Non Nobis, Domine, Sed Nomini Tuo....

The name of Jesus has been revered throughout the history of the Church back to the days of the Old Testament, when the Jews would substitute Adonai ("Lord" or "Master") for the name God gave for Himself to Moses, Yahweh ("I am Who I am"). The name of the God Who called Himself the One Who simply is, Who is being itself, was only invoked by the high priest once a year, on the Day of Atonement. The O antiphons sung at the Magnificat on last seven days of Advent revive the Old Testament names of God in anticipation of the birth of the Son of God and His naming an octave of days later. Parents name their children symbolically, honoring either a person from the past or steering the newborn toward what the mother and father desire them to be. With God this does not suffice. In the case of God, His name reflects Who He is, the One Who is, the Lord of all.

The name of Jesus was not a new one to the Jews or Christians of the first century. Jesus etymologically derives from Yeshua, commonly Joshua today. Ye-shua literally translates as "Yahweh is salvation" and was the name of Moses's companion who led the victorious Israelite army in the conquest of Canaan. Honoring their ancestor, Yeshua was one of the most popular male names in the Second Temple period. The first Yeshua fulfilled the promise of God to deliver the Israelites from the land of bondage to a new place of freedom. The second Yeshua, as God made man, would deliver all Who believe in Him from the bondage of death. After the Resurrection and descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost believers veered away from naming their children after Old Testament figures in favor of martyrs of the New Testament, although Elias remained popular in Greek Christianity. Jesus would cease to be a called name; instead it would become a revered invocation of God Himself.

Lev Gillet observes that the Biblical expression "at the name of Jesus" comes to us weakly in English from weak Latin, in nomine Iesu. The presumably original Greek text bears a stronger meaning, connoting "by the means", "by the command", or "by the authority" of Jesus. The pre-Nicene Fathers did not theologize the name, but they did follow the tradition of invoking it in times of distress, eventually normalizing its liturgical usage (per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum....). 

The name of Jesus eventually became a prayer unto its own. Latin spirituality is difficult to define before the explosion of Benedictine monasticism, though it was presumably liturgical more than personal like the monastic tradition which sprung from it. St. Augustine's small collective may have anticipated communal living and prayer on a more voluntary, less municipal level, but the common liturgical element remained. Eastern spirituality, at least as far as extant information allows us to know, possessed a more personal element. It is here that the "Jesus prayer" originated. 

The "Jesus prayer" has become the focus of Greek spirituality. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy of me [a sinner]" is prayed by Athonites, but also by laymen of the Constantinopolitan tradition, non-Chalcedonians, Latin monks, and the odd Protestant. The prayer did not reach its current form until the Hesychast ascendance in the Palaiologan dynasty, the last ruling family before the fall of Byzantine Empire, when Orthodox tradition ossified more or less in its current form. The Jesus prayer is a concatenation of two separate prayers used in the first millennium, one by the monks of Sinai and the other by the faithful of Constantinople. The monks of Sinai plainly uttered the name "Jesus" as a simple prayer to remind the one saying it of Christ's personal presence. Contrary to later Athonite thought, the Sinaites believed psalms and the name of Jesus were the only spiritual refuges for those not strong enough to confront their sins directly. St. John Climacus confirmed this tradition in his Ladder (28). The second piece of the prayer was Kyrie eleison, a favored ejaculatory prayer of the monks and laity of Constantinople. The merger of these prayers resulted in our modern day Jesus prayer, popularized by the Hesychast tradition of St. Gregory Palamas.

St. Gregory Palamas did not popularize the Jesus prayer, nor did his proximate followers. In contesting Barlaam's claim that God was not Himself knowable, the Hesychasts found in the Jesus prayer the most perfect place to meet Christ God in His un-created energy, the "light of Tabor." It was in this context that Palamas defended the prayer and in which his later followers advocated its central place in Greek spiritual life. Much like how the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation religious orders coagulated the once fluid and vivacious Roman Church, the disaster of 1453, the dissemination of the Greek tradition to the Slavs, the expansion of Athonite monasticism, and the publication of the Philokalia stiffened a once dynamic Byzantine tradition. The Jesus prayer dominated Athos and its descending spiritual houses. Use of the Jesus prayer can substitute for part or all of the Greek Office: 500 times for Vespers or Mattins, 200 for Compline, 700 for the Typika. It should be noted that most non-Athonite communities do not see the name of Jesus as a substitute for the liturgy.

