From the martyrology: St Brigid (Feb 1)

Today the Office celebrates the feast of St Ignatius (d. 110 at Rome):

"St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, who gloriously suffered martyrdom on the 20th of December."

Several letters written by St Ignatius while on route to his martyrdom in Rome have survived and well worth reading.

But in many places it is also the feast of St Brigit (439-524), Abbess, a famous leader of the early celtic church and foundress of several monasteries:

"At Kildare in Ireland, St. Bridget, virgin.  Once, when she touched the wood of an altar, it immediately sprouted into life, in testimony of her virginity."

St Brigit has become something of a feminist icon in recent times, because of her authority over the double monasteries she established, a system which continued until the twelfth century.

From the martyrology - St John Chrysostom (Jan 27)

"St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, confessor and doctor of the Church, and the heavenly patron of preachers, who fell asleep in the Lord on the 14th of September.  His holy body was brought to Constantinople on this day in the reign of Theodosius the younger; it was afterwards taken to Rome and placed in the basilica of the Prince of the Apostles."

You can read Pope Benedict XVI's General Audience on this important Doctor of the Church here.

From the martyrology: SS Polycarp and Paula (Jan 26)

In the Office today we celebrate the feast of St Polycarp:

"St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and martyr, who gained the crown of martyrdom on the 23rd of February."

St Paula and her daughter with St Jerome
Francisco de Zurbaran, c1638-40

The martyrology also lists, however, St Paula (347-404), who assisted St Jerome in his translation work and established a monastery for men and women in Bethlehem:

"At Bethlehem of Judea, the death of St. Paula, widow, mother of St. Eustochium, a virgin of Christ, who abandoned her worldly prospects, though she was descended from a noble line of senators, distributed her goods to the poor, and retired to our Lord's manger, where, endowed with many virtues, and crowned with a long martyrdom, she departed for the kingdom of heaven.  Her admirable life was written by St. Jerome."

St Jerome wrote a life of her, and a number of their letters also survive.

Benedictine FAQ's Part II: Is there such a thing as "the Order of St Benedict"?

I want to continue today, my series of Frequently Asked Questions about the Benedictine Order and its spirituality.  As I've previously flagged, a key issue whether there is in fact any such thing as the "order of St Benedict'!

If you hunt around Benedictine websites and books, particularly those of recent decades, one of the more bemusing things to stumble across are assertions to the effect that there is no such thing as the Order of St Benedict. 

It is often followed by claims that St Benedict had no intention of forming an order, and that the saint is not the founder in any real sense, of monasteries claiming to be Benedictine.

Are these claims correct?  Personally I don't think so. 

Here is why.

The 'Order of St Benedict' has, for centuries, appeared in the lists of historico-canonical precedence for religious orders put out annually by the Vatican in its annual statistics book, Annuario Pontificio, and is listed as having been founded in the sixth century for this purpose.   It still appears in the modern version, under Institutes of Consecrated Life. 

So if there is no such thing as the Benedictine Order, it would appear to be news to the Vatican!

Canon law and the Order of St Benedict

But let's take a look at the arguments of those who claim there is no such thing as the Order of St Benedict. 

Take for example, Fr Luke Dysinger OSB's version of the storyline, which pretty well encapsulates most of the standard arguments. 

He starts his treatment of the subject by saying:

"PREPARE yourself for a shock: from the perspective of canon law there is no such thing as "The Benedictine Order."

That's sort of true. 

But only because, in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there is no longer such a thing as a 'religious order' at all, technically speaking! 

I'm not a canonist, but the old 1917 Code of Canon Law (and pre-1917 canonical conventions) did talk about religious orders, and basically defined membership of them in terms of those religious who took solemn (as opposed to simple) vows. 

What made a religious a member of a religious order prior to 1983, rather than a 'religious congregation', in other words, was not a matter of how they were centrally organized, but about the effects of their vows.

And on that definition of course, most, though not all, Benedictines were considered members of a religious order (the story is complicated by the existence of active, missionary institutes, and the loss of the right to take solemn vows by American Benedictine women's monasteries).

It is true though that the 1983 Code however drops all these older distinctions and talks only about Institutes of Consecrated Life.  Still, if you are going to talk about religious orders, then the weight of ecclesial tradition would suggest that 'the Order of St Benedict' certainly is one'.

The arguments don't just rest on canonical history or technicalities, however.

The early history of the Benedictine 'order'

Fr Dysinger goes on to argue that there is no order because Benedictine monasticism predates the very concept:

"Are you surprised? You should be. After all, everyone knows that O.S.B., the letters which Benedictine monastics (sisters, nuns and monks) sign after their names stand for Ordine Sancti Benedicti - the Order of St. Benedict. However, there is no Benedictine "Order." There were Benedictine monks and nuns long before anyone spoke of religious orders: in fact, for several centuries, Benedictine monasticism was the only form of religious life in the Western Church. Benedictines are thus much older than the concept of a religious order."

But is it really true that Benedictine monasticism was the only form of religious life in the Church for several centuries?  Well actually no.

In fact of course there were a wide variety of forms of religious life, and many different rules (and collections of rules) in use throughout the first millennium of the churches life.

Indeed, when the Benedictines, at the time of Pope St Pius V, tried to argue for precedence for the Order over all later comers using just the type of argument adduced by Fr Luke, that claim was rejected in favour of the Canons Regular of St Augustine on the basis that their rule was dated earlier, and two popes ruled the canons regular concept at least in fact had apostolic origins.  To this day, the Annuario Pontificio credits them as having been founded in the fourth century.

