St Martin of Tours and the missing monastic saints of the Office

Shield, on the medieval city walls of Aigues-Mortes, depicting St-Martin dividing his cloak with the beggar.
Source: Wikicommons, photo by Ad Meskens

I want to draw your attention to one of the oddities of the Benedictine sanctoral calendar, namely its longstanding decidedly un-monastic focus.

St Martin, as I've written previously is a wonderful saint, and one certainly worth celebrating.

Feast rankings

The ranking of the feast as Class II in the 1960 monastic calendar though, is something of an oddity, since St Martin is the only non-Benedictine monastic saint to be accorded this level of feast in the 1960 monastic calendar, and the feast is ranked only as a Class III one in the Roman calendar.

All of the other feasts of monastic saints of the same rank (duplex majus) in the previous versions of the calendar - such as those of St Basil the Great and St Augustine - were downgraded to Class III feasts rather than Class I or II, when translated into the 1960 calendar.

The rationale for the reduction of feasts to Class III is, I think, fairly obvious and understandable.  In the Roman Office, whose calendar the Benedictine has largely mimicked since Trent, there was a huge incentive to add more feasts, since festal Matins in the Roman Office was significantly shorter than the ferial version, with nine psalms said rather than twelve.

In the Benedictine Office, though, the effect of higher level feasts is diametrically opposite: the length of the already relatively long Night Office more than doubles.  Instead of one or three readings, Matins of Class II feasts has twelve readings and responsories, as well as an extra Nocturn made up of three canticles, two extra hymns (the Te Deum and Te decet laus) are added, as well as a gospel reading.

Why then did St Martin escape the reforms?

Monastic saints in the Benedictine calendar

In general the monastic calendar gives pretty short shrift to most monastic saints, Benedictine or otherwise. 

Although the key later medieval founders of religious institutes are generally well-presented in the calendar, many key earlier monastic saints are missing altogether.  St Pachomius, for example, was only added to the monastic calendar (as a memorial) in 1960; St John Cassian, though long listed in the martyrology (and present in some of the earliest, such as that associated with St Bede) for July 23, still does not feature in the calendar at all.

Even Benedictine saints are sparsely represented in the General Calendar - very few of the Order's wealth of saints are actually included at all, and even where they are, there are cases where they are actually ranked lower than in the Roman calendar.

St Benedict aside, the only monastic saints ranked Class II (or above) are St Scholastica (St Benedict's twin sister), St Gregory the Great (author of the Life of St Benedict) and, in the case of woman's monasteries only, St Gertrude the Great.

Trent and local traditions

This lack of emphasis on monastic saints did not actually originate in 1960 or even 1913, date of the previous major cull of the Benedictine calendar, though those purges certainly exacerbated the problem.

Rather, as far as I can see, the issue is a longstanding one, dating back, as far as I can see to the post Tridentine breviaries, which, as part of the counter-reformation purge of saints and imposition of a uniform calendar, largely wiped out a great wealth of monastic feasts and local cults to be found in medieval calendars.

Instead, the Breviaries of Paul V and Urban VIII largely mirrored the Roman calendar, albeit with a few supplemental feasts and approvals for saints particular to congregations and monasteries.

St Martin and St Benedict

The reason for the prominence given to St Martin in the 1960 calendar presumably goes firstly to the fact that St Benedict dedicated a chapel to the saint at Monte Cassino and secondly to his status as a soldier-saint (given the soldiers of Christ imagery in the Benedictine Rule).

The connection between the two saints seems to have continued in Rome as well, since one of the four monasteries, almost certainly Benedictine, that supported St Peter's basilica in the mid seventh century, was dedicated to St Martin.

St Martin's prominence in a 1960s era calendar though, is a little surprising since St Benedict's reason for dedicating a chapel to him was probably to highlight his own adoption of St Martin's (very un-PC) activist missionary approach, which included converting pagan temples, as St Benedict also did at Monte Cassino, into monasteries and churches.

St Martin, though, was an extremely popular saint throughout the middle ages, and an influential model referred to in many early rules and monastic texts, almost displacing (or at least equaling references to St Antony) in the West.  

