Use of Sarum, translated by Canon Warren
The Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
At Mass. Office.
Let us all rejoice in the Lord, celebrating this feast in honour of the virgin Mary ; over whose conception angels rejoice, and praise the Son of God.
Ps. My heart is inditing of a good matter : I speak of the things which I have made unto the king.
Glory be to the Father etc.
Gloria in Excelsis is not said.
Collect.
O merciful God, hear the supplication of thy servants ; that we who are assembled together on the conception of the virgin mother of God, may through her intercession be delivered by thee from the dangers which beset us. Through etc.
Epistle. Ecclus. xxiv. 17 — 22 (Vulg. 23 — 31).
As the vine . . . shall not do amiss.
Gradual.
Hearken, O daughter, and consider, incline thine ear. So shall the king have pleasure in thy beauty. V. According to thy worship and renown. Good luck have thou with thine honour. Ride on.
Alleluya. V. The conception of the glorious virgin Mary, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the bright root of David.
Sequence.
Let us celebrate this day
whereon piously we say
Mary was conceived.
Begotten is the mother maid,
conceived, created, channel made
of pardon to the world.
Adam’s primeval banishment
and Joachim’s own discontent
there find a remedy.
This the prophets have foreshown,
this was to the patriarchs known :
the virgin whence a flower should spring,
the star which forth the sun should bring,
on this day is conceived ;
the flower which from the rod should bloom,
the sun which of the star should come,
is Christ interpreted.
O how happy, O how fair ;
sweet to us, to God how dear,
hath this conception been !
Misery now is at an end,
mercy doth on earth descend,
for sorrow joy is seen.
A mother new new offspring bears,
from a new star new sun appears,
new grace doth all inspire ;
The mother bears the generator,
the creature brings forth the creator,
the daughter bears the sire.
O unexampled novelty !
O new, unheard of dignity !
the mother’s holy chastity
The Son’s conception shows.
Rejoice, O gracious virgin mild !
fair rod with blossoms undefiled,
mother ennobled by her child,
Such grace no other knows.
That which lay hid, in figure sealed,
by clouds mysterious concealed,
the future mother hath revealed.
For once a virgin pure and good
reversed the laws of motherhood :
nature, surprised, beheld a flood
of deity outpoured.
Whoe’er thou art, without delay
open thy lips, her praises pay ;
offer her homage, to her pray,
at every hour, on every day.
With swelling voice, with spirit sage,
by supplicating prayer engage
a portion in her patronage.
Thou of the sad art comfort sure,
true mother of the orphans poor,
of the opprest the help secure,
thou of the sick the healing cure,
all things to all thou givest.
With one consent we ask of thee,
whom praise awaits especially,
conduct us wanderers o’er this sea
unto salvation’s port, where we
by grace may be at rest. Amen.
Gospel. St. Matt. i. 1 — 16.
The book of the generation . . . called Christ.
Creed.
Offertory.
Full of grace are thy lips, because God hath blessed thee for ever.
Secret.
O Lord, let the human nature of thine Only-begotten one succour us ; that he who being born of a virgin diminished not, but sanctified the chastity of his mother, may free us from our offences on the festival of her conception, and may make our oblation to be acceptable to himself, Jesus Christ our Lord. Who liveth etc.
Preface.
And thee on the conception etc.
Communion.
True faith in thy Son hath purged the sins of the world ; and thy virginity abideth immaculate.
Postcommunion.
Grant, we beseech thee, O Lord, that through the intercession of the blessed ever-virgin Mary, the sacrament which we have received of our bounden duty on this annual celebration, may afford us relief in life both temporal and eternal. Through etc.
Depart, the mass is finished, is not said.
The Blue Flower 
Thanks for the liturgical information. A nice way to start one’s day. When I compare it to our Antiochian Western Rite (USA) liturgy of the same name and day, our Epistle is from Proverbs 8:22-35 and the Gospel from Luke 1:26-28. Gradual is from Judith (13:23 & 15:10). Same Introit Psalm (45:1) and Collect.
Of course, in light of Rome’s later declaration regarding her conception, I scan the material to see how it fits in with that later understanding. Seems the major point is regarding her perpetual virginity and her role in the incarnation. Very Orthodox.
Michael, following yours, I scanned the material myself. On closer reflection, the emphasis on Mary’s virginity seems to me to reflect the confusion between the freedom from original sin of Mary at and from her own conception – which is the central point of the doctrine – and her personal virtue and sinlessness which for so long has been symbolised by the idea of her perpetual virginity, and from which undoubtedly derives the frequent mistake by those unfamiliar with the doctrine that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus.
In fact, this emphasis strikes for me a jarring note: the words in the sequence “For once a virgin pure and good/reversed the laws of motherhood/nature, surprised, beheld/ a flood
of deity outpoured” seem to me to pivot Incarnation on the idea that Mary virginally conceived her child, rather than on the idea of God’s restorative love for mankind.
Indeed, that particular verse is not a little muddle-headed: the deity is outpoured in response/as a result of a maiden conceiving of a child in an unnatural way. It thus suggests that the divinity of the child was an infusion into the product of an unnatural conception, rather than reinforce the idea of an intrinsic divinity pertaining to the Word. Not the classic formulation of the hypostatic union!
To be sure, this is only one of two notes I found disconcerting. The other is in the Secret where the Son “sanctified the chastity of his mother”. This does seem to place her virginity at centre and subordinate the Incarnation to a utility based on a conflation of virginity with sinlessness, an idea that, however long-held, I think has outlived its value or any claim to truth.