Does continuity matter?

Some argue that one of the reasons for rejecting the idea that there is an 'order of Benedict' is that there is no clear chain of continuity from the founder himself down through history.  The continuity, they argue, rests only within individual Benedictine Congregations.

It should be noted first that Pope Pius V's sixteenth century ruling on the precedence of the Augustinians didn't rest on any claim of continuity, because there was none in their case!  After the death of St Augustine, Africa was largely lost to Christianity, and there is no evidence that his concept of organising the priests of a diocese in a quasi-monastic way survived that destruction.  Rather, the Augustinian Canons were a later revival of the charism.  So even if it were true, as some have argued, that Benedictine monasticism is a Carolingian invention (a view I for one reject), that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as the Benedictine Order.

I also think a reasonably strong case for some considerable degree of continuity in the Benedictine charism can actually be made.  The case rests, it is true, partly on an oral tradition written down much later, partly on extrapolation from what we do know.  But the counter-argument basically starts from a hermeneutic of suspicion: if a hard document such as a charter can't be produced proving that the rule was passed on by a disciple of St Benedict and used, then it clearly didn't happen.  Yet we know perfectly well that very little of the records of this period have survived.  But what has is consistent with the traditional storyline of how the Order spread.  In any case, I've set out some of the possible links in the chain my series on St Benedict for the Novena leading up to his feastday. 

In fact I think in many ways a stronger case for continuity in the Benedictine Order can be made for the earlier period than for more recent times.  The founder of the nineteenth century revival of Benedictine Monasticism, for example, Dom Prosper Gueranger, didn't even meet his first Benedictine monk until four years after his the foundation of his monastery.  And that meeting (with the English Congregation monk, Dom William Ullathorne) was on the road to Rome where Gueranger did a whole fortnight by way of 'noviciate' at St Paul Without-the Walls before making his solemn profession and being formally appointed Abbot of Solesmes!

I'm not suggesting that there was in reality no continuity with the earlier form of the Benedictine charism in the case of Solesmes: quite the contrary.  In fact Dom Gueranger and his monks undertook detailed studies of earlier monastic customs and interpretations of the Rule.  But the continuity in the end came mostly from living the Rule, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not some notional apprenticeship system down the centuries.

Lack of a central organizational structure

Another argument often put is that the real distinction between Benedictines and other religious orders has to do with organizational structures.  Dysinger says:

"THE TERM "religious order" usually implies an international structure in which common observance is maintained through submission to a single authority figure, usually a "superior general." Benedictines have never had such a structure. That is, there has never been a single abbot who could claim jurisdiction over all Benedictine monasteries. Only the Holy Father in Rome can claim that privilege."

It is true that Benedictines lack a central governing structure with the sort of powers that many other orders give to a superior general. 

You can't just set up a monastery and claim to be members of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) for example, unless the official order accepts you.  Mind you, of course, these days there are more than a few Dominicans by any other name (such as the traditionalist Fraternity of St Vincent Ferrer) who don't call themselves OP, but do claim the spirituality.

By contrast, you can (in theory at least; in practice the bishop and/or the Holy See will need some convincing that you really are Benedictine) set up a Benedictine monastery and write OSB after your names without the agreement of any official Benedictine central governing body. 

There is, it is true, a 'Benedictine Confederation' (established in the nineteenth century) which monasteries and groups of monasteries can affiliate with. 

But there are also more than a few very prominent, indisputably Benedictine monasteries, that are not, or have not been until very recently (such as Le Barroux for example) members of it.

It is also true that many do think of religious orders as highly centralized affairs with a central governing body. But in reality, there are others who, like the Benedictines, do not have such a structure - including those old rivals, the Augustinian Canons - yet have always been accepted as religious orders

The root of the problem: agreeing on what it means to be Benedictine!

The root cause of the modern reluctance to lay claim to being an order in any real sense, I would suggest, goes to some very longstanding, often quite bitter, and in many cases still unresolved disputes about just what the nature of the Benedictine 'Black Monk' charism really is.

When it comes down to it, when we talk about a particular religious order, we usually really mean a distinctive spirituality and mode of operation associated with a particular founder or foundress.  Benedictines have always been extremely diverse, but the last several decades have seen major divides in most religious orders as to just what their charism really is.  And some, I would suggest, just don't want to be associated with certain other views of Benedictine spirituality...

In reality the first grouping of monasteries to look like the later religious orders, in the sense of having a central governing authority and many closely regulated offshoots, was arguably the Cluniac Congregation of Benedictines, founded in the tenth century. 

And the first really public great debate on the nature of the Benedictine charism was in the twelfth century between the Cluniacs (particularly under Peter the Venerable) and the Cistercians (particularly under Bernard of Clairvaux).  So great was the divide between the two interpretations of the Rule, that the Cistercians became a separate religious order(s) to the Black Monks.

In reality, many of the issues debated back then and down the centuries in subsequent outbreaks of hostilities within the Order about what it means to follow the Rule are still much contested. 

There are those, for example, who have held, from the nineteenth century revival onwards, that the Benedictine charism is strictly contemplative, and that those congregations or monasteries who undertake active apostolic works should be considered oblates only, not monks or nuns.  This view gained ground in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, with more than a few monasteries of women in particular being forced to either abandon their limited apostolic works (such as schools within the cloister) or lose the right to make solemn vows. Others, however, point out that the Benedictine charism has historically embraced a very wide variety of forms indeed, and point to the early missionary tradition.