Martinian monasticism

Missionary activity aside though, St Martin's form of monasticism seems to have been very different in character to that promoted by St Benedict.

Although RB 1980, written some forty years ago now, could claim that the monastic life as lived in late antiquity was pretty much the same everywhere, few historians would accept that today.

Rather, historians are rediscovering, for late antiquity, the existence of what modern catholics would call distinct charisms - quite diverse forms of monastic life founded on very different theological and spiritual principles.

Where St Benedict, for example, advocated manual work, and encouraged his monks to try and support themselves as far as possible, St Martin's monks followed an entirely different branch of monastic theology, and did no manual work at all (the exception was that junior monks only were allowed to copy manuscripts).

Similarly, when it comes to the liturgy, the two approaches seem to have been very different.  

St Benedict followed St Augustine in urging that prayer be frequent (RB 4), short but fervent (RB 19) rather than literally continuous.   St Benedict's Office probably took up somewhere between four and eight hours a day; by contrast St Martin's seems to have been very long indeed, swallowing up most of the monastic day and night.  

Indeed, even once Cassian's advocacy for a twelve psalm maximum for an hour of the Office had spread to Tours, the 567 Synod of Tours rather creatively reinterpreted the 'Rule of the Angel' as setting a minimum number of psalms rather than a maximum 'out of honour and reverence' for St Martin! 

Influences on St Benedict?

On the face of it, then, if you were thinking about which (if any) pre-Benedictine monastic saints merited Class II status in the Benedictine calendar, I for one would be inclined to place St Basil the Great and St Augustine higher on my list.  

That said, the life of St Martin is certainly an inspiring one, both as a model of charity, of determination to confront, combat and convert both pagans and Arian heretics, and as a monastic founder.

Book Review: A Companion to the Monastic Breviary

I want to alert readers to a new resource for the Benedictine Office, released today, which will be very useful for those using the Benedictine Office, because it provides an English translation of the (1960) rubrics published in the 1963 monastic breviary.

The volume adds to the treasury of resources to support the Benedictine Office such as the Diurnal, providing, for the first time, a full, good, clear English translation of the rubrical materials of the Monastic Breviary of 1963, as well as some brief supporting notes on the individual hours.  

Companion to the breviary

The details of the book are:

Cameron Ackerman & Gerhard Eger, A Companion to the Monastic Breviary General Rubrics. General Rubrics of the breviary The year and its parts According to the Monastic Breviary of 1963 Translated from the Latin with commentary and instruction on the hours, Libri Sancti Press, Saint Louis: 2023, $12 US.

It can be obtained from Libri Sancti Press.

The book will be a very useful addition to the libraries of regular users of the Diurnal, Antiphonale or breviary who lack the necessary Latin to read the original text (which can be found both in the breviary and on the Divinum Officium website).  The supporting notes also bring together some material that will be of interest to readers.

Nonetheless, there are some things about the nature of the monastic rubrics that it may be helpful to know, in order to appreciate what the book will and won't help you with.

Pictured supplied

What the rubrics cover

First, it is worth knowing, I think, that these particular rubrics, whether in English or Latin, are a fairly arcane, technical set of instructions.  They are essentially a mix of five different kinds of material.  

The hours and their parts

The most important material for most users will surely be the descriptions of  the hours and their parts, and how this changes with different types of days, seasons and feasts.  

However, the material is fairly brief, not always comprehensive (see below) and most of it is replicated in various ways in the body of the breviary (or Diurnal).  

Reference material

The second category is useful reference material.  Some of this is relevant only to monastic communities (such as instructions on vestments and so forth), but there are certainly rubrics that the average user of the office should ideally read at least once, and then might wish to have on hand to consult as necessary.  This includes things like the rules around anticipating Matins, and when to make the sign of the cross, bow and so forth (most of which is optional in private recitation but good to know and do if possible).  

The Ordo

Mixed into these essentials is a lot of material on the order of precedence of feasts and days which is important only if you are putting together an Ordo (rather than just using one).  The material is important for monastic communities, but not necessarily for the average user of the Diurnal or breviary. And even then, in the vast majority of cases just consulting the 'two tables' (of occurrence and concurrence, also contained in the Diurnal) is generally an easier way of finding the answer! 