The contemplation of the idea of the Immaculate Conception seems to me to illustrate an example of what Father Chadwick touched on in his article “Sea of Faith” namely that beauty, not metaphysical truth, was the pathway to faith and understanding in this age. Is it, or has it been, a “beautiful idea”, never mind whether it is either true or knowable? Does it inspire motions of inner joy and rapture and love?
It was your glowing endorsement of the emphasis on her virginity as very Orthodox that prompted me to think about the text more closely. I was intrigued. I had thought that an Orthodox formulation was likely to have been more restrained than a Western one, but perhaps the opposite is true. That I’ve been prompted to subject the texts above to a semantic analysis does not mean that I reject any idea that it has some religious value or significance. Only that I think it is important to be clear about what it is we might say or think about such ideas in prayer. Was it a mistake to declare it a dogma, or alternatively, does the strict formulation of the dogma assist to isolate the good from the historically disposable?
If some element perpetuates what we may now characterise as a dualistic and misdirected idealisation of the female and of virtue, we may have to be prepared to discard or correct it or at least some of what purports to express it.
There are certainly a couple of problems in the Warren translation of the Sequence. Here is the Latin version scanned from my Dickinson missal. I hope I have corrected all the typos.
Sequentia.
Dies iste celebretur
in quo pie recensetur
Mariæ conceptio:
Virgo mater generatur,
concipitur et creatur,
recta vena veniæ.
Adæ vetus exilium
et Joachim opprobrium
hinc habent remedia;
Hoc prophetæ præviderunt,
patriarchæ præsenserunt,
inspiranto gratia;
Virgo florem conceptura,
Stella solem paritura,
hodie concipitur;
Flos de virga processurus,
sol de Stella nasciturus,
Christus intelligitur.
O quam felix et præclara,
nobis grata, Deo cara,
fuit hæc conceptio;
Terminatur miseria,
datur misericordia,
luctus cedit gaudio.
Nova mater novam prolem,
nova stella novum solem,
nova profert gratia;
Genitorem genitura,
Creatorem creatura,
Patrem parit filia,
O mirandam novitatem,
novam quoque dignitatem,
ditat matris castitatem
Filii conceptio;
Gaude virgo gratiosa,
virga flore speoiosa,
mater prole generosa,
plene plena gaudio.
Quod præcessit in figura,
nube latet sub obscura,
hoc declarat genitura,
semel matris virgo pura,
pariendi vertat jura, fusa mirante natura,
Deitatis pluvia;
Triste fuit in Eva væ;
sed ex Eva formans Ave,
versa vice, sed non prave,
intus zelans in conclave,
verbum bonum et suave;
nobis mater virgo fave,
tua frui gratia.
Omnis homo sine mora,
laude plena solvens ora,
istam colas, ipsam ora,
omni die, omni hora,
sit mens supplex, vox sonora,
sic supplica, sic implora,
hujus patrocinia;
Tu spes certa miserorum,
vere mater orphanorum,
tu levamen oppressorum,
medicamen infirmorum,
omnibus es omnia;
Te rogaraus voto pari,
laude digna singulari,
ut errantes in hoc mari,
nos in portu salutari,
tua sistat gratia.
The original certainly helps here: my translation is:
Quod præcessit in figura, This, which went before as in a figure
nube latet sub obscura, (and) was concealed as if behind a dark cloud,
hoc declarat genitura, she, who would give birth,
semel matris virgo pura, and who at the same time (is) a pure virgin, reveals
pariendi vertat jura, (and) who overturns the laws of a mother’s bearing
fusa mirante natura, vast nature being quite amazed,
Deitatis pluvia; (at) the descent of the Godhead.
Got to be careful of poetic license!
Would be interesting to compare the old Sarum rite prayers with the RC (1) Tridentine Rite AFTER the RC dogma of the immaculate conception was promulgated in the mid-19th century and (2) New Order Rite currently celebrated. The older material is about Mary’s perpetual virginity (esp. to “protect” Jesus’ divinity and ensure he had no human father or biological siblings from Mary) and her role in the Incarnation (Theotokos). I’m assuming the post-dogma prayers would be altered to ensure clarity of the new dogma.
Excuse my ignorance, but why is the incarnation ‘threatened’ if Mary is not perpetually virgin especially if she had other live births after the Lord? Both the lesser and the stronger versions of this question interest me, but I really do find it odd that something that happens later should have any bearing on whether Christ Jesus was the incarnate Son of God or something else.
Stephen K, Remember I’m talking about our Western Rite, not the Byzantine Rite. The WR maintains a tremendous amount of historically western prayers that are entirely different than those in the East, even on the same feast day.
We may have to agree to disagree. I don’t see any clear reference to an immaculate conception. I think a reason for such a stress on the perpetual virginity of Mary is that (a) some many have and continue to dispute this, and (b) the incarnation is “threatened” if Mary is not (esp. if she, God forbid!, had other live births after Jesus). The doctrine tied to the Ever Virgin Theotokos is clearly expressed in these prayers.
Have you ever read the Proto-evangelium of James? Much of the tradition about Mary, her parents, and Joseph appears to be expressed here. [The East can sometimes be equally vague and…interesting…when it comes to Marian devotion, which is most highly valued in the East. I cringe when during Great Lent I hear one of the prayers say “Oh mystic heifer….” But maybe that is just me and my western upbrining?]
