from the Orthodox side of the aisle - it was recently recommended reading on a list that I'm on as an antidote to the notion that of Orthodox liturgy as "timeless and unchanging." What I found particularly helpful was the reflection that the Sunday Eucharist, vital and indispensable as it is, cannot carry the whole weight - and thus the great importance of the Daily Office. I could not help but think how in our Lutheran circles this is the exact need which Treasury addresses and addresses in that flexible way that Meyendorff here calls for. Whereas we've seen a great renewal in our parishes in the centrality of the Eucharist (now more than at any point in our history in this country, I suspect), yet where is the daily office, the discipline of daily prayer? Of course, we have long since restored the Old Testament reading to the Divine Service, but the general problem of Biblical illiteracy blocking the apprehension of the hymnody certainly rings a bell, doesn't it? The observation by Bishop Nazarii is strikingly similar to the guiding principal of Vatican II: "But if worship is to accomplish all this, then all the faithful must participate in it directly, consciously, and actively" - a point which has long been near and dear to the heart of Lutherans. And as for "each priest his own typikon" - goodness, isn't that our problem indeed! In any case, highly recommended reading simply for contemplating about the strikingly parallel state of Lutheranism at many points:
Liturgical Path
18 comments:
...the Sunday Eucharist, vital and indispensable as it is, cannot carry the whole weight...
Very true in Orthodox practice. While the Divine Liturgy is central to the life of the Church and nary a Sunday goes by without it being served, most of the 'activity' in Orthodox liturgics is in the regular cycle of services. (In fact, the Divine Liturgy is held to be outside of time and therefore not a part of the cycles of service - escatology and whatnot).
Examples include the fact that daily Liturgies are rather uncommon in Orthodoxy, unlike in Roman Catholicism. Vespers, Matins (Orthros), Vigil (combining the two preceding on great Feasts), etc. are quite commonly served in the Orthodox world. Even in monasteries, Liturgies are not normally held daily, but some form of the cycle of services is held. In Arch Sophrony's monastery in Essex, following the pattern of many of the smaller kellia and sketes on Mt Athos (and due to practicalities of his mixed community when it was founded), held 'Jesus Prayer' services in place of most of the cycle of services. A certain number of Jesus Prayers can 'replace' a given service - even the Liturgy (which is otherwise normally replaced by the service of Typika).
Pastor Weedon, your question about the Daily Office is a good one. I have thought about this myself quite often. At one point after a retreat in Chicago I drew up plans for offering daily Matins and Vespers in my parish for the people. I kept it up for quite a while, but have since gone back to just praying in my study. I think it is a good goal to shoot for. Luther's prescriptions in vol. 53 in several places show that he certainly wanted this practice to continue, particularly where there were schools. And later Church Orders showed that some of these ideas were actually implemented. I did a sectional paper on this topic for the Iowa District East a few years ago, in which I made suggestions for how some of Luther's ideas could be implemented in the Church today. I have it linked on my church's website (concordialutheran.googlepages.com) but this is the shorter version, not the one I presented. People simply do not see the Church as a "house of prayer" today, or the Pastor as a dispenser of the Bread from Heaven.
In what I grew up with, the preconciliar RCC, the Divine Office was held to be part of the public worship and prayer of the Church equally with the Mass.
Yet, I do not recall a single instance, prior (pardon the pun) to going off to the university of a monkery, of a parish offering it.
It was the work of "pros", like monks and priests, the latter being canonically required to say it daily.
What's ironic is, the great granddaddy monk of the whole Western monking world of monkery and monkatoria, Benedict, based his plan for daily prayer on that of the basilica parishes in Rome.
Why do Christians routinely go on about all the recluses and ignore that the practice of a Scripture based round of daily prayer comes from the synagogue, was aligned with the times of sacrifice in the Temple, and traces back in its three major parts of morning, afternoon and evening prayer to the prayer of Abraham, Issac and Jacob in Genesis?
I was especially struck by these observations:
80% of priests read all or part of the anaphora aloud
95% of priests encourage frequent communion
52% offer general confession, typically monthly
39% celebrate baptism together with the eucharistic liturgy (and
69% would do so if their bishops allowed this practice and provided appropriate guidelines)
21% celebrate evening eucharistic liturgies on the eves of certain feasts (and 55% would do so with appropriate authorization from their bishops)
Most laudable goals and while I by no means want to presume to speak for the Orthodox world, all these things, with perhaps the exception of general confession, were accomplished in the Catholic Church at Vatican II. And yet the majority of the Catholic laity are still not adequately formed in Sacred Scripture and for the most part still prefer devotional to liturgical prayer outside of the official liturgy.
A recovery of the Daily Office would be most beneficial in all the liturgical traditions. It would be wonderful if, as it was in Europe where the church was often the center of the town square and within walking distance the laity could gather for daily Matins and Vespers. Unfortunately with work schedules being what they are in our time that is probably not going to happen.