For the nerds!

The final category is a lot of material that will be of interest to liturgical nerds only.  

Most people will not, for example, want to learn how to calculate the date of Easter manually, or be rushing to find an updated table of Dominical Letters, Golden Numbers, and Martyrology Letters, since these are not needed for the purpose of actually saying the Office.  Instead, the tables containing the dates of fixed and moveable feasts each year (updated in the first edition of the Farnborough Monastic Diurnal to 2066) or an Ordo will do the job for you. 

Personally I would have been inclined to leave out the year and its parts, and perhaps included instead some of the other decrees and decisions included in the breviary, such as the terms of the original approval for them, the indult for priest oblates to say the Benedictine Office and so forth.  But maybe these can be included in the next edition!

The nature of rubrics...and the problems of this set of them!

The second thing you need to know about the rubrics is that, no matter how well translated, they do not constitute a particularly user friendly document, and often require some additional context to understand.  

Finding what you are looking for: the case of commemorations

First, key provisions are often scattered through the text.  

One of the most frequent queries I receive, for example, concerns commemorations (when can you do them and how). But the instructions on Memorials and Commemorations are spread across four separate sections (rubrics 5, 72-73, 100-108, and 239-248).   

Some of these separations of material can be outright misleading if you are not attuned to the technicalities of the language. Rubric 15, for example, states that Sundays of the First Class take precedence over all other feasts, with the sole exception being the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.  Read on further, though, and you will find another exception, namely the Vigil of the Nativity (rubric 30), in a separate section, one presumes, because a Vigil is not a feast! 

Contradictory provisions

There are also a few instances where the rubrics as written are internally inconsistent, contradictory or clearly incorrect. 

A good example of this concerns Prime, where rubric 161b states that "The psalms are always said as found in the Psalter throughout the week." But in fact this is not the case during the Triduum.

Gaps and missing context

The biggest problem, though, is that there are several gaps in the rubrics, or places where further explanation is warranted. 

The top of the list in my view, is this one: 

"166.  On Easter and Pentecost Sundays and on the days within their octaves, everything is done as indicated in the Breviary."

The festal canticles

Similarly, you will look in vain for instructions on when the Benedicite (Sunday Lauds canticle), festal weekday or ferial canticles should be said.  

The only relevant rubric reads as follows: 

  "In monasteries where the festive canticles are recited at Lauds, the ferial canticles are said only in the seasons of Advent, Septuagesima, Lent and Passiontide, the Ember days of September, and on vigils of the II and III class outside Paschaltide." (translation from the Companion)

This does not mean, however, that one should use the festal canticles on all days other than those when the ferial canticles are used listed. In fact the normal practice is to use the Sunday canticle (never actually explicitly described as festal in either the rubrics or the breviary), not the festal canticle of the day of the week, when the festal psalms are said, such as on Class I&II feasts.  

In this particular case, the reason for not spelling this out is presumably because the permissions to use the festal canticles were originally the subject of specific indults to individual monasteries and congregations, and there were actually two different schemas approved (the most common parallels their use in the Roman Office, but an alternative schema is also noted in the Monastic Diurnal).

A monastic audience

None of these problems with the rubrics, of course, are the fault of the translators and editors of this book.  

Rather, the issue lies with the original authors, who were writing not for those unfamiliar with the Benedictine Office, but for existing monasteries in order to explain the changes made to the calendar and rubrics from those they had previously used. 

Still, it would have been helpful, I think, to include some footnotes to assist the reader on these type of issues.

Who still uses 1960 (63)?!

Finally, it has to be said that there is a certain irony in making the 1963 rubrics (actually technically of 1960, when they were approved, or 1961, when they came into effect) available in English at this point, given that as each year goes by, fewer and fewer monasteries and individuals actually use them.  

Those trying to puzzle out the rubrics or calendar from monastic podcasts, for example, won't necessarily find what they are looking for in them since the traditional monasteries all employ greater or lesser variations to the 1963 rubrics (and calendar).   