“Oh mystic heifer….”? I shouldn’t beef too much about the Moofia! 🙂
According to the dean of your denomination, Abouna Hallam, in London, this rite is “theologically deficient.”
Dale, But luckily we both know that this dean’s opinion pales into insignificance when compared to the official and public approval of the Western Rite by both the Patriarch of Antioch himself, as well as Metropolitan Philip (heead of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in USA/NA). Card playing 101–A pair of primates always trumps a lowly dean! And don’t ever forget that Antiochians, Alexandrines, Russians, and Greeks are separate “suits”.
But you are probably right about one liturgical deficiency. Look how much St John ripped out of St Basil’s liturgy! Makes one wonder if St Basil can stand to be around St John in Heaven? Somehow I’m sure St John apologized and set things aright between them. 😉
Michael, I wish that I could agree with you, but this man, Hallam and his previous cohort, Harper, have enough power to have totally derailed any western rite work or outreach in Great Britain. Obviously, someone in a position of real power appointed them for this very reason alone.
When the original “Pilgrimage to Orthodoxy” began it was completely western rite, and the two main leaders Frs Wright and Lansley, were both removed, and eventually refused admittance into your denomination because of their blank refusal to give up our heritage. I know, I was there. The western rite in Antioch is a canard.
Michael, it seems that your new patriarch is the fellow who when he was bishop of Western Europe and Great Britain, closed all of the western rite parishes in England and appointed the fanatically anti-western rite dean, Abouna Harper. Any thoughts?
Dale, Americans have worked hard to create and maintain their Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite. Now ROCOR is pushing its Western Rite in USA.
IF, and this appears to be a big IF for Europeans tied to State Churches, Europeans want Western Rite Orthodoxy then they, too, will have to work really, really hard to create it and maintain it. Not for the weak or faint of heart.
And us Orthodox aren’t necessarily afraid of standing up to errant bishops and clergy. When they are wrong, and they can be wrong, we stand up to them and tell them that. (Just two examples from far off lands, a long, long time ago…(1) When it looked like Rome had fooled us in the re-union councils, a small remnant spread the word about the error and the bishops came around, and (2) the Turks found our Ecumenical Patriarch dead after he started becoming very Calvinist in his thinking. Infallibiiity, a free gift of the Holy Spirit, works in mysterious ways and always, always involves the laity!)
Beautiful!
Michael Frost and Felix Alexander have opened up a somewhat troubling line of inquiry here, in the matter of the perpetual virginity of Our Lady. I have to agree with Felix in wondering how the birth of later children (“His brethren” If one takes that interpretation) would have any bearing at all on whether He had in fact been conceived of a Virgin and made man. Why would this “threaten” the Incarnation? Yes, Mary was, and is, the Virgin Mother of God, and this status cannot be taken from her. No subsequent action on her part or by any other can alter that fact and it is thus right to honor her as ever-virgin. Liturgical language is not time-bound in a rigid literality, but constantly references eternal verities that stand outside our perception of time. Jesus is not crucified over and over again. His sacrifice was indeed offered once on the cross, but yet He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth, and that Sacrifice is offered day after day on the altars of His Church. There is no time-bound way to claim both that He offered Himself once for all and that He is offered in thousands of places and times, but both are true. Can Mary be both ever-virgin and an ordinary wife and mother? I can’t see how that is inconceivable in the economy of eternity, nor how it has anything to say with regard to the incarnation. I’ll leave determination of the facts of the matter to others who know more than I, but. lacking a conclusive statement in Scripture, and seeing that there is not unanimity among the earliest Christian writers. I have real difficulty in making this a matter of dogma.
A thought to consider: Is sex between a husband and wife a sin or some kind of impurity imposed on the soul? Or is it, as presented in the Song of Solomon and other places, a powerful and holy expression of the love of God? Is child-bearing within marriage something to be avoided? Or is it a following of the command to be fruitful and multiply? I can detect what I can only see as an unhealthy attitude toward sexuality as such in much of “small t” tradition and am seriously discomfited at a frequently expressed attitude that would make the marriage bed less than honorable. Could some of the insistence on her not giving her wifely due to her husband after Jesus’ birth have been reinforced by such ideas?
Ed & Felix, I’m EO so I’m come at the issue from our informed long-term historical perspective, one that goes back to the Apostles and the earliest writers. The early Church knew, with absolute certainty, that Mary had ONLY one child, Jesus. The early Church knew, with absolute certainty, approximately how OLD Joseph was, his background, and approximately when he died. People like Luke and John knew Mary, and spoke with her.(Keep in mind the difference between what the Church knows and dogmatizes. Notice how EOs don’t go looking for Mary’s grave or final resting place shrine. Such shrines were all over the place in ancient times, including for OT saints; they are still around today (e.g., Esther). We keep the Feast of the Dormition (falling asleep) but not the Assumption; though it is pretty safe to say few, if any EOs, believe Mary’s body is in the ground on earth.)
For a sense of the Church’s perspective, one should read the Proto-evangelium of James. While not strictly canonical, it might be hard to find a work outside of scripture that has had such an impact on the Church.
You should also check out the history of these issues in the West, including art & literature over the centuries. If you ever get to Omaha go to the Joslyn Art Museum. They have a beautiful painting by one of the masters showing an old Joseph holding the infant Jesus. The Child is reaching out to touch Joseph’s long white beard.
Since we are dealing with dogma and heresy, we have to keep in mind the dogma (the virgin birth, incarnation, and perpetual virginity of Mary) and heresy (that Mary had sexaul relations with Joseph, that she and Joseph had children besides Jesus). What the Holy Ghost consecrated, claimed, sanctified redeemed regarding Mary, her physical body, and the incarnation, could not be undone by any man, not even her husband, Joseph.