The ins and outs of the various debates on the nature of the charism  are perhaps best left for possible future posts.

Suffice it to suggest that the tradition of the fiercely guarded autonomy of individual monasteries and/or congregations, and resistance to central authority, is a reaction to the Order's long history.

OSB?

All the same, there surely is such as thing as the 'Order of St Benedict' - after all, would so many write it after their names if it doesn't actually mean anything?

But do let me know if you agree or not, or want more detail or references for any of the points I've made.

And if you have suggestions for future FAQs to cover, do let me know.

Order of St Benedict FAQs, Part I

This is a slightly edited version of an article originally posted on my Australia Incognita blog which mysteriously started getting a lot of hits last year (I'd love to know who was recommending it?), so I thought it might be useful to repost it here.

It was essentially written to counter some misinformation and misunderstandings about the Order of St Benedict that I'd heard, so doesn't pretend to be either comprehensive or systematic! 

I do plan to do more parts of this though (starting of the question of whether there is such a thing as 'the order of St Benedict'!), so do let me know if you have any particular questions you'd like answered about Benedictine spirituality or the nature of the Benedictine Order/monastic practices, and I'll see what I can do!

Please do feel free to provide corrections or additional information, or to comment and disagree on my take on the subject!

1. Do Benedictine nuns have to practice papal enclosure?

No, not necessarily. Strict papal enclosure was imposed on all female religious after the Council of Trent as a way of responding to Protestant propaganda about religious, but (unlike many other Orders such as Franciscan, Dominican and Carmelite nuns) it was not part of the original charism.

St Benedict certainly encouraged a strict division from the world for both his monks and nuns, but a good case can be made that the charism was originally for the 'mixed life' rather than strictly contemplative (his monks acted as chaplains to nearby communities, and their immediate successors, both monks and nuns, included many missionaries; and St Benedict's emphasis on hospitality is pretty much incompatible with strict enclosure of the type allowed for under current canon law as 'constitutional enclosure'.

In fact the most famous story we have about the first Benedictine nuns concerns St Scholastica's annual trip to visit her brother St Benedict at the foot of his monastery, something certainly not possible under papal enclosure.

St Benedict's Rule (except for the section on priests) in principle applies equally to men and women, and includes provisions on how to behave outside the monastery, rituals for long journeys, and instructions on dealing with guests within the monastic enclosure.

In the nineteenth century revival of monasticism, the charism split two ways - in the US Benedictine nuns became actives, and lost the right to solemn profession, whereas most of their European sisters accepted papal enclosure. Today canon law allows more leeway, and while some traditional nuns (such as Le Barroux) continue the tradition of strict papal enclosure, others (such as Jouques), while maintaining the forms of enclosure (grille and parlour so forth) take turns at extern duties, and practice hospitality in the spirit of the Rule.

2. How is the seeming affluence of some Benedictines compatible with the vow of poverty?

Actually, Benedictines don't technically make a vow of poverty (though it is certainly encompassed in the vows they do make) - they actually promise stability, conversion of life, and obedience, in accordance with the Rule of St Benedict.

And there is an interesting difference between Benedictines and Franciscans. St Francis wanted his friars to both be poor and look poor - to wear patched habits and so forth. St Benedict by contrast instructed his monks to wear the patched habits within the monastery - but when going outside on a journey, to be given a nicer outfit stored up for the purpose.

Similarly, Benedictines generally wear choir cowls over their normal habit in Church to present a nicer face to the outside world. Benedictine poverty and austerity, in other words, was to be practiced in secret within the monastery, but not to be made obvious to the outside world. So don't make assumptions about how the monks or nuns are living based on the little glimpses you get to see!

Secondly, though, religious poverty in the Benedictine tradition is about collective ownership of goods.  No solemnly professed monk or nun 'owns' anything personally, anything they use is supposed to be allocated to them by the abbot/abbess on the basis of need only. That means that if you give a monk a gift, the abbot decides whether or not he gets it, or it goes to someone else.

3. Can the monastery buy up lots of nice stuff under the guise of common ownership?

It depends!

If we are talking expensive tvs/entertainment equipment, aeroplanes (yes one new Cistercian community, now defunct, actually owned a plane) and the like, then I personally think that is totally inconsistent with the Rule.

St Benedict, after all, specifies a certain degree of austerity - no more clothes than are needed for the locality and type of work done for example.

But the Rule does assume the monastery will spend up big on necessary things - like books in particular, since reading and study is a big part of the life.

He also put a lot of emphasis on adapting the Rule of the monastery to individual needs - if some needed more things in order to persevere in the life, then the abbot should allow what was necessary (and others should not be jealous of whatever privileges they were allowed), since perseverance is far more important than uniformity.

And whereas St Dominic, for example, specified that the chapels of his order should not be filled with expensive items, prohibiting for example the use of silk, Benedictines have always prized beauty, particularly in the worship of God (Cistercians of course, split off in the more austere school of monastic life, with whitewashed chapels instead of wall paintings and so forth).

Benedictines have also traditionally tried to make their monasteries appear attractive - they live in them for life, remember, not wondering about as friars and others do, and shouldn't often leave them. They do not generally get four week overseas holidays a year; or to go out to visit art galleries or attend a concert, or have a meal. Instead their recreation periods are strictly regulated, and are generally communal (typically a group walk). So if they are allowed an occasional more relaxed form of entertainment in the monastery as a special treat, or spend some communal money on entertainment, that's not (necessarily) inconsistent with poverty.