Matins and Vespers on weekends would be wonderful, and if not that, educating the laity in the Daily Office so that it could be prayed in the family or individually, and certainly in our Lutheran schools, could work wonders.
I was pondering the Genesis readings in the Treasury this morning about Isaac and Rebekah and what beautiful texts they are reflecting the meaning of family, loyalty and God's faithfulness. A wonderful way to begin the day and to connect the daily readings to the liturgical year.
Christine
How do you all understand these words from Luther, as applies to the daily offices?
"And now that they are delivered from the unprofitable and burdensome babbling of the Seven Canonical Hours, oh, that, instead thereof, they would only, morning, noon, and evening, read a page or two in the Catechism, the Prayer-book, the New Testament, or elsewhere in the Bible, and pray the Lord's Prayer for themselves and their parishioners, so that they might render, in return, honor and thanks to the Gospel, by which they have been delivered from burdens and troubles so manifold, and might feel a little shame because like pigs and dogs they retain no more of the Gospel than such a lazy, pernicious, shameful, carnal liberty!"
He calls the hours "unprofitable" and "burdensome" and does not try to 'fix' them, as with the Mass, but rather to substitute something else.
I know this might sound provocative; forgive me. I'm genuinely curious.
The unworthy priest,
Fr. Gregory
Dear Fr. Gregory,
Thank you raising the point. A vital one. Luther was objecting to the requirement that he as a monk and priest was bound to pray through this canonical office; it was a part of his obedience and regarded as a necessary for salvation. You know the impossible burden this placed on so many - and how seriously Luther undertook the task!
His words in the Catechism might be taken to mean that he intended the Daily Office to fall away entirely; but we know from his other writings that he meant no such thing. He provided for daily Matins and Vespers in the Churches. The Lutheran Church in her Church Orders largely so provided as well.
The spirit of Luther's comments in the Catechism are beautifully embodied in the Treasury's intro, these words of Pr. Kinnaman:
"The Daily Office is not an isolated, individual endeavor. Instead, it is the way an individual participates in the prayer life of the community, the Church. Thus, one does not need to feel a burden to participate in a particular office every day or feel guilty because a time of prayer was missed. Rather, when you miss a time you typically set aside for prayer, be conscious that the prayer goes on as the people of God throughout the world call on their dear Father.... In these matters, there are no laws; rather there is the freedom in the Gospel to use or not to use the offices according to one's needs and personal piety."
The need for prayer and constant prayer is a divine mandate; the shape of the prayer in the daily offices is a gift. Luther had experienced it as a horrible burden; Treasury is offered as gift and with the intention of allowing folks to grow in their life of prayer by appropriating as much as the Spirit leads them to. I think Luther would be rejoicing over the Treasury and the gift it is to Christ's Church.
Hope that explains.
P.S. Treasury really is built upon only Matins, Vespers, and Compline, though provision is made for a manner of praying at the other hours - yet the proper liturgies of those hours are not provided.
It seems to me in Lutheranism as distinct from Catholicism, there are three classes of things:
1) Retained, for the same reasons,
2) Retained, for different reasons,
3) Removed, for Gospel reasons.
I think so often we miss the middle one and think it's just the other two, so when something in the middle category is brought up, it looks "too Catholic" trying to move something from category 3 to 1.
Re the office, it's much like the mass itself -- we keep and observe it, but not for the reasons Rome does and commands.
Terry,
Well said.
Pr. Weedon,
Thanks for your response. As I understand it, you're saying two things:
1) It was the "necessary for salvation" angle of the seven daily offices that was the problem for Luther.
2) Elsewhere (can this be documented?) he provides for daily Matins and Vespers; even though he omits the other hours, in principle he would be ok with them.
It would be interesting to ponder the phrase "necessary for salvation" a bit--e.g. what 'salvation' means there, and how it relates to the notion of merit etc.
In any case, thanks!
