough early synagogues, if they could be called synagogues, were mainly just upper rooms in someones house. It was not until several centuries later that stand alone synagogues were developed.

 

Exactly. In the 1st century what the NT calls “synagogues” appear to have been secular meeting places for Jews on market days and on the Sabbath. They probably weren’t “places of worship”, as they later became.

 

We Christians certainly have strayed far from that early pattern, then. Tons of money has been spent for ornate cathedrals and well-equipped church buildings for Sunday worship.

What I'm trying to say is, we talk about Anglicanism taking lessons from the the first 500 years of Christianity, but when it comes to the practices of the first 50 years of Christianity (the age of the Apostles), I sometimes feel like we (and all the other denominations) shy away and make excuses why we don't or can't do things that way. And I don't mean to single out the practice of erecting dedicated church buildings; it's one of a great many things that I'm sure we do differently. I greatly doubt that Paul carried around a special set of robes to wear for services, or that anyone made special round wafers for communion, or that they processed in and out with a cross, or that they recited the (not yet formulated) Nicene Creed, etc, etc. Nor did Paul miss a chance to be in synagogue on the Sabbath (Saturdays). Maybe we are just 'patting ourselves on the back' and practicing self-deception if we say that we adhere to the lessons of the early church.

I'm just musing and rambling.

 

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from studying the history of worship, it’s that there is no such thing as liturgical purity. Customs varied as much in the earliest days of the Church as they do today. I don’t think we can look at any one era and place and say that the customs which prevailed then and there were so perfect as to be immutable. It doesn’t bother me that we aren’t a mirror image of the early Church, and I’m not at all sure that would be desirable.

 

I have been thinking about this. First off to answer Rexlion last post. The first 50 years of Christianity, during the Apostolic Age is highly highly liturgical. They worshipped in the Temple, those Christians who were in Jerusalem until the sack by the Romans. It was nose bleed high. You probably would not feel comfortable there. Early Christianity was centered around the Apostles in Jerusalem and I think that would have to be the normative practice.

The book I linked Invictus is good on this subject.

BAck to Invictus original question which do you think is better. I am sad to say that I think the Roman way would have been better at drilling down the meaning. The continual repetition over the day of certain key elements is more likely to cause things to stock in the average person's mind or so I would think.

 

I am sure it was highly liturgical, but if you mean "high church" according to today's standards, then I do not think so... Many church fathers strongly disdained any use of incense.. there were categorically no images in worship.. The examples we see in the Didache are modest, restrained, and somewhat limited compared to what we'd see in the later patristic era (and altogether alien to the Byzantines and Roman worship of the middle ages)