By way of context, it's worth knowing that the most ascetic Order of them all, the Carthusians, filled their monasteries with some of the greatest art works of the middle ages until the Reformation (and subsequent waves of anti-catholic forces) destroyed so many of them.

4. Do the monks/nuns eat the same food as guests?

St Benedict's Rule puts a lot of emphasis on hospitality. The monks were supposed to maintain a separate kitchen (where meat could be served, in contrast to the diet specified for the monastery itself), and the abbot or a senior monk was to dine with the guests. Even the internal fasts of the monastery were to take second place to the duty of hospitality, with an instruction to break the fast in order to dine with a new arrival.

It's an approach that has firm roots in the desert monk tradition, where two visiting monks were scandalized by the rich meal offered to them by a famous monk - they didn't realize that what he offered them was very far from his normal fare.

Within the monastery proper, the Rule specifies a regime of either one or two meals a day depending on the season (but able to be modified by the abbot if the needs of the time and place demand it), with no meat of four-hoofed animals (so birds and fish are ok). The monastic fasts specified by the Rule are generally about how many meals and when the meal is taken (in Lent, the one meal is delayed until the evening, rather than being mid-afternoon for example) rather than quantity consumed.

St Benedict's emphasis was on moderation in food (and other things) rather than strict asceticism (he specifically allows wine with meals for example, even while noting that many see it as unsuitable for monks), and on ensuring that everyone has enough to eat to cope with the other rigours of the life. In this light, over time the Rule has generally been modified somewhat - most monasteries do allow some light breakfast, and many eat at least some red meat (Dom Gueranger didn't think frenchmen could survive without it, so his Solesmes Congregation set the trend)! But most also have regular stricter fasts.

Some men's monasteries allow male guests to eat in the refectory, so you do actually get to see what the monks eat. But elsewhere, if the religious are feeding you, don't make assumptions: what you are consuming in the guesthouse may not be what the monks or nuns are eating (or not eating)!

Feast of Epiphany (January 6)

Vicente Gil, 1498-1519

January 6 is, in some countries, as well as in the Extraordinary Form, the feast of the Epiphany. 

Christmastide and the date of the feast

In many more places, unfortunately, where it is not a Holy Day of Obligation, it is celebrated this coming Sunday instead.  And that is unfortunate, because the celebration of the feast of the Epiphany (the word means manifestation) on January 6 is very ancient as a decree of the Holy See dating back to 376 attests.

It marks, among other things, the end of the traditional twelve days of Christmas, and is traditionally one of the great feasts around which the Church year is traditionally arranged (with Sundays after the Epiphany).

It is worth noting, though, that Epiphany does not in fact mark the end of the broader Christmas season: the 1963 breviary rubrics split  'de tempore natalicio' into two sections: Nativitytide and Epiphanytide, which runs up to and includes 13 January (ie encompassing the old and now abolished octave of the Epiphany).

Manifestations of the divinity of Our Lord

The Feast actually celebrates three different 'manifestations' of our Lord's divinity:

• the visit of the Wise Men from the East (the primary focus of the liturgy of the feast of the Epiphany);
• the baptism of Our Lord by St John the Baptist (especially remembered on the old octave day in the feast of the Commemoration of the Baptism of Our Lord, January 13; and
• the changing of wine into water at the wedding feast of Cena.

It is perhaps worth noting that the recent publication of an early account of the Magi's journey, The Revelations of the Magi, which suggests that there were in fact quite a large group of wise men who travelled to worship the Christ child, in no way contradicts the Gospel, which is silent on the size of the group...

The feast is rich in devotional traditions, including the blessing of holy water (of the 'super-charged' variety!), frankinsense, gold and chalk (to be used in the annual blessing of your house).

Make reading the Benedictine Rule daily a new year's resolution!

A Benedictine spiritual practice that you might want to consider adopting (or picking up again) is to read a section of the Rule of St Benedict each day.

St Benedict's Rule, probably written for his monastery of Monte Cassino before the death of the saint in 547, was originally primarily a legislative work, setting out the broad outlines for how a monastery should work for the benefit of novices.  But it has proved remarkably durable - adaptable to many times and places, and able to be used as a spiritual guide by religious, priests and laity alike.

Because St Benedict wanted the Rule to be read to novices three times before profession in full, it became the custom, maintained in many monasteries up to this day, to divide it up into daily sections so as to read it aloud in chapter (traditionally said immediately after Prime) three times a year.  Many oblates and others have likewise adopted this custom, and you can find an online edition of the Rule divided up for daily reading here (the website will send you a daily email if requested).

It is helpful to read it with a good commentary.  You can find links to Simon's Commentary for Oblates and Dom Delatte's classic commentary in the sidebar at the right.  But for something online, I'd suggest a read of that by Abbot Philip Lawrence of Christ in the Desert Monastery.  It is aimed at monks, and you may not agree with all of it, but it provides some very solid food for thought.

Feast of Mary, Mother of God? (aka New Year, aka Circumcision of Christ aka Octave Day of Christmas)

This Sunday's feast is curious in that it has undergone a number of name changes in recent years - yet retained its key text, viz  St Luke 2:21, which describes the circumcision of Our Lord.

Traditionally, this Sunday would have been the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord. The feast celebrated the first time the blood of Christ was shed, and thus the beginning of the process of the redemption of man. It also serves to demonstrate that Christ was fully human, and his obedience to Biblical law.

In the 1962 Calendar (including the Benedictine Universal Calendar), all of the traditional texts for the feast are retained, but the name is dropped in favour of the Octave Day of the Nativity.