Ed & Felix, I forgot to mention that the early Church knew, with absolute certainty, the approximate age Mary was at the time of the incarnation and at her falling asleep. In the tradition an “old” Joseph, widower, marries a “young” Mary. The relationship of Joseph and Mary cannot be explained in mere human terms like “married”. We are talking about the active involvement of God, who is actively involved with Mary, and mystery.
In Matthew, “When Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, before they were married, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.” (1:18, CEB) In Luke, “…God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth…to a virgin who was engaged to a man named Joseph….” (1:26, CEB)
The incarnation takes place when Mary is NOT married, only engaged. Thus she has that special, unique, mystery-laden relationship with the Holy Ghost before she is married to Joseph. She “belongs” to God, not Joseph. This includes the language in Genesis about man, woman, and marriage. How can Mary become “one flesh” with Joseph given the already active presence of the Holy Ghost in her very being?
Sadly, today moderns fail to ponder the deeper meanings of the relationship of Mary with the Holy Ghost which precedes her marriage to Joseph.
Thankyou for your posts Michael, but my question wasn’t at all about whether or not Mary had other children: it was why the incarnation should be “threatened” if she did.
Felix, The incarnation is a unique specific event. God becomes man. And it involves a specific woman, Mary, unique in human history, to be Theotokos. What happens in the minds of most people–especially nominal- and non-Christians as well as those Christians who like to speculate or over think things or try to apply logic, science or reason to resolve doubts–regarding the incarnation if (a) people believe Mary and Joseph have normal marital sexual relations and (b) Mary and Joseph conceive children of their own, Jesus’ half-siblings biologically thru Mary?
What now makes either Jesus or Mary unique? Nothing. For most, Jesus would be “proven” to be a mere man, biological offspring of Mary and Joseph (with nothing divine), conceived and born like all of mankind. And at best he becomes a wise man or prophet (though at a level higher than say John the Baptist). What survives of the Gospel for the many? Not much. Since it would be a mere man who is crucified, died and buried, without any real resurrection! Sure, maybe there are a few who somehow could reconcile themselves to Jesus being some exception to Mary and Joseph otherwise behaving like any normal couple (marriage, sex, children), but even these would likely have significant doubt as to the reality of the incarnation? Because if Mary and Joseph have sex and if they also have other biological children…
Michael,
Yes, I know that as an Orthodox you are required to believe this. However, I’m afraid I remain unconvinced that the early church KNEW what you assert it knew, or even that it spoke with one voice on the matter. I’m afraid I can’t document this as I did not save notes, but I followed this through a number of years ago and found authentic third and fourth century speculations not necessarily supportive of perpetual virginity. For myself, I am perfectly willing to assume that the majority opinion may well be correct. That gives me no problem — but I am not able to accept that a contrary opinion is to be regarded as heresy. I’m afraid I find your final paragraph more than a little offensive. I have indeed given a great deal of prayerful thought to exactly this question, and find what you advance as but one possible interpretation of that relationship. It appears to me as speculation as to what it all might mean rather than as a divinely revealed revelation of mysteries. I’m not at sure God is even interested in men finding a definitive answer to this question.
As to the specifics above: It would in all likelihood be accurate to see the Theotokos as very young (in that society, possibly as young as 13) and Joseph as a much older man. Arranged marriages with just that kind of age discrepancy were then extremely common, and it is certainly not impossible for a man in his 40s, 50s, or even 60s to father a child. One thing is clear: that May and Joseph were recognized as husband and wife in their community, and that Jesus was recognized by the citizens of Nazareth as the son of Joseph. It would appear that their marriage was real. Us a marriage not physically consummated a real marriage? Many would doubt that.
As I said, I will assume that, though Scripture only says he did not touch her until the child was born, he also refrained afterwards — however, there are enough problems with that position that I have to reserve final judgment, and can’t condemn anyone as a heretic. I guess we’ll have to disagree on this point, but I just can’t give it the weight that you must.
Ed, I accept the dogma of my Church. And I accept these things on Faith. Thru God’s Grace. In my view, the “speculators” are those who posit the opposite. And the outcome of such modern speculation always seems to lead to…Mary and Joseph conceived a child, Jesus, who was a very wise human being that had a close relationship with God. But that isn’t the Gospel! And it leads people away from the Gospel.
As for the marriage of Joseph and Mary, it, like the incarnation and perpetual virginity, is a mystery that directly involves them and God. And is not something we should speculate on. It should lead us to Christ, our Savior.
I accept the dogma of my Church. And I accept these things on Faith. Thru God’s Grace.
That’s as it should be. I expect that of an Orthodox and wouldn’t dream of trying to convince you otherwise. However, I am not an Orthodox, but an Anglican, and have a view of dogma itself rather different from yours. That is as it is. My purpose here is not to convince, but merely to display what I have come to see as true, and yes, that I accept these things on faith.
In my view, the “speculators” are those who posit the opposite.
The problem here is that I see your position as far more speculative than mine. I don’t need an answer, nor do I need to judge another’s opinion on this matter. If I do speculate, it is very tentative. I just don’t know and don’t expect to know.
And the outcome of such modern speculation always seems to lead to…Mary and Joseph conceived a child, Jesus, who was a very wise human being that had a close relationship with God. But that isn’t the Gospel! And it leads people away from the Gospel.