Quite a few monasteries ignore some or all of the (silly or perhaps even sinister) changes made to the psalter section of the breviary (cutting out several verses of Psalm 13 and the Saturday ferial canticle, and changing the division points for psalms 9 and 106), and just sing them as they appear in the (pre 1962) Psautier Monastique or Antiphonale Monasticum.

More than a few monasteries have restored selected feasts expunged in the 1960 monastic calendar, as well as some rubrics from prior breviaries, such as the use of 1 Vespers for Class II feasts and the office of Our Lady on Saturday.

Some congregations, such as the Fontgambault group of Solesmes monasteries, including Clear Creek, have their own particular calendar and rubrics (in their case, a unique blend of the Novus Ordo sanctoral calendar; monastic feasts, including some suppressed in the 1960 general calendar; and the older temporal cycle.

And at least one monastery has reverted altogether to the pre-1960 calendar and rubrics.  

Why you need the rubrics!

Still, while individual monasteries have a certain freedom to devise their own rubrics and calendars, individuals do not, so having a set of the rubrics readily available as a reference document is a great step forward.

Moreover, the 1963 breviary is still, theoretically at least, normative for the Benedictine Order.  Accordingly, this volume will be particularly helpful for newer or emerging religious communities seeking to establish their own calendar, as well as for established communities interested in or considering a return to tradition. 

Image supplied

The Instructional and spiritual commentary

The second component of the book is labelled a 'an instruction and commentary', and provides a set of brief notes on the structure, history and associations of each of the hours of the Benedictine Office. 

There is a lot to like in this section, which seeks to draw together rubrical, historical and spiritual material, much of which is quite engaging.

And the notes read very well - the notes on Matins in particular nicely integrate the instructions in the Rule with other contextual material. 

But if the aim of the descriptions of each hour is to guide those new to the Office through the rubrics, it would have been useful, I think, to have included cross-references to the relevant sections of the rubrics (and ideally also to the relevant sections of the breviary and/or Diurnal).  

In addition, while I particularly liked the inclusion of material on the Scriptural and allegorical associations of the hours, it is hard to see why a twelfth century commentary by a canon (Honorius Augustodunensis) merits a quote for each hour on any objective criteria. 

Finally, some of the historical material (particularly the claimed 'newness' of Prime and Compline) has arguably been overtaken by more recent research. 

But these are minor quibbles - while this part of the book isn't a full 'how to say the Office guide', the notes are certainly worth a read.

Overall, this is certainly a book you will want to have in  your library, to dip into as needed.

Picture supplied

All Saints, All Souls and their accompanying days* Updated

October 31 marks the start of several days that have been the subject of considerable liturgical change, both over the centuries and more recently, so I thought it might be of interest to list out the various days, and provide some notes or link on their history for those interested.

The relevant days are:  

Feast or day	Instituted	Abolished or modified
Vigil of all Saints	In the Office: Breviary of 1568	1955
All Saints	Disputed: 13 May 608 (dedication of Pantheon) later transferred to November, and/or 735 (Dedication of Oratory in St Peter’s) made general in 835.	na
Commemoration of All Souls	C9th (originally Cluniac)	1960 changes to all hours instead of saying Office of Dead in addition to Office of Octave
Octave of All Saints	C1471-84	1955
All Saints OSB	?
All Soul’s OSB	1918	As for all Souls

 The Vigil (suppressed in the 1962 books)

There is a useful article on this from a few years back by Gregory di Pippio, on the  New Liturgical Movement Blog.

The key points he makes are that marking Vigils in the Office (as opposed to the Mass, and by fasting and/or abstinence) is (largely) a post-Tridentine innovation, and in some ways an odd one given that the Mass of the Vigil was traditionally celebrated after None. 

At the day hours, the only change was in the collect used.

The Feast of All Saints

The traditional explanation for the origin of this feast, repeated in many early sources, gives it a Byzantine origin, translated to the West in the dedication of the Pantheon in May 608, and then transferred to November in the eighth century.