In the Novus Ordo calendar, it has become the Feast of Mary, Mother of God, apparently for reasons of ecumenism (with the Eastern Orthodox).

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

On calendars and ordos...

For those wanting to say some form of the Benedictine Office in 2012, I thought it might be helpful to include links to various online Ordos and calendars.

There are essentially three (licit) choices as far as calendars and ordos go, but quite a few variants to them, so herewith a guide!

Why calendars and rubrics are important

Once upon a time (essentially between Trent and Vatican II) the delegation to say the Divine Office on behalf of the Church was restricted to priests and religious. 

Current Church law opens up the Office to the laity as well, but that brings with it great responsibility.

The Office is not just some other prayer that you can just toss off - even when said by one person alone, the presumption will normally be that it is part of the official public, liturgical prayer of the Church.   Thus it must be said in line with the rules that go with it.

That means paying attention to the rubrics, and using an approved calendar.

Benedictine 1963 (EF)

The first and easiest approach, open to any Benedictine Oblate, is to use the Benedictine universal calendar for 1963, adding in any local feasts for your region, country, diocese, monastery and parish church.

This calendar is pretty similar to the 1962 Extraordinary Form one, though there are some variations in the number and level of feasts.

The Farnborough Diurnal is keyed to this calendar, and the monthly Ordo on this blog (or if you want it by emails/word file, join the tradben yahoo group) should help you find the appropriate pages in the book.

Adapting the Benedictine to the Extraordinary From calendar

If you are attending daily Mass in the Extraordinary Form some place that is not a Benedictine monastery, you may want to adapt the Office you say to reflect the Mass of the day.  That is actually pretty easy to do, and I think it can be argued, perfectly licit - the liturgical seasons and major feasts are mostly identical; just make use of the 'Commons' of the appropriate type of saint and, if desired, use the collect of the day from your missal.  Some traditional monasteries actually do more or less follow the EF calendar appropriate to their country, one of which is Le Barroux.

Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form calendar

It is of course possible to adapt the traditional Office to one or more variants of the Novus Ordo calendar, and indeed the monastery of Solesmes has published a series of volumes doing just that, including canticle antiphons and collects linked to the novus ordo three year lectionary.  The problem for many is that these volumes are in Latin only, and there are as far as I can discover no authorised English translations.  There are, however, an unauthorized set of translations you could use for study purposes here.

One solution for those praying the Office devotionally rather than liturgically if you want to stick with the traditional psalter but don't have enough Latin (and aren't prepared to learn a little!), would be to start from the Farnborough Diurnal but take the collects and Sunday canticle antiphons, etc from a current edition of the Liturgy of the Hours.

To that you could add the list of the standard Novus Ordo Benedictine feasts for the Order as a whole here.

Note that you will need to be very familiar with the traditional Office though to find the right parts!

Calendars and rubrics for individual monasteries/congregations

As the Benedictine "order' is very loosely connected indeed, most monasteries (or groups of monasteries) actually have the authority (within limits) to set up own calendars and often variants to the rubrics - Le Barroux for example, retains I Vespers for Class II feasts; and some traditional monasteries use the 1963 Office but with what is (more or less) the Novus Ordo calendar.

So if you are an Oblate, try and obtain the Ordo of the monastery you are affiliated to, and adapt the Office accordingly.

Or, if you are affiliated with a monastery of a particular Congregation, use their Ordo in association with the 'Commons of Saints':

• Norcia in Italy provides a weekly ordo to go along with their broadcasts of the Office;
• a calendar for the monasteries of the English Congregation is available online;
• so too, the American Cassinese (note large file).

There may be others, if so do let me know.

Older calendars...

There are of course many older Diurnals and Breviaries around, and so many do use the older calendar that comes with them.

My personal view is that while studying these older variations can be helpful, actually using them is a form of liturgical abuse, an example of the liturgical creativity of recent decades infecting even traditionalists.

It isn't at all hard, after all, to use these older books but apply the 1963 calendar and rubrics.

Still, if you must, you can buy calendars for the Western or Orthodox rites over at Lancelot Andrewes Press...

Sixth Day in the Octave of the Nativity (December 30)

Fifth Day in the Octave of the Nativity (Dec 29)/St Thomas of Canterbury

Bernadino Luini c1525-30



In the Extraordinary Form calendar today, and in many places, today is the feast of St Thomas of Canterbury, better known as St Thomas a Becket, martyred in his own Cathedral for defending the rights of the Church against the State.

Holy Innocents (December 28)



Giotto, c1304

 The Biblical account of the reasons for this ancient feast of the first martyrs for Christ is St. Matthew 2:16-18:

"Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and sending killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

St John the Evangelist (December 27)

c1125

Pope Benedict XVI has given a series of General Audiences on St John.  Here is the first of the series:

"Let us dedicate our meeting today to remembering another very important member of the Apostolic College: John, son of Zebedee and brother of James. His typically Jewish name means: "the Lord has worked grace". He was mending his nets on the shore of Lake Tiberias when Jesus called him and his brother (cf. Mt 4: 21; Mk 1: 19).

John was always among the small group that Jesus took with him on specific occasions. He was with Peter and James when Jesus entered Peter's house in Capernaum to cure his mother-in-law (cf. Mk 1: 29); with the other two, he followed the Teacher into the house of Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue whose daughter he was to bring back to life (cf. Mk 5: 37); he followed him when he climbed the mountain for his Transfiguration (cf. Mk 9: 2).