While the name of Jesus did not become its own prayer in the Latin Church, it did continue to be invoked in prayer and as an object of reverence. The Sarum rite has the feast of the "Name of Jesus" on August 7th. Compostela celebrated the feast on January 8th and Liege on January 31st, the Franciscans and Dominicans kept it on sequential January days. Innocent XIII inserted the feast into the Roman rite for the second Sunday after Epiphany, where it is given in my altar Missal. St. Pius X relocated the feast to the Sunday between the Circumcision and Epiphany, displacing the octave days of the comites Christi. Paul VI abolished the feast in promulgating the new kalendar in 1969/1970. The Roman Mass found in the post-Tridentine Missals is remarkably similar to that given in the Sarum books, sharing the Introit and Epistle, but differing in the Gospel (Sarum gives the Angel's relation of the name to Mary while Roman repeats the Circumcision pericope) and orations. While the Roman rite prays:

"O God, You Who appointed Your only-begotten Son to be the Savior of the human race, and commanded that He be called Jesus, mercifully grant that we may enjoy in heaven the vision of Him Whose holy Name we venerate on earth"

Sarum asks:

"O God, Who has caused the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Only Begotten Son, to be loved with the greatest affection by Your faithful, and to be terrible and fearful to evil spirits, mercifully grant that all who devoutly reverence this Name of Jesus on earth may have part in the sweetness of holy consolations in this present life, and in the world to come may attain unto the fullness of joy and eternal praise."

This snippet of the Sarum sequence, given below, highlights the contrast between the post-Tridentine and Norman interpretation of the Name.

The newer Roman feast sadly neglects the historic emphasis on the personal nature of name, that the faithful can call upon "Jesus for our friend" and ask Him to repel all that may come to harm us. The odd Roman Mass instead centers on the fact that the recently born child was given a name, making the feast redundant.

We call Him the Lord, God Almighty, and Our Redeemer. Perhaps in understandable retraction from protestants haphazardly tossing around the name of the Son of God we have reverted to the Old Testament fear of uttering the name of God. This need not be. Due to Him is all reverence in worship, but on our knees we can address Him as a person to be known and kept in company, that He may forgive our sins and we may give glory to His name.

Non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam....

Greek Ecumenism

An article about the ecumenical view on Mt. Athos:

The Greek government sent riot police to Mount Athos in Northern Greece this morning, to forcibly remove a group of monks from Esphigmenou monastery, one of the twenty monasteries that form part of this famous Eastern orthodox complex. Esphigmenou monastery is renowned for the war it has waged against the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople which it accuses of betraying the Orthodox Church by opening ecumenical dialogue with the Vatican. A war which has been going on since the 70s. According to an Associated Press report, the traditionalist monks threw stones and Molotov cocktails at police and judicial officials as they attempted to storm the building .Patriarch Bartholomew declared the monks of Esphigmenou an illegal brotherhood in 2002 and ordered their eviction. But the monks ignored this, claiming the Patriarch of Constantinople does not have the power to evict them.  

The conflict has been going on for decades: it all began when Paul VI visited Patriarch Athenagoras in 1967. The Esphigmenous community protested against the two religious leaders praying together by famously raising black flags displaying the message “Orthodoxy or death”. Patriarch Bartholomew decided to resolve the question by contacting the Greek Foreign Minister who - according to the complex jurisdiction regulations which apply to the Hagiorite institutions - is in charge of the security of the twenty monasteries which make up the monastic community of Mount Athos. Over the years, the Greek authorities have tried almost everything to get the Esphigmenou community to back down. They even tried cutting off food supplies to the monks, but in vain.  

The situation was complicated further after a Greek court granted an injunction allowing the new brotherhood Bartholomew wants installed, to replace the old monastic community. There are 500 thousand Euros at stake, which the European Union could dish out for restoration work to be carried out on the 11th century monastery. But given the current crisis Greece finds itself in, the funding has been yet another cause for tension between the rebel monks and Constantinople.  

Local sources say about twenty monks have barricaded themselves inside their monastery. Some supporters apparently joined them this afternoon. On the Esphigmenou monastery website, the monks are calling on faithful to support them and accuse the government of “giving the green light to the police to raid the monastery,” ignoring the fact that “this could cause bloodshed among the monks at Mount Athos.” .

Reasons for the Reform of the Roman Rite Part IV: Separation of Liturgy and Doctrine

"This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation."—Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei 64.

"Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the Eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.—Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei 52."

The above epigraphs are excerpts from Pope Pius XII's 1947 encyclical letter Mediator Dei, written in reaction to the post-War resurgence of the Liturgical Movement. The encyclical, which along with Quo Primum is most quoted and favored by traditionalists, lays down three important points concerning the liturgy:

1. The liturgy is the practice of the Sacraments given to the Church by our Lord, and which have developed in their expression over the years. Their standing form constitutes a vital part of the Catholic tradition, which is, or was, susceptible to the subtle threat of "antiquarianism" and the "widespread revival of scholarly interest in sacred liturgy" as it existed in more ancient times. This "widespread revival" endangers the liturgy, as members of this movement attempt to return to ancient practices which fell into disuse and which may not be suitable for use today.
2. Liturgy connects intricately with Christian doctrine, lexi orandi lex credendi. The Pope comments on the development of the liturgy over the years in passing several times, but in the few moments when he remarks on the relation between liturgy and the doctrines of the Church, he submits the former to the latter.
3. "The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification" (58).