Mr di Pippio has suggested an alternative explanation, which you can read here and here, suggesting it was instituted as a counter to the heresy of iconoclasm. 

It is certainly a plausible explanation though I tend to think that it could be a case of both explanations being true: a feast originally more limited in scope later repurposed in response to a particular need.

Commemoration of All Souls

 All Souls was originally a Benedictine (Cluniac) innovation, though it quickly gained popularity and spread.  

Earlier versions of the Monastic Office had the office of the Octave day, with the Office of the Dead said in addition to that.  The 1950 breviary, though, changed that to the current integration of the Office of the Dead into all hours (though some monasteries do retain the earlier practice),

You can read more about the history of the day here.

The Octave of the feast

The addition of an Octave to All Saints dates from the fifteenth century, and was abolished in 1955.  

I'm always torn between enjoying the Matins readings for octaves, while believing that the ancient Scriptural sequence should generally have precedence - so the best solution is to read them outside the office in my view!  If you don't have a copy of the Liturgical Readings volume, you can find most of them on Divinum Officium (select a pre 1955 office version).

Feasts of all Saints and All Soul's OSB

All Soul's OSB is an early twentieth century addition.

I haven't been able to track how far back All Saints of the Benedictine Order goes, but there were certainly votive offices of All Saints used in various places from at least the twelfth century, but they had a mixed fate!   There are equivalent feasts for many religious orders, and for some regions.

*Update: A reader has also alerted me to a note in The Saint Andrew Daily Missal (page 44 of the section near the end entitled "Supplement for the order of St. Benedict"), which says:

"Up to the end of the sixteenth century, there was no general feast of this name for the whole Order since the "Order of St. Benedict", in the modern sense, was unknown. In individual monasteries, as Monte Cassino, Cluny, Fontenelli, etc., a feast of all the saints proper to the monastery was observed on different dates; only by the revision of the monastic Breviary by Paul V., in 1621, a general feast of All holy Monks of the Order was instituted on the above date."

While I'm not quite convinced of the claim about the status of the 'Order' per se (it still isn't really an order in the traditional sense, but there was certainly earlier regional and papal legislation specifically directed at the 'Black Monks'), the explanation for when a general feast was instituted sounds plausible!

Ordo for 2023-24 liturgical year: now available

The Ordo for the coming liturgical year (starting from December) is now available for purchase on Lulu. in both paperback and PDF form.

Ordo for the Benedictine Office according to the '1962' books

As usual, the Ordo provides detailed instructions on the Office according to the General Calendar and Rubrics of the Benedictine Confederation, which I have, in the past, shorthanded as 1962.

But to be technically correct, they should perhaps be referred to as those of 1960, when they were approved  - or perhaps 1961, since they came into effect on 1 January 1961 (and later also published in the Monastic Breviary of 1963)!

The Monastic Calendar is broadly aligned to that of the 1962 Roman, but there are differences in both the feasts included, and the rubrics.

Contents of the Ordo

The core of the Ordo is a detailed guide to the seasons, days and feasts of the monastic Office as set out in the Monastic Diurnal published by St Michael's Abbey, Farnborough, with cross-references to the Antiphonale Monasticum for those who wish to chant the Office (or follow podcasts of monasteries such as le Barroux). 

This year the Ordo also contains some quick reference guides to pages in the Diurnal for the day hours for reference purposes.

A new feature of this years Ordo is the inclusion of references to the Nocturnale Monasticum published by Le Barroux earlier this year.

Although the Ordo is primarily based around the General Calendar and rubrics for the Benedictine Confederation (with modifications permitted by more recent decrees such as Cum Sanctissima), the Ordo also contains cross-references to:

• the 1962 Roman Extraordinary Form calendar of 1962 (where this differs to the Benedictine);
• feasts specific to some monasteries and congregations, including the newer feasts of the 1975 Benedictine Congregation calendar;
• pre-1962 practices revived by some monasteries, such as I Vespers for Saturday of Our Lady and Class II feasts, with rubrical notes to aid those following these;
• older feasts, octaves and days removed from the 1960 calendar but revived by some monasteries;
• selected feasts of saints canonised (or in the case of Benedictines, beatified) since 1962 for whom optional Class III feasts can be said; and
• updated national calendars for the USA, Canada, England, Wales, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand.