He was beside the Lord on the Mount of Olives when, before the impressive sight of the Temple of Jerusalem, he spoke of the end of the city and of the world (cf. Mk 13: 3); and, lastly, he was close to him in the Garden of Gethsemane when he withdrew to pray to the Father before the Passion (cf. Mk 14: 33).

Shortly before the Passover, when Jesus chose two disciples to send them to prepare the room for the Supper, it was to him and to Peter that he entrusted this task (cf. Lk 22: 8).

His prominent position in the group of the Twelve makes it somewhat easier to understand the initiative taken one day by his mother: she approached Jesus to ask him if her two sons - John and James - could sit next to him in the Kingdom, one on his right and one on his left (cf. Mt 20: 20-21).

As we know, Jesus answered by asking a question in turn: he asked whether they were prepared to drink the cup that he was about to drink (cf. Mt 20: 22). The intention behind those words was to open the two disciples' eyes, to introduce them to knowledge of the mystery of his person and to suggest their future calling to be his witnesses, even to the supreme trial of blood.

A little later, in fact, Jesus explained that he had not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many (cf. Mt 20: 28).

In the days after the Resurrection, we find "the sons of Zebedee" busy with Peter and some of the other disciples on a night when they caught nothing, but that was followed, after the intervention of the Risen One, by the miraculous catch: it was to be "the disciple Jesus loved" who first recognized "the Lord" and pointed him out to Peter (cf. Jn 21: 1-13).

In the Church of Jerusalem, John occupied an important position in supervising the first group of Christians. Indeed, Paul lists him among those whom he calls the "pillars" of that community (cf. Gal 2: 9). In fact, Luke in the Acts presents him together with Peter while they are going to pray in the temple (cf. Acts 3: 1-4, 11) or appear before the Sanhedrin to witness to their faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 4: 13, 19).

Together with Peter, he is sent to the Church of Jerusalem to strengthen the people in Samaria who had accepted the Gospel, praying for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 8: 14-15). In particular, we should remember what he affirmed with Peter to the Sanhedrin members who were accusing them: "We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4: 20).

It is precisely this frankness in confessing his faith that lives on as an example and a warning for all of us always to be ready to declare firmly our steadfast attachment to Christ, putting faith before any human calculation or concern.

According to tradition, John is the "disciple whom Jesus loved", who in the Fourth Gospel laid his head against the Teacher's breast at the Last Supper (cf. Jn 13: 23), stood at the foot of the Cross together with the Mother of Jesus (cf. Jn 19: 25) and lastly, witnessed both the empty tomb and the presence of the Risen One himself (cf. Jn 20: 2; 21: 7).

We know that this identification is disputed by scholars today, some of whom view him merely as the prototype of a disciple of Jesus. Leaving the exegetes to settle the matter, let us be content here with learning an important lesson for our lives: the Lord wishes to make each one of us a disciple who lives in personal friendship with him.

To achieve this, it is not enough to follow him and to listen to him outwardly: it is also necessary to live with him and like him. This is only possible in the context of a relationship of deep familiarity, imbued with the warmth of total trust. This is what happens between friends; for this reason Jesus said one day: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.... No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" (Jn 15: 13, 15).

In the apocryphal Acts of John, the Apostle is not presented as the founder of Churches nor as the guide of already established communities, but as a perpetual wayfarer, a communicator of the faith in the encounter with "souls capable of hoping and of being saved" (18: 10; 23: 8).

All is motivated by the paradoxical intention to make visible the invisible. And indeed, the Oriental Church calls him quite simply "the Theologian", that is, the one who can speak in accessible terms of the divine, revealing an arcane access to God through attachment to Jesus.

Devotion to the Apostle John spread from the city of Ephesus where, according to an ancient tradition, he worked for many years and died in the end at an extraordinarily advanced age, during the reign of the Emperor Trajan.

In Ephesus in the sixth century, the Emperor Justinian had a great basilica built in his honour, whose impressive ruins are still standing today. Precisely in the East, he enjoyed and still enjoys great veneration.

In Byzantine iconography he is often shown as very elderly - according to tradition, he died under the Emperor Trajan - in the process of intense contemplation, in the attitude, as it were, of those asking for silence.

Indeed, without sufficient recollection it is impossible to approach the supreme mystery of God and of his revelation. This explains why, years ago, Athenagoras, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the man whom Pope Paul VI embraced at a memorable encounter, said: "John is the origin of our loftiest spirituality. Like him, "the silent ones' experience that mysterious exchange of hearts, pray for John's presence, and their hearts are set on fire" (O. Clément, Dialoghi con Atenagora, Turin 1972, p. 159).

May the Lord help us to study at John's school and learn the great lesson of love, so as to feel we are loved by Christ "to the end" (Jn 13: 1), and spend our lives for him."

St Stephen the Protomartyr (Dec 26)

Pope Benedict XVI gave a General Audinece on St Stephen in 2007.  Here are a few extracts:

"St Stephen is the most representative of a group of seven companions. Tradition sees in this group the seed of the future ministry of "deacons", although it must be pointed out that this category is not present in the Book of Acts. In any case, Stephen's importance is due to the fact that Luke, in his important book, dedicates two whole chapters to him.

Luke's narrative starts with the observation of a widespread division in the primitive Church of Jerusalem: indeed, she consisted entirely of Christians of Jewish origin, but some came from the land of Israel and were called "Hebrews", while others, of the Old Testament Jewish faith, came from the Greek-speaking Diaspora and were known as "Hellenists". This was the new problem: the most destitute of the Hellenists, especially widows deprived of any social support, ran the risk of being neglected in the daily distribution of their rations. To avoid this problem, the Apostles, continuing to devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word, decided to appoint for this duty "seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom" to help them (Acts 6: 2-4), that is, by carrying out a social and charitable service.