Here is what he wrote in FM:
As for the other days which are called weekdays,68 I see nothing that we cannot put up with, provided the [weekday] masses be discontinued. For Matins with its three lessons, the [minor] hours, Vespers, and Compline de tempore consist—with the exception of the propers for the Saints’ days—of nothing but divine words of Scripture. And it is seemly, nay necessary, that the boys should get accustomed to reading and hearing the Psalms and lessons from the Holy Scripture. If anything should be changed, the bishop may reduce the great length [of the services] according to his own judgment so that three Psalms may be sung for Matins and three for Vespers with one or two responsories.69 These matters are best left to the discretion of the bishop. He should choose the best of the responsories and antiphons and appoint them from Sunday to Sunday throughout the week, taking care lest the people should either be bored by too much repetition of the same or confused by too many changes in the chants and lessons. The whole Psalter, Psalm by Psalm, should remain in use, and the entire Scripture, lesson by lesson, should continue to be read to the people. But we must take care—as I have elsewhere explained—70 lest the people sing only with their lips, like sounding pipes or harps [I Cor. 14:7], and without understanding. Daily lessons must therefore be appointed, one in the morning from the New or Old Testament, another for Vespers from the other Testament with an exposition in the vernacular. That this rite is an ancient one is proven by both the custom itself and by the words homilia in Matins and capitulum71 in Vespers and in the other [canonical] hours, namely, that the Christians as often as they gathered together read something and then had it interpreted in the vernacular in the manner Paul describes in I Corinthians 14 [:26–27].72 But when evil times came and there was a lack of prophets and interpreters, all that was left after the lessons and capitula was the response, “Thanks be to God.”73 And then, in place of the interpretation, lessons, Psalms, hymns, and other things were added in boring repetition. Although the hymns and the Te Deum laudamus at least confirm the same thing as the Deo gratias, namely, that after the exposition and homilies they used to praise God and give thanks for the revealed truth of his words. That is the kind of vernacular songs I should like us to have.
Here from DM:
At five or six o’clock in the morning a few Psalms are chanted for Matins. A sermon follows on the Epistle of the day, chiefly for the sake of the servants so that they too may be cared for and hear God’s Word, since they cannot be present at other sermons. After this an antiphon and the Te Deum or the Benedictus, alternately, with an Our Father, collects, and Benedicamus Domino. At the mass, at eight or nine o’clock, the sermon is on the Gospel for the day. At Vespers in the afternoon the sermon before the Magnificat takes up the Old Testament chapter by chapter.
This is what we do to train the schoolboys in the Bible. Every day of the week they chant a few Psalms in Latin before the lesson,8 as has been customary at Matins hitherto. For as we stated above, we want to keep the youth well versed in the Latin Bible. After the Psalms, two or three boys in turn read a chapter from the Latin New Testament, depending on the length. Another boy then reads the same chapter in German to familiarize them with it and for the benefit of any layman who might be present and listening. Thereupon they proceed with an antiphon to the German lesson mentioned above. After the lesson the whole congregation sings a German hymn, the Lord’s Prayer is said silently, and the pastor or chaplain reads a collect and closes with the Benedicamus Domino as usual.
Likewise at Vespers they sing a few of the Vesper Psalms in Latin with an antiphon, as heretofore, followed by a hymn if one is available. Again two or three boys in turn then read a chapter from the Latin Old Testament or half a one, depending on length. Another boy reads the same chapter in German. The Magnificat follows in Latin with an antiphon or hymn, the Lord’s Prayer said silently, and the collects with the Benedicamus. This is the daily service throughout the week in cities where there are schools.
Additionally:
In his On War Against the Turks, begun in October, 1528, he insisted on the importance of believing prayer. “This might help if at Matins, Vespers, or after the sermon, we had the Litany sung or read in the church, especially by the young folk.”
The Church Orders almost invariably prescribe Matins and Vespers daily in the cities or wherever there is a school.
P.S. Libronix is a beautiful thing...
It is a beautiful thing, Pr. Weedon. Thanks.
Is it significant that the strongest citation against the hours comes from 1530, whereas the ones you've cited come from 1523 (FM), 1526 (DM) and 1528? (In my Lutheran years I used to give most weight to things later in his career--hence his support of the perpetual virginity even as late as 1541 was powerful.)
Again, thanks for your research on this matter.
I think Luther would be rejoicing over the Treasury and the gift it is to Christ's Church.
I, too, think Luther would rejoice.
Treasury really is built upon only Matins, Vespers, and Compline, though provision is made for a manner of praying at the other hours - yet the proper liturgies of those hours are not provided.
Even the Roman Liturgy of the Hours consider Matins and Vespers the two offices on which the entire Office hinges.
One of the great aspects of the Treasury is the sizeable amount of Scripture given each day. In order to have that in the Roman hours one would need to also pray the Office of Readings, which have a larger portion of Scripture and commentary than what one finds in Matins. The flexibility of the Treasury is a tremendous asset.
For the laity, especially, Matins, Vespers and even the fine Responsive prayers in the Treasury are more than sufficient to ground one's day in Scripture, prayer and patristic commentary as well as the sanctoral cycle.
I'm finding the Treasury to be much more useful than I did the Roman office as far as being able to keep a daily commitment to pray.
Christine
In this case, Father, I think the weight of the Church Orders shows that Luther's earlier statements ended up with the greater weight for Lutheran liturgy.
Matins and Vespers, toss in Compline, are really all you need.
Even in the monking world of real monking monks not merely monked over, it's a real drag to have to run in from the fields for those little hours -- which is how we got noon (none) at 12 instead of 3.
...the weight of the Church Orders...
Pish on your arguments from tradition! :)
Tradition as witness, dear Christopher, remains vital; just don't let it take the place of the sole Rule and Norm! :)
Post a Comment