The Office? No, not the excellent British comedy series which was hard to watch on account of its cringe making realism but rather the daily duty of prayer. St. Benedict of Nursia broke this up into eight periods: Matins or Vigils, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline, thus sanctifying the day on into the night.
In the Anglican world, the wicked if skillful liturgist Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, conflated these into the twofold Office of Morning and Evening Prayer. It's solid stuff, especially in the language of the old prayer book (1928) as opposed to the horrific, banal, unsayable modern language variants cooked up by expert liturgists in the 1970s and beyond.
That said, consider the benefit of a set order of prayer, canticles, and readings from the psalms and the Old and New Testaments; every day, morning and evening. Not only does this free the person at prayer from having to cook it all up themselves, which tends to mean they don't, but also unites them to the common, daily, prayer of the Church.
Back to Cranmer, who was burned at the stake in Oxford for being a wicked heretic. Perhaps he was, but I'd argue he did a masterful work of making Benedict's Monastic Office accessible to the laity. Bold call: Look here, laic, you too can sanctify the day as well as priests and religious, provided of course that you can read.
And that's just it, provided you can read. This, punters, is at something of a premium right about now and forces the question: As we sink into barbarism, and we are, will the Church keep the light of civilization burning in the encroaching darkness? She's done so before and I'll wager she'll do so again.
We had five souls at Evening Prayer today in this small garrison style Mission we call the Compound, and there we were, praying with the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, Mystici Corporis Christi, and you know what? The gates of hell shall not prevail.
God bless you all,
LSP
8 comments:
"...provided you can read." Shades of Johannes Gutenberg and Martin Luther.
If you cannot read cursive, you cannot read the original founding documents.
One of my favorite fonts is Lucidia Handwriting.
It's good to pray. Praying collectively has its own utility. Since the national dialog goes against prayer, it should only reinforce the need for personal communication with God.
"...especially in the language of the old prayer book (1928) as opposed to the horrific, banal, unsayable modern language variants cooked up by expert liturgists in the 1970s and beyond."
Amen, brother. As discalced Carmelites, Wifey and I were able to get approval from our council spiritual director to use the 1962 Baronius Press breviary rather than the 'Liturgy of the Hours'. Light years better than the 1970's dreck.
Right on, RHT.
Problem is, we're sinking into barbarism and illiteracy and I'll wager we're not even close to the bottom of the decline.
By way of small example, my two sons can write, well done. Joined up cursive? Not so much. Can they read? Yes, but books don't cross their sight picture so much, they pull "bits" from the internet.
Will the Church keep Western Civ alive in the barbaric darkness as she did before? I'd say yes in the long term but no in the short, our hierarchs are part of the problem, presently.
I very much agree with that, LL.
It's like a rule of thumb, "If they're for it, we're against it."
Ah, DOS, I used to pray the modern English (UK) Breviary and liked the fullness of the Hours. But man, what awful, rubbish, hideous translations of the psalms and canticles.
There is, curiously, an old school Anglican Breviary (KJV language etc) which I used to pray and I liked it. Not very accessible to the laity though and, to be honest, many of our priests.
Baronius looks good.
Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury and Martyr March 21. I used not to think very much about him, but liked his prose. Then I read his biography by Diarmaid MacCulloch. I now view TC as moving Anglicanism to a more spiritual and mysterious, unlike the scholastics' rather pseudo-scientific & arrogant trans-substantiation view which "explained the mystery of eucharist". Thomas Cranmer's thinking is much like the Eastern churches, although I'm not sure he realized it.
Good thoughts, Anon.
Cranmer clearly believed in some kind of real presence, I'd argue. For example: "That we may evermore dwell in Him and He in us." And on point, consider the 1549 Prayer Book.
That said, I'd warn against being too aggressive towards the scholastics lest you end up on the wrong side of Aquinas. Reflect on his hymn for Corpus Christi, Adoro Te, and ask if mystery is lacking. It's not.
Did Cranmer have an Eastern approach/attitude towards the Sacrament of the Altar and, for that matter, church governance?
Perhaps he did, it's notoriously true that Anglicanism's had close ties with the East and they'd be closer still if it wasn't for the rainbow subversion of our part of the Church, same with Rome.
Just some thoughts.
Post a Comment