That’s a bit unfair. I know a great many Christians of sound Chalcedonian christology who have more problem than I with this perpetual virginity, and I also have known both Orthodox Christians who have so misconstrued this dogma as to lose sight of Jesus’ humanity, becoming Monophysite to a degree not seen in those called Monophysites. Any doctrin out of balance can lead to heresy.
As for the marriage of Joseph and Mary, it, like the incarnation and perpetual virginity, is a mystery that directly involves them and God. And is not something we should we should speculate on. It should lead us to Christ, our Savior.
Amen! But I’m afraid that I regard these thoughts about perpetual virginity to be a speculation beyond what we can know of the mystery. If it does not lead us to Christ our Savior, it is (as Qoheleth declares) vanity.
Finally, we do indeed differ, but, at least in my view, our differences are not all that large
speculate on. It should lead us to Christ, our Savior.
Ed, You wrote, “That’s as it should be. I expect that of an Orthodox and wouldn’t dream of trying to convince you otherwise. However, I am not an Orthodox, but an Anglican, and have a view of dogma itself rather different from yours.”
Yes, you’re an Anglican, but what “type” or “kind” of Anglican? Are you High Church? Low? Broad? Which Anglican figures do you agree with? Cranmer? Hooker? Laud? Sancroft, the non-jurors, and Law? Newman, Keble, and Pusey? One of the 20th century Archbishops of Canterbury? And what is your specific Anglican dogma? Where do I find it? The 39 Articles? Is it more tied to the writings of Henry VIII? Cranmers’ theology? The polity of Elizabeth I? The rediscoveries of Charles I? The Protestantism of the Glorious Revolution? The catholic revival of the Oxford Movement? 20th century ecumanism?
What is “your view of dogma”? Does anyone else today or anyone prior in history share it? Or is it just specific to you? Something changeable and changing, as you study things or make your own determinations? [I was USAF officer, intelligence. So I got the oxymoron joke about “military intelligence”. Not unlike “I’m a believing Anglican?” or “Anglican dogma”? 😉 ]
When I raise these questions at the local ACA church I worship with, I usually get rather vague responses. Though when I point out specifics of the 39 Articles, they are sure to remind me of the ones they absolutely reject (e.g., praying for the dead). They usually tell me how they respect both Rome and Constantinople and believe in general what we believe but do so using Anglican forms, prayers, and hymns. But when I say, “What about the filioque? Or the immaculate conception?”, I can get a variety of responses. None definitive in the modern world of Anglicanism?
So I will readily admit I find Anglican dogmatics to be a most obscure art and science!
Being involved in this conversation has brought me to a meditative place, resulting in this poem, written this morning.
Gate of Heaven
God spoke the Word
into the blessed holy darkness
of the shrine of warmth and of a Mother’s love.
There of His will and of her chosen flesh,
His Word became a Child,
and by that Child the Light was spoken,
for He was the Light that brings light to darkness,
and in the holy darkness grew the Light,
and an everlasting journey was begun.
The consecrated passageway bore Him on,
and from the Gates of Heaven issued forth a Son,
and His Name is blessed,
and His steps are blessed,
and His words speak forth the everlasting Word,
and she who brought Him forth into the open air
brought Him up to His full manhood,
and watched Him walk,
and heard Him speak,
and saw Him die,
her Son, her Savior, Savior of the world.
Holy Mary, Mother of the everlasting God,
pray that He may speak the everlasting Word
into our hearts, be born in us and live in us,
for all eternity.
—–ed pacht
Michael,
Obviously we do have a different perspective on what constitutes dogma and authority. We aren’t going to convince each other (nor does Fr. Anthony really want us to use his blog for that purpose). I’m content to recognize both the differences and the underlying brotherhood.
With regard to your response above to Felix, I have to say that (at least to my poor old brain) your response is a total non sequitur. I can’t for the life of me comprehend how the uniqueness of His incarnation and birth and the ordinary humanity of their marriage are incompatible and your attempt to establish that incompatibility leaves me scratching my head in puzzlement. Maybe it’s me, but I can’t follow the reasoning.
Ed, As to Mary, I’d suggest you study both Unitarianism and Deism, both of which (in their most “Christian forms”) rely on Mary and Joseph begetting children, starting with Jesus, who is but a wise man close to God/the Deity. Study the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Read “his bible”! There is no mysterious incarnation, because they can’t comprehend the miraculous and unique.
Can you show me a strong continuous non-heretical line of Christian thought about the incarnation that has Mary & Joseph sexually active and having children in addition to Jesus? I can’t, but seems like Gnosticism might be the oldest line of thought that would attempt to circle this square? What great Christian thinkers agree with the idea?
Ed, As to Mary, I’d suggest you study both Unitarianism and Deism, both of which (in their most “Christian forms”) rely on Mary and Joseph begetting children, starting with Jesus, who is but a wise man close to God/the Deity. Study the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Read “his bible”! There is no mysterious incarnation, because they can’t comprehend the miraculous and unique.
Um. You’re assuming I have not done so. That is simply untrue. Unitarians, Deists, and Jefferson START with the premise that there is no Incarnation. They START with the inability to accept the miraculous and the unique. Their system works just as well if one accepts (as some of them indeed do) a Jesus who is an only child. On the other hand, I was brought up (as a staunch Lutheran) to assume that the “Brethren” of Our Lord were his younger half-siblings, and this never once tempted me to doubt His Incarnation, his status as God and Man, his utter uniqueness. I’m sorry, but I continue to fail to see this line as anything other than a non-sequitur. Whether true or not, the existence of subsequent children has no bearing whatever on His origin. It thoroughly confuses me that anyone managed to make this logical connection.