The liturgical calendar online

I have also made a liturgical calendar for the Benedictine Office according to the 1960 calendar with brief notes on the day hours, including the key page references for the Monastic Diurnal,  available on the blog via the 'pages' widget at the top of the blog.

The version on the blog though, is the barebones version - if you want more detailed instructions on how to say the Office on feasts and special days, or notes on where Le Barroux, Gower and others follow alternative rubrics, you will need to consult the full Ordo!

November 2023

This post provides summary notes on the Ordo for November for the Benedictine Office according to the rubrics and calendar approved in 1960 (and published in the Monastic Breviary of 1963).  

Page references are to the St Michael's Abbey (Farnborough) editions of the Monastic Diurnal (MD) and Antiphonale Monasticum (AM) of 1934.

Note that you can also access these notes from the pages menu on the blog, or from this link.

The Ordo for the coming liturgical year will be available in the next few days.....more soon.

 

NOVEMBER 2023

Wednesday 1 November – All Saints, Class I [Previously: with a Common Octave] 

MD [331]/AM 1102 ff with festal psalms. 

Thursday 2 November – All Souls, Class I 

MD [337]/AM 1108 ff. 

Friday 3 November – Class IV 

All as in the psalter for throughout the year with collect, MD 481*/AM 614. 

Saturday 4 November – Class IV; Saturday of Our Lady; St Charles Borromeo, Memorial [EF: Class III] 

For the commemoration, MD [344-5]/AM 1112; 1 Vespers of the first Sunday in November: Magnificat antiphon, MD 459*/AM 590; collect of the Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost, MD 482*/AM 615. 

Sunday 5 November – Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost/First Sunday of November, Class II

 MD 482*/AM 615.  

Monday 6 November – Class IV 

All as in the psalter for throughout the year with collect, MD 482*/AM 615; Matins. 

Tuesday 7 November – Class IV [Benedictine Confederation: St. Willibrord, Optional Memorial] 

Wednesday 8 November – Class IV; The Four Crowned Martyrs, Memorial [Previously: Octave Day of All Saints]

For the commemoration at Lauds, MD [345]/AM 1113. 

Thursday 9 November – Dedication of the Archbasilica of the Most Holy Saviour (St John Lateran), Class II 

MD (114)/AM 697 ff. 

Friday 10 November – Class IV; St Theodore, Memorial [EF: St Andrew Avellino, Class III] 

For the commemoration at Lauds, MD [346]/AM 1113. 

Saturday 11 November – St Martin of Tours, Class II [EF: Class III] 

MD [346]/AM 1115 ff; 2 Vespers of St Martin, MD [352]/AM 1118 with a commemoration of the Third Sunday of November/ Fifth remaining after Epiphany, Magnificat antiphon and versicle, MD 460*/AM 591, collect, MD 485*/AM 617. 

Sunday 12 November – Fifth Sunday Remaining after Epiphany/Third Sunday of November, Class II

 MD 485*/AM 309. 

Monday 13 November – All Saints of the Benedictine Order, Class II [EF: St Didacus, Class III; USA: St Frances Xavier Cabrini, Class III] 

MD [353]/AM 1121 ff with festal psalms of Sunday. 

Tuesday 14 November – All Souls of the Benedictine Order, Class II [EF: St Josaphat, Class III] 

MD [360]/AM 1126/ SupAnt 153-4. 

Wednesday 15 November – Class IV; St Albert the Great, Memorial [EF: Class III] 

For the commemoration at Lauds, MD [362-3]/AM 1127. 

Thursday 16 November – Class IV [EF: St Gertrude, Class III] 

Friday 17 November – St Gertrude, Class II (monasteries of nuns)/III [EF: St Gregory Thaumaturgis, Class III]

 MD [363]/AM 1130 ff. 