Fr Robert Taft fighting for the Divine Liturgy

The second of these points interests us today. This post is called the "Separation of Liturgy and Doctrine" because the distinction of the two, and the subservience of one to another, indirectly facilitated the liturgical reforms of the mid-twentieth century. Traditionally, liturgy and doctrine are not aesthetics of religion that one decorates according to pre-conceived notions of faith. Rather, they both express the same faith. Doctrine is faith written on paper and liturgy is faith done in action. Many of the greatest Western saints wrote extensively on the liturgy as a spiritual, not doctrinal, meditation. As recently as the eighteenth century St. Alphonsus di Ligouri penned an extensive commentary on the psalms structured by their appearance in the Divine Office. Padre Pio passed numerous comments on the mystical Communion of Saints that transpires during the Mass. Even given his role in encouraging centralization in France, Dom Gueranger compiled in an impression set of volumes on the liturgy, both in form and its propers, for each day of the year, each with extensive scriptural reference and deep spiritual meditation. This never ceased to be the case in the East. The most prominent Byzantine theologians and writers of the last century, Fr. Robert Taft SJ, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, and Fr. Alexander Schmemann, all wrote extensively on the liturgy, drawing on its expression of faith, its capacity to clarify doctrine, and its continuity with the faith of our fathers back to the Lord Himself. Mediator Dei breaks this tradition.

Two distinct causes converged to create this distinction between liturgy and doctrine, which places one below the other. The first is the "low Mass culture" we discussed two posts ago. I will summarily say if the entire ranks of clergy or laity do not have something to do with the Mass then they will not be too concerned or attached to the prayers, so long as none of them are outright offensive. As private Devotionalism took the place of public prayer, the public rites and preaching no longer informed the believer's faith. Doctrinal declarations and sermons given in strongly catechetical language became the teachers to the masses. This environment reduces faith to either personal piety or the satisfaction of certain intellectual requirements. Neither of these things are bad, in fact they are very good! Yet, they do not draw strength from action, song, historicity, mystical experience, communion (in the Eastern sense), or continuity. So long as the ritual does not irk the layman and the text does not offend the priest, no one is bothered.


The second influence was fear for the corruption of liturgical texts during the Counter-Reformation era and the post-Tridentine period. One reason given for the imposed uniformity of rites after Trent was concern that local bishops and book-printers with Protestant, and later Jansenist, beliefs might influence their clergy and laity by altering rites and texts that reflected their new found heresy. St. Pius V's bull Quo Primum even includes a fine, other than damnation, for such alterations:

"Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. Further, as for those located in other parts of the world, the penalty is excommunication latae sententiae, and such other penalties as may in Our judgment be imposed; and We decree by this law that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to accept books of this nature without Our approval and consent, or without the express consent of the Apostolic Commissaries of those places, who will be appointed by Us. Said printer must receive a standard Missal and agree faithfully with it and in no wise vary from the Roman Missal of the large type (secundum magnum impressionem)."

The immediate consequence of Quo Primum was uniformity, which we shall discuss in two posts, but another was the precedent that the liturgy must also be under the judgment of theologians, rather than material for theologians. No doctrinal problems appeared in any Catholic liturgical books after Trent, if they had ever appeared in the books before! Yet liturgy was celebrated at the beneficence of theologians. This concept is not found before Quo Primum and was not firmly embedded in the Church until many years after 1570.

We should remind ourselves, in reverence for the Church and for the Roman tradition, that it was the Protestant reformers who first submitted the worship of the Church to their doctrines. Many rightly understand the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer in the context of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's Protestant persuasions in a Sarum England. Similarly, how could one understand Luther's communion service outside of a Latin rite liturgical context? Luther's liturgy follows the Roman rite in form and, on occasion, in text. Luther's decision to create new eucharistic prayers and perform his service on a table are reflections of his doctrine expressed in the medieval Roman rites. Far from revering the rites they inherited, the Protestants took them as corruptions which must be purified according to their own theological systems.

This change in doctrinal content did not necessary carry over into the reform of the Roman rite, but it did create a constant fear in the Roman rite of corruption. Centuries after Trent some still feared doctrinal distortions of the liturgy, but most agreed that the liturgy was below doctrinal expression.