Can you show me a strong continuous non-heretical line of Christian thought about the incarnation that has Mary & Joseph sexually active and having children in addition to Jesus? I can’t, but seems like Gnosticism might be the oldest line of thought that would attempt to circle this square? What great Christian thinkers agree with the idea?
I’m granting that the majority through the ages have been pretty well agreed as to the Perpetual Virginity, and that it is only some here and there who have held other views. I’m not granting, however, that a contrary opinion renders one a heretic, makes one a Unitarian, a Deist, or a Gnostic, or throws ones christology into question. One thing I am NOT doing is trying to prove a particular view. I don’t have a problem with assuming perpetual virginity to be true. It is my default assumption. I do, however, have an extreme problem with assuming that I, or anyone, or even the Church as whole, can claim to KNOW. Honestly, I don’t believe that anyone has been granted the right to pry beyond the Holy Family’s bedroom door. I do not believe we have a need to know.
Ed, You wrote, “I was brought up (as a staunch Lutheran) to assume that the “Brethren” of Our Lord were his younger half-siblings”. Which specific Lutheran group/afffiliation?
I’ve always thought historic confessional Lutheranism was entirely orthodox on the issue. So the moment you mentioned this I pulled out my The Book of Concord (Tappert, 1959). While most of the various 16th century Lutheran documents don’t talk too much about Mary, what they do say is interesting. Just compare the German and Latin versions of the Augsburg Confession, Art. III (by Tappert): “born of the virgin Mary” vs “in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary”. And Formula of Concord, Art. VIII (by Arthur C. Piepkorn): “Mary, the most blessed virgin…she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.”
The Smalcald Articles are most interesting when comparing German to Latin texts: “was born of the pure, holy, and virgin Mary” vs “was born of the pure, holy, and ever virgin Mary.” Tappert’s introduction to his translation talks about the Latin variants and his footnote is clear on the Latin “ever virgin Mary”. So if they wanted all of then extant European Christendom to understand their views, they wrote in Latin (because German wasn’t known by that many), and what is in the Latin seems to be in accord with the theology preceeding the Lutheran Reformation? As is Luther’s language in his Large Catechism (2nd Part, the Creed, 2nd Art.: born of the virgin Mary). And I doubt they ever thought they were prying into Mary and Joseph’s personal lives by so writing?
Neither Melanchthon’s Augsburg Confession or his Apology to same make any attempt to specifically deviate from the historical understanding of Mary. One might assume if he or Luther believed Christ had biological half-siblings (by Joseph and Mary) and Mary was no longer a virgin after consumating her marriage with Joseph, they (and their immediate theological heirs) might’ve been rather specific about this major change?
Ed, As to Anglican dogma and your interpretation of where it is to be found and what it contains, could you please give me some idea as where you’re coming from? Do you accept all of the 39 Articles? Is there any one famous Anglican you most identify with? Is there any period of Anglicanism you find most edifying?
Take myself, I love and respect Anglicanism, but I’m certainly thinking along the lines of Henry VIII (reacting to both Luther & Calvin, and often not in agreement with Cranmer), Bishop Gardiner, Archbishops Laud & Sancroft, Charles I, the Non-Jurors, Law, the Wesleys, the Oxford Movement, and the Anglican-Orthodox dialog from Dublin & Moscow. I can accept much of the 39 Articles but find some of it very problematic (though their overall tone leaves something to be desired and I think the Augsburg Confession and Apology are “better” as a systematic Confession for a Church).
Foremost, of course, the Scriptures. These as interpreted by the consensus of the Fathers, as summarized in the Creeds, and in the seven Councils. I have very high regard for the 39 Articles, and believe that All parts of them need to be heard, considered, and regarded as authoritative, PROVIDED, however, that they are not seen as a confessional statement, but as an effort to work through the various problems of their own day. One has to see them in something less than a fundamentalist or literalistic manner, but rather needs to seek the balance they were striving for.
I am Catholic AND I am Protestant (though I react emotionally and a bit negatively to the second term). I earnestly seek a via media — not in the sense of a least common denominator, but rather in the sense of seeking a balance point between extremes. I think this, rather than a rigid and comprehensive systematic theology, best expresses the mystery of the faith. I’m convinced that it is generally true that any position taken to its logical extreme does take one into heresy, but that truth is found in the mystery arising from the collision of apparent opposites. God is One, by itself, is the Unitarian heresy. God is Three, by it self, is Tritheism. God is Three and One is a basically inexplicable mystery, but therein is truth, a truth protected not by clear and logical explanation, but rather by apophatic elimination of what is not true.
BTW, I love your second paragraph above. I could have written it myself. Yes, I do regard myself as an Anglican, both by affiliation and by loving commitment, but “Anglican” is not my primary identification. That is “Christian”, with the assumption that to be authentically Christian is to be a part of the organic Tradition of the Catholic Faith (something even ‘orthodox’ Protestants cannot avoid – even when they would prefer to do so). I have high respect for the Roman Church, and even higher respect for Eastern Orthodoxy, and listen to both nearly as much as to my Anglican tradition, but I do bristle at the exclusivist claim made by both bodies.
Does this help?