Saturday 18 November – Dedication of the Basilicas of SS Peter and Paul, Class III 

MD (114)/AM 697 ff; 1 Vespers of the Fourth Sunday of November: Magnificat antiphon, MD 460*/AM 592; Collect of the Sixth Sunday remaining after Epiphany, MD 486*/AM 617. 

Sunday 19 November – Sixth Sunday Remaining after Epiphany/Fourth Sunday of November, Class II

 MD 486*/AM 617. 

Monday 20 November – Class IV [**In some places: St Edmund; EF: St Felix of Valois, Class III] 

All as in the psalter for throughout the year with collect, MD 486*/AM 617; Matins readings of the fourth week of November. 

Tuesday 21 November – Presentation of the BVM, Class III; St Columba, Memorial 

MD [371]/AM 1138 ff. 

Wednesday 22 November – St Caecilia, Class III 

MD [373]/AM 1140 ff. 

Thursday 23 November – St Clement, Class III; St Felicitas, Memorial 

MD [377]/AM 1145 ff. 

Friday 24 November – Class IV; SS John of the Cross and Chrysogonus, Memorials [EF: St John of the Cross, Class III; OF/Optional Class III: SS Andrew Dung-Lac and the Vietnamese Martyrs] 

For the commemorations at Lauds, MD [382-3]/AM 1148-9. 

Saturday 25 November – Class IV; Saturday of Our Lady; St Catherine of Alexandria, Memorial [EF: Class III] 

For the commemoration at Lauds, MD [383-4]/AM 1149; 1 Vespers of the Fifth Sunday of November: Magnificat antiphon, MD 461*/AM 592; collect of the last Sunday after Pentecost, MD 487*/AM 617-8. 

Sunday 26 November – Twenty-six and last Sunday after Pentecost/ Fifth Sunday of November, Class II

 MD 487*/AM 617-8. 

Monday 27 November – Class IV [Gower: Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, Memorial] 

All as in the psalter for throughout the year with collect, MD 487*/AM 618; Matins readings of the fifth week of November. 

Tuesday 28 November – Class IV 

Wednesday 29 November – Class IV; St Saturninus, Memorial [In some places: Vigil of St Andrew] 

For the commemoration at Lauds, MD [385]/AM 753. 

Thursday 30 November – St Andrew, Class II 

MD [2]/AM 755 ff. 

Book review: Latin Prayer by David Birch

 This is a very belated review, for which my deepest apologies, of a book I flagged well over a year ago, but which I think will be of interest to many readers.

David Birch, Latin Prayer Aspects of Language and Catholic Spirituality, Rivo Torto@Drouin: Pax et Bonum, 2022. $US 27.95 (paperback); also available on kindle.

Latin, private devotion and the liturgy

There is a growing genre of books that focus on the reasons for retaining both Latin, rather than using the vernacular, and the traditional forms of the liturgy, in the face of the antipathy to the tradition that led to the revolution in worship post-Vatican II, and is currently in high favour.

This book though, tackles the problem from a rather different perspective, namely the Latin language's importance in conveying the truths of the faith; its deep integration into the spiritual infrastructure of the Western Church; and its importance to the very nature of prayer in the Catholic tradition.

Although it draws on numerous liturgical texts, including the office hymns, psalms and more, its primary focus is actually the relevance of Latin to public and private devotional prayer.

It is also almost unique in that rather than being polemical in character, it is clearly both the product of lectio divina, and a potential source for it.

The book provides a rich source of liturgical, devotional and other material to meditate on from all ages of the Church's history, and is surely meant to be read slowly; savoured and pondered, rather than read right through quickly in one go.  

The problem of translation

A key focus of the book is the problems associated with trying to translate theologically dense concepts from Latin into English. 

For most of the Church's history, prayers, litanies, theological formulas were normally composed in Latin: capturing all of the nuances of them in a single English translation is virtually impossible.  

Early on the text, the book points out that most the translations in Missals and other sources do not even attempt to convey the underlying grammatical structures of the original, but rather focus on trying to convey the meaning in terms a person speaking today would understand. 

This leads to two key threads running through the book. 