To this end, as Luke wrote, at the Apostles' invitation the disciples chose seven men. We are even given their names. They were: "Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolaus. These they set before the Apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them" (cf. Acts 6: 5-6).

The act of the laying on of hands can have various meanings. In the Old Testament, this gesture meant above all the transmission of an important office, just as Moses laid his hands on Joshua (cf. Nm 27: 18-23), thereby designating his successor. Along the same lines, the Church of Antioch would also use this gesture in sending out Paul and Barnabas on their mission to the peoples of the world (cf. Acts 13: 3).

...The most important thing to note is that in addition to charitable services, Stephen also carried out a task of evangelization among his compatriots, the so-called "Hellenists". Indeed, Luke insists on the fact that Stephen, "full of grace and power" (Acts 6: 8), presented in Jesus' Name a new interpretation of Moses and of God's Law itself. He reread the Old Testament in the light of the proclamation of Christ's death and Resurrection. He gave the Old Testament a Christological reinterpretation and provoked reactions from the Jews, who took his words to be blasphemous (cf. Acts 6: 11-14).

For this reason he was condemned to stoning. And St Luke passes on to us the saint's last discourse, a synthesis of his preaching. Just as Jesus had shown the disciples of Emmaus that the whole of the Old Testament speaks of him, of his Cross and his Resurrection, so St Stephen, following Jesus' teaching, interpreted the whole of the Old Testament in a Christological key. He shows that the mystery of the Cross stands at the centre of the history of salvation as recounted in the Old Testament; it shows that Jesus, Crucified and Risen, is truly the goal of all this history.

St Stephen also shows that the cult of the temple was over and that Jesus, the Risen One, was the new, true "temple". It was precisely this "no" to the temple and to its cult that led to the condemnation of St Stephen, who at this moment, St Luke tells us, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and seeing heaven, God and Jesus, St Stephen said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God" (cf. Acts 7: 56).

This was followed by his martyrdom, modelled in fact on the passion of Jesus himself, since he delivered his own spirit to the "Lord Jesus" and prayed that the sin of those who killed him would not be held against them (cf. Acts 7: 59-60).

The place of St Stephen's martyrdom in Jerusalem has traditionally been located outside the Damascus Gate, to the north, where indeed the Church of Saint-Étienne [St Stephen] stands beside the famous École Biblique of the Dominicans. The killing of Stephen, the first martyr of Christ, unleashed a local persecution of Christ's disciples (cf. Acts 8: 1), the first one in the history of the Church. It was these circumstances that impelled the group of Judeo-Hellenist Christians to flee from Jerusalem and scatter. Hounded out of Jerusalem, they became itinerant missionaries: "Those who were scattered went about preaching the word" (Acts 8: 4)...

Stephen's story tells us many things: for example, that charitable social commitment must never be separated from the courageous proclamation of the faith. He was one of the seven made responsible above all for charity. But it was impossible to separate charity and faith. Thus, with charity, he proclaimed the crucified Christ, to the point of accepting even martyrdom. This is the first lesson we can learn from the figure of St Stephen: charity and the proclamation of faith always go hand in hand.

Above all, St Stephen speaks to us of Christ, of the Crucified and Risen Christ as the centre of history and our life. We can understand that the Cross remains forever the centre of the Church's life and also of our life. In the history of the Church, there will always be passion and persecution. And it is persecution itself which, according to Tertullian's famous words, becomes "the seed of Christians", the source of mission for Christians to come...."

Happy Christmas!

May all readers of this blog enjoy a happy and holy Christmastide....

Vigil of the Nativity (Dec 24)

Enrolment for tax,
mosaic Istanbul

O Emmanuel (December 23)

Today the last of the great O Antiphons for the Magnificat:

O Emmanuel, our king and our lawgiver,
the hope of the nations and their Saviour:
Come and save us, O Lord our God.

Antiphon for the Magnificat: O Rex Gentium (Dec 22)

O King of the nations, and their desire,
the cornerstone making both one:
Come and save the human race,
which you fashioned from clay.

December 21: St Thomas, Apostle

Caravaggio: The incredulity of St Thomas

Today is the feast of the apostle Thomas. Pope Benedict devoted a General Audience to the Apostle in 2006:

"Continuing our encounters with the Twelve Apostles chosen directly by Jesus, today we will focus our attention on Thomas. Ever present in the four lists compiled by the New Testament, in the first three Gospels he is placed next to Matthew (cf. Mt 10: 3; Mk 3: 18; Lk 6: 15), whereas in Acts, he is found after Philip (cf. Acts 1: 13).

His name derives from a Hebrew root, ta'am, which means "paired, twin". In fact, John's Gospel several times calls him "Dydimus" (cf. Jn 11: 16; 20: 24; 21: 2), a Greek nickname for, precisely, "twin". The reason for this nickname is unclear.

It is above all the Fourth Gospel that gives us information that outlines some important traits of his personality.

The first concerns his exhortation to the other Apostles when Jesus, at a critical moment in his life, decided to go to Bethany to raise Lazarus, thus coming dangerously close to Jerusalem (Mk 10: 32).

On that occasion Thomas said to his fellow disciples: "Let us also go, that we may die with him" (Jn 11: 16). His determination to follow his Master is truly exemplary and offers us a valuable lesson: it reveals his total readiness to stand by Jesus, to the point of identifying his own destiny with that of Jesus and of desiring to share with him the supreme trial of death.