For those who may remain skeptical that this influenced the Roman liturgical reform, we adduce the example of the proclamation of the Assumption of Our Lady by Pius XII in 1950 and the subsequent texts of the Mass and Office that Rome issued, replacing texts that dated to, at least, the medieval period and which reflected Roman spirituality until then.

In the Divine Office a sermon on the Dormition by St. John of Damascus constituted the second nocturn. The Mass was the lovely Gaudeamus omnes in Domino. Afterward, this lovely Office was disturbed by the insertion of Pius XII's proclamation into the end of the second nocturn and the Mass was replaced by an entirely new proper, the Signum magnum setting. The introits contrast starkly. The former Mass's introit suggests a Virgin Mary at whose Assumption "the Angels rejoice and please the Son of God." The new text is from the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse, describing a woman above the moon, crowned in twelve stars. The second of these is more representative of twentieth century Scholasticism and of the catalog-bought statues so common in American parishes than it is of St. Augustine or St. Bernard of Clairvaux's understanding of our Lady's Dormition.

The collect of the former Mass asks that our Lady's merits may please Him, as we cannot please Him ourselves. The new collect is assertively bland:

"Almighty, everlasting God, Who took up, body and soul, the immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of Your Son, into heavenly glory, grant, we beseech You, that, always devoting ourselves to heavenly things, we may be found worthy to share in her glory."

Fr. John Hunwicke once described this new prayer as a "dollop of dogma followed by a platitude."

A more recent example might be use of the 1962 missal. Benedict XVI declared 1962 usable because it is what John Paul II gave permission to use, which he in turn authorized because it is what Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre used. The French Archbishop was not seeking the best liturgy per say, but merely what met his post-Tridentine standards of doctrinal emphasis. Initially his seminary at Econe used 1965, essentially 1962 with some vernacular and a few ceremonial adjustments. Other members of his Society used 1939 and others yet used 1967, two extraordinarily different liturgical usages. Msgr. Lefebvre settled on 1962, widely used in France, while under pressure from Rome to give a holistic report of his Society's activities in 1983. 1962, although lacking compared to previous editions, satisfied the French prelate's theological standards and most of the Society of St. Pius X. We see the selection of 1962 as the "extraordinary form" was quite a historical accident, one that transpired on account of Msgr. Lefebvre's needs and not due to discernment of liturgical tradition.

Doctrine's divorce from liturgy nurtured the creation of new texts such as the one above. To some extent, while the Mass and Office deserved respect, they also had to be reasonable and rational to the theologians, and later the "experts," who Rome charged with their care. If something did not conform to the theology of the type-editor, it was excised in favor of new words. During the post-Tridentine era these men tended to be Thomists. The reforms of the 1950s and 1960s turned out as they did because the new type-setters were not Thomists, not necessarily because they usurped power, it was given to them.

Save the Office of Readings, the Hours follow a set form

Rationalism, rather than revelation, runs throughout the Pauline rites. The uniformity of the hours of the Liturgy of the Hours is the fruit of a mind that values reason too much. An hour of the Divine Office has a certain function, therefore they all have the same function! We do not know the purpose of the Last Gospel? Erase it! The offertory prayers mention a "flawless victim" before the consecration? Replace them.

Yet, not all of this "reason" began in 1969, when Paul VI promulgated the new rite in Missale Romanum. The changes to the calendar and rites of Holy Week indicate a liturgy crafted by men who had made critical judgments. One example is the time of the Easter Vigil. The 1951-1968 Vigil began at 10:30pm. The Pauline Vigil begins earlier, usually 8 or 9pm. The reformers concluded that a vigil must be a Mass of "watching" and therefore takes place at night. The older time, after None, in practice very early in the morning, must have been a distortion. The Vigil was never so late. It probably began in the late afternoon, given that is starts after None and concludes with Vespers, and moved earlier and earlier as monks wanted to end their fasts. The reform also exhibits an ignorance of "liturgical time," which is basically ancient Jewish and Byzantine time—still observed on Mount Athos—wherein the next day begins at sunset. Such traditions, historical circumstances, and spirituality cannot survive when the liturgy is at the mercy of which ever theologian has the pertinent curial appointment.

To conclude, the distinction between liturgy and doctrine was an allergic reaction to a Protestant tendency to do the same. This engendered a Church wherein the liturgy was something managed by the minds of theologians, rather than an element of the faith itself, which one receives with reverence. Combined with factors enumerated in prior posts, the liturgy became malleable, owing to decline of liturgical life. This last point especially troubles the author of this piece, as the Christian must be a liturgical person by nature. "Leitourgos" means "public servant" or "one who performs a public action."

I hope Johannes enjoyed today's post with a well-brewed cup!

Pray on, fair Christian soldiers!—even if the theologians do not like it!