Layers of meaning

First, Dr Birch, a retired academic linguist, provides a lot of explanation of the differences between the way the two languages work, and the alternative possible translations of many Latin prayers that should ideally co-exist in our minds as we read or pray them.  

There are of course quite a number of books that explore similar ground for students of Latin, but rather fewer that do so in an ecclesiastical context, or in such a systematic way. 

As such, the book will be extremely helpful for those with a knowledge of Latin but who want to gain a greater depth of understanding of it, as well as for those with little or Latin but who want to understand the way the language works in the context of the liturgy. 

And on this topic the book is also a very useful bibliography for liturgical Latin, which includes links where texts are available online.

The book will also, I think, hopefully serve to inspire those with no Latin to actually learn the language.

Retention of Latin as a liturgical and theological language

The second thread running through the book, though, is a plea, based on these issues, to retain Latin as the language of the church (regardless of the form of the Mass) since without it, the tradition is all too easily distorted.  

The book avoids entering into judgments on the reasons for the anti-Latin push, but the cynics amongst us (and that means pretty much all traditionalists these days) would say that that is precisely why so many church leaders today are intent on eradicating the use of Latin even in the Novus Ordo Mass. 

 How, after all, can one possibly justify so many novel propositions if people are constantly assailed with traces of the tradition!

The spiritual infrastructure of the church

The second, and perhaps equally important theme of the book is that the liturgy - in the form of the Mass, Office and sacraments - does not exist in isolation from either public devotional or private prayer, rather it is part of a much broader spiritual infrastructure that also needs to be preserved.

Litanies and other prayers, the book argues, provide important distillations of theological truths that both build on and support our understanding of the liturgy and faith more generally, and we need to pay deep attention to them.

Prayer and 'grammar'

The third key theme, and perhaps the most difficult for the non-linguist (such as myself!) to grasp, is on the nature of prayer, where Dr Birch categorizes types of prayer not by their purpose (thanksgiving, intercession, etc), but by linguistic, functional categories.

The terminology used - nominative prayer, vocative prayer, sociative prayer and so forth - though sometimes requiring some effort to grasp, need not necessarily be a barrier, since they are all carefully explained.  

And there certainly is some value, I think, to be gained from thinking about analysing prayer from a linguistic perspective, though these categories wouldn't be my ultimate choice for regular use.

Competing approaches to exegesis and contemplation

That said, the book's emphasis on grammar and textual analysis as a way to prayer and contemplation (albeit not with these particular grammatical categories) is not entirely novel: as the book points out, an emphasis on the tools of the linguist to draw out meaning has a long genealogy in the Church, going back to influential writers such as Origen amongst others.

But it has to be said that the emphasis on grammatical analysis, even if only as a starting point for exegesis, has long been the subject of considerable debate, with the pendulum swinging back and forth, both within the Benedictine Order and more widely in the Church. 

St Benedict's contemporary Cassiodorus, for example, sought desperately to preserve the Classical grammatical  tradition in his Monastery of the Vivarium, but St Gregory the Great was directly critical of his approach, instead lauding St Benedict's rejection of the liberal arts, and proclaiming that the Bible was superior to the rules and analytical methods of the grammarians.

My own perspective is that while this type of analysis can certainly provide a useful starting point, it shouldn't be an end-point - and personally I see more gain from the study of typological and other allegorical approaches to meaning in Scripture and liturgy than deep grammar. But that is just my own personal preference!

Moreover, the book provides a rich selection of hymns, litanies, prayers, Magisterial documents, Scriptural and other liturgical texts that will be useful fodder for lectio divina, and the dimensions of them drawn out in the text will certainly repay the reader's effort.

It is worth noting too, that the royalties from the book go to Colebrook (Notre Dame) Priory, a traditional Benedictine foundation in Australia.

Coming soon: Ordo for the liturgical year 2023-4

I've been receiving a few inquiries on the Ordo for the coming year; fear not, it is coming!

I expect to send it to the printer for a proof copy later this week, so should be on track for release in early November.

In the interim, I have put the draft Ordo for December up on the pages accessible from the top bar of the blog so that you can see what it will look like - please do let me know if you find any errors!