Ed, Yes. Thanks! (Interesting that you went from Lutheran to Anglican. The question as to whether so much of 16th century “Anglicanism”, esp. that most tied to Cranmer, was “Lutheran” or “Reformed” (Calvinist) has always fascinated me. Being EO, I’d be considered more Arminian and Wesley, using Western reformation-related terms), not very Calvinist, and more in line with Melanchthon than Luther (though with Martin pretty much everyone can find something they love and then run wild with it–see the Finnish Lutherans and their recent theology of Luther’s soteriology tied to theosis; I love it but not sure it is really all of Luther?).
Michael, in answer to your question: I was brought up in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. One of the things that led me from Lutheranism was my realization of how unLutheran most Lutherans (of any Synod) actuially are (or were). Lipservice to the Book of Concord simply does not mean acceptance of any of the more “Catholic” aspects of what is taught therein.. Mary was almost despised. I don’t know if things have changed, but it was a point of pride in LCMS in my day (among the overwhelming majority) that there was not one church called “St. Mary’s”. (a bit different from Germany, eh?). The serious disconnect between loyalty to the Confessions and acceptance of what they actually taught is one of the things that led me to look elsewhere. Yes, there was a small “high-church” movement in LCMS and in other synods, but they weren’t listened to. As for my personal pilgrimage, it was a bit more complex than simply Lutheran to Anglican, and involved such byways as 25 years as a Pentecostal preacher (where I learned to truly hunger for the Tradition I’d left behind). I think this is enough of me here. If you’d like to correspond, my email is public: edpacht1@myfairpoint.net.
Ed, Yes, sadly LCMS has been a bit off on their own both liturgically (using just the Words of Institution) and on Mary.
Their Lutheran Service Book (2006) list of “Feasts and Festivals” has “August 15 St. Mary, Mother of Our Lord (w=white)”. This is not a “principal feast” as are The Purification of Mary and the Presentation of Our Lord”, Feb. 2; The Annunciation of Our Lord, Mar 25; and The Visitation, either May 31 or July 2 depending upon 3- or 1-yr lectionary. All are “w”.
Sadly, I couldn’t find a single Marian hymn in the Hymnal section, though hymns 934-935 tied to Magnificat.
The Lutheran Hymnal of 1941 (put out by the Synodical Conference, the grouping of conservative synods of which LCMS was the flagship) Did not reference August 15, but did have the other three feasts on its calendar. There were indeed a couple of Marian hymns. #274, “Praise We the Lord” for the Annunciation is a very nice one (praising but not invoking her), which I only heard sung once. #475 in verse 2 is right out of Byzantine Liturgy: “O Higher than the cherubim …” That was sung often. However very few would even admit that it addressed Mary.
I’m not familiar with the new hymnal done in conjunction with ECLA and other more “liberal” Lutherans. I am aware that it includes a Eucharist with a full anaphora, but that it also allows the use of the verba only. I’m also aware that there are a number of Lutheran churches in all synods (and perhaps more of them in ELCA) that do not use the liturgy at all. I’ve encountered a number of websites of churches that do not as well as a number of others that are (at least superficially) very ‘catholic’.
Ed, The ELCA’s Evangelical Lutheran Worship was published in 2006. Once again, the LCMS wouldn’t agree with the ELCA on a common liturgy and hymnal. The ELCA’s calendar is a bit more comprehensive than LCMS, but the same on Mary. In addition to the Presentation, Visitation, and Annunciation, August 15 is the Feast of Mary, Mother of Our Lord (white).
In the hymn section titled “Festivals, Commemorations” I could NOT find a specific Marian hymn; however, #419 (For All the Faithful Women) has 11 verses with verses 3-11 dedicated to speciifc women. Verse 6 is “Mary, Mother of Our Lord”. Hymn #421 is “By All Your Saints”, essentially part 2 to #420, described below. This has verses 13-22 dedicated to various saints. “Mary, Mother of Our Lord” is verse 18.
Note, #420, “By All Your Saints” is a 12-verse hymn primarily for the Apostles but verse 9 is for “Joseph, Guardian of Jesus” for his Feast Day on March 19th. It is most interesting and orthodox that his role is referred to as “your guardian, dearest Lord”. He is NOT sung as Mary’s husband or the father of any half-siblings to Jesus; like Mary, his primary role is to lead us to Jesus.
There are 10 settings for Holy Communion plus a Service of the Word. There are 4 separate Eucharistic prayers for them. And yes, one is just the Verba (Rite II). In the Service of the Word it does state, “Although a weekly celebration of the Lord’s supper is the norm, a service of the word of God is also celebrated reqularly or occasionally in many places.”
Michael stated the following (and I agree that this is true): “When I raise these questions [about theology] at the local ACA church I worship with, I usually get rather vague responses. Though when I point out specifics of the 39 Articles, they are sure to remind me of the ones they absolutely reject (e.g., praying for the dead). They usually tell me how they respect both Rome and Constantinople and believe in general what we believe but do so using Anglican forms, prayers, and hymns. But when I say, “What about the filioque? Or the immaculate conception?”, I can get a variety of responses. None definitive in the modern world of Anglicanism?”
Where I will disagree is that one is most likely to find not too much difference if one questions local Greeks and Russians about theological issues as well (the converts are a different story, just getting them to shut up is trying). Some will say that transubstantiation is not Orthodox, whilst some will believe very strongly in this dogma (as we did when I was in seminary); some will support abortion on demand, as does the Ecumenical Patriarch, others, mostly convert, will declare that Orthodoxy is pro-life; some will say that the Orthodox church is for everyone, whilst others believe, once again supported by more than one Orthodox bishop, that Hellenism is Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy is Hellenism. Some will say that there is no grace outside of their denomination and that all non-Orthodox must be re-baptized (Indeed until very recently the Russian Church outside of Russia even re-baptized converts from other jurisdictions…in the Philippines today the Greek Greeks re-crismate people from the Antiochian Greeks!). Some Orthodox will say that the Eucharist of the Roman Church is the devil incarnate; whilst others will admit to the grace of Catholic sacraments. It is just as much a turkey shoot as is Anglicanism.