In fact, the most important thing is never to distance oneself from Jesus.

Moreover, when the Gospels use the verb "to follow", it means that where he goes, his disciple must also go.

Thus, Christian life is defined as a life with Jesus Christ, a life to spend together with him. St Paul writes something similar when he assures the Christians of Corinth: "You are in our hearts, to die together and to live together" (II Cor 7: 3). What takes place between the Apostle and his Christians must obviously apply first of all to the relationship between Christians and Jesus himself: dying together, living together, being in his Heart as he is in ours.

A second intervention by Thomas is recorded at the Last Supper. On that occasion, predicting his own imminent departure, Jesus announced that he was going to prepare a place for his disciples so that they could be where he is found; and he explains to them: "Where [I] am going you know the way" (Jn 14: 4). It is then that Thomas intervenes, saying: "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?" (Jn 14: 5).

In fact, with this remark he places himself at a rather low level of understanding; but his words provide Jesus with the opportunity to pronounce his famous definition: "I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life" (Jn 14: 6).

Thus, it is primarily to Thomas that he makes this revelation, but it is valid for all of us and for every age. Every time we hear or read these words, we can stand beside Thomas in spirit and imagine that the Lord is also speaking to us, just as he spoke to him.

At the same time, his question also confers upon us the right, so to speak, to ask Jesus for explanations. We often do not understand him. Let us be brave enough to say: "I do not understand you, Lord; listen to me, help me to understand". In such a way, with this frankness which is the true way of praying, of speaking to Jesus, we express our meagre capacity to understand and at the same time place ourselves in the trusting attitude of someone who expects light and strength from the One able to provide them.

Then, the proverbial scene of the doubting Thomas that occurred eight days after Easter is very well known. At first he did not believe that Jesus had appeared in his absence and said: "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe" (Jn 20: 25).

Basically, from these words emerges the conviction that Jesus can now be recognized by his wounds rather than by his face. Thomas holds that the signs that confirm Jesus' identity are now above all his wounds, in which he reveals to us how much he loved us. In this the Apostle is not mistaken.

As we know, Jesus reappeared among his disciples eight days later and this time Thomas was present. Jesus summons him: "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing" (Jn 20: 27).

Thomas reacts with the most splendid profession of faith in the whole of the New Testament: "My Lord and my God!" (Jn 20: 28). St Augustine comments on this: Thomas "saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other" (In ev. Jo. 121, 5).

The Evangelist continues with Jesus' last words to Thomas: "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (Jn 20: 29). This sentence can also be put into the present: "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".

In any case, here Jesus spells out a fundamental principle for Christians who will come after Thomas, hence, for all of us.

It is interesting to note that another Thomas, the great Medieval theologian of Aquinas, juxtaposed this formula of blessedness with the apparently opposite one recorded by Luke: "Blessed are the eyes which see what you see!" (Lk 10: 23). However, Aquinas comments: "Those who believe without seeing are more meritorious than those who, seeing, believe" (In Johann. XX lectio VI 2566).

In fact, the Letter to the Hebrews, recalling the whole series of the ancient biblical Patriarchs who believed in God without seeing the fulfilment of his promises, defines faith as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11: 1).

The Apostle Thomas' case is important to us for at least three reasons: first, because it comforts us in our insecurity; second, because it shows us that every doubt can lead to an outcome brighter than any uncertainty; and, lastly, because the words that Jesus addressed to him remind us of the true meaning of mature faith and encourage us to persevere, despite the difficulty, along our journey of adhesion to him.

A final point concerning Thomas is preserved for us in the Fourth Gospel, which presents him as a witness of the Risen One in the subsequent event of the miraculous catch in the Sea of Tiberias (cf. Jn 21: 2ff.).

On that occasion, Thomas is even mentioned immediately after Simon Peter: an evident sign of the considerable importance that he enjoyed in the context of the early Christian communities.

Indeed, the Acts and the Gospel of Thomas, both apocryphal works but in any case important for the study of Christian origins, were written in his name.

Lastly, let us remember that an ancient tradition claims that Thomas first evangelized Syria and Persia (mentioned by Origen, according to Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3, 1) then went on to Western India (cf. Acts of Thomas 1-2 and 17ff.), from where also he finally reached Southern India.

Let us end our reflection in this missionary perspective, expressing the hope that Thomas' example will never fail to strengthen our faith in Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Our God."

Another monastery goes live...

The Monastery of Le Barroux, France has announced, with the support of the Archbishop of Avignon, that it will make available four hours of the Office each day available online - Prime, Sext, Vespers and Compline.

You can either listen via the 'Barroux' application on your iphone (you can download the application via their website), or on your computer.

As far as I can see, unlike Norcia, it is a live broadcast only, no archiving, so it will depend what time zone you are in whether or not it is useful to you or not - Prime normally starting at 7.45am translates to 1.45am in New York, and 5.45pm here in Australia (Eastern Summer Time)!

Still, if you can listen, your Diurnal should do the job in allowing you to follow it, as the website points you to the Latin-French version of the same book (very cute marketing!). 

Note that Le Barroux uses its own calendar which differs from the General Benedictine calendar slightly (mainly to align it more closely to the Roman EF one, but also of course to reflect local feasts), and generally sings the 'Prolix Responsories' contained in the Antiphonale Monasticum at I Vespers of major feasts instead of the short responsory provided in the Diurnal.

**Listening to Compline now (1945 French time) - very cool!  Even if I should actually be saying Matins....