Of course there is a whole sub-set of Orthodox who believe that beard length, not kneeling on Sundays (which is a complete misunderstanding of what the council actually said; although these same people are not worried about giving communion with a golden spoon,which is indeed forbidden), lack of pews, and when to open and when not to open the royal doors are the most important theological realities of the Byzantine Church. So in the end, one could just as easily ask an “Orthodox” “what kind of Orthodox are you?”
Dale, You and I both know we’re not really talking about uniformed laity of any denomination. Yes, Orthodoxy has its fair share. As do RCs. Lutherans. Anglicans/ECUSA. Reformed. PNCC. Methodist. Baptist. Etc.
We’re talking about going to a source of dogma. So for Lutherans, we know to run to Book of Concord, esp. Augsburg Confession and Apology to same. Ed and I were discussing it in this thread about Mary’s perpetual virginity. He mentioned it wasn’t something taught to him as a Lutheran. But I pointed out how the Smalcald Articles, in the Latin, clearly say “ever virgin Mary”. So I know as a non-Lutheran that I can go there and point out to Ed what is the official, dogmatic teaching of historic confessional Lutheranism. I don’t care if Mr. & Mrs. Lutheran couldn’t find the Confession or Article, and if the pastor can’t, I can. And you and I know where to go to get Orthodox dogma. Same for RCs.
But things get complex with Anglicans. So when I’m at the local ACA church and I ask the Archbishop and his priest what am I to make of the 39 Articles that are in each BCP in every pew, things get…interesting. Or if I say, what is the TAC/ACA official position on the filioque? Or immaculate conception? And when I asked, when the official episcopal visitor comes next and I ask the bishop, “Where do I go to get the ACA’s dogma?”, no full immediate answer is available. We can talk about the 1970s and the St Louis convention and what the position of the Episcopal Church was before it went off the rails, but I can’t find a “source” for undisputed Anglican dogma in 2012 that is universally accepted by its bishops and clergy. Which may be why some continuing Anglican groups are still discussing priestesses?
So where do I go to see undisputed dogma for just continuing Anglicans? Like, “Do they recognize Ecumenical Councils? If so, how many and which specific ones?
Many of the very odd ideas and theological positions, often contradictory, are held in Byzantium not simply by the laity, but by priests and bishops as well. Not really too much different than in Anglicanism.
I will agree with Ed on this one, if you are going to try and pass yourselves off as the one, true, believe in us or go to hell, Church (which the Church of Byzantium certainly does do) it needs to be a little bit more tidy on what it is that is sending the rest of us to hell for.
You know, I’m not talking about “uninformed laity” at all. I am taking about laity well informed by their pastors and teachers. The question is as to what this information actually is,. While “official” standards may be (certainly are) of high importance, standards written on paper are not my primary concern. My point is that, for the overwhelming majority of Lutherans, including pastors, it makes little difference what the Book of Concord may say, for instance, about Mary. An educated pastor will be familiar with the passage you may ‘find’ for him, but will refuse to teach it, refuse to believe it, and be ready with a convoluted explanation of why it does not say what it ‘seems’ to say. Bedrock documents signify very little if they are not believed and taught. The standards of any denomination are the standards handed down (traditio) by the teachers to the next generation. They may be false, they may be out of accord with the historic position of the denomination, but they have indeed become its standards. We may quote Scripture, but someone else will explain to us that it means something entirely different. We may quote the Fathers or the Councils, and there will be counter-quotes and dismissive ‘explanations’. We may quote specific confessional documents, but with similar result.
What does a church teach? It teaches whatever it is actually teaching. That is why a church needs to be humble, always ready to admit that it has strayed, always ready to correct its course. If it does not have this kind of humility (and very few of any connection do), then it is simply not at all what it pretends to be or has convinced itself that it is.
Both Hermann Sasse and Arthur Carl Piepkorn — hardly “liberal Lutherans” — both nuanced away the “semper virgo” of the Schmalkald Articles preciusely in the way that ed has instanced.
Wasn’t it Piepkorn who prefered to call Lutheranism, The Church of the Augsburg Confession? If so, not surprising he might prefer to interpret any other statement or confession about Lutheranism from its bedrock Confession and Apology? All others have secondary status and do not stand on their own?
Yes, that was his preference. To some extent it came from an early controversy among Lutherans in America. Many of the early Lutheran churches in USA moved in the early 19th century toward a general Protestantism and crafted a watered down version of the Augsburg. The Missouri Synod was organized in part to resist those alterations, thus full church names like one still extant in Baltimore: “Martini Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession”. Piepkorn was attempting to remind LCMS people and other Lutherans of the fullness of the Confession, stressing the more “Catholic” aspects that most preferred to ignore. After I had become a “High Church” Lutheran, though professing to accept the whole Book of Concord, I found the Smalcald Articles to be very uncomfortable as they contain a strongly anti-Roman (and seemingly anticatholic) element I wasn’t aware of the “ever-virgin” in the Latin, knowing only the English translation from the German. I haven’t reread any of these documents in years now.