Collect of the Week - 2
The Sarum Missal, like the missals of the Carmelite and Dominican orders,
numbered its Sundays "After Trinity" rather than "After Pentecost". This is
the collect for the first Sunday after Trinity (i.e. 2nd after Pentecost):
Deus, in te sperantium fortitudo, adesto propitius invocationibus nostris;
et quia sine te nihil potest mortalis infirmitas, praesta auxilium gratiae
tuae, ut in exsequendis mandatis tuis, et voluntate tibi et actione
placeamus. Per Dominum . . .
BCP translation: O God, the strength of all them that put their trust in
thee, mercifully accept our prayers; and because through the weakness of
our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee, grant us the help of
thy grace, that in keeping thy commandments we may please thee, both in will
and deed; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
It derives from the Gelasian Sacramentary. A Sacramentary is, to all
intents and purposes, a Missal. Strictly speaking, a Missal has all the
prayers and readings required for the Mass, a Sacramentary has only the
priest's prayers. It is an altar-book, and needs to be supplemented by a
Lectionary for the readings, and perhaps by various choir books for the chants.
Three such Sacramentaries survive from the early Church:
1. The Leonine Sacramentary, the earliest, which draws on Roman material of
the 5th or 6th century. Its attribution to Pope Leo I (d. 461) is quite
arbitrary. It is arranged according to the civil calendar, not the
ecclesiastical. It survives in a single MS in the Chapter Library of Verona
(cod. lxxxv.)
2. The Gregorian Sacramentary - not a single MS, but a family of
Sacramentaries traditionally ascribed to Pope Gregory I (590-604), the most
important of which is the 'Hadrianum'. In response to a request of
Charlemagne for the 'standard' Roman Mass Book - Charlemagne was concerned
to standardize the Mass in his domains. Probably there was no such
'standard' book, but Pope Hadrian I sent him c. 790 a sacramentary
described in the covering letter as the work of Gregory. The original has
not survived, but a copy made from it, dated 811 or 812, is preserved at
Cambrai (MS 164).
3. The Gelasian Sacramentary. To avoid confusion, this term is sometimes
applied to Vatican MS Reg. Lat. 316, and sometimes to the class of
sacramentaries to which it belongs, i.e. Gallican sacramentaries of the 8th
century. The ascription of any of the texts therein to Pope Gelasius
(492-6) is mistaken. The Vatican MS is the oldest Sacramentary in which the
feasts are arranged according to the ecclesiastical year.
Many list members will be able to amplify and correct this information. I
give it very briefly here so that punters will be able to follow the
references to them in my expositions of this and other collects. There are
bibliographies for all three in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
Perhaps the most striking feature of this collect is its insistence that we
can do nothing good without the aid of God's grace. This is a frequent
emphasis in the collects and reflects the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius
was a British theologian and exegete who taught in Rome in the late 4th and
early 5th centuries. The fact that Britain was capable at this time of
producing theologians competent to teach in Rome is itself worthy of note.
Pelagius emphasized man's ability to choose good by virtue of his God-given
nature. He does not seem to have taken into account Original Sin as
diminishing our ability to choose the good. His great opponent was
Augustine of Hippo, who had a much livelier awareness of Sin in all its
forms. For Augustine, human nature of itself could only sin; it was
impossible to do good without the aid of God's grace. For Pelagius, sin was
a matter of following an evil example, which could be avoided by the use of
free will. A middle position (dubbed in modern times 'semi-pelagianism')
was taken by John Cassian and Vincent of Lerins.
All of this of course begs the question, What do we mean by grace? And
different answers have been given to this question. Augustine sometimes
called Grace a gift of the Holy Spirit, at other times equated it with the
Spirit himself.
Dr Goulburn raises the question in his exposition of our collect. He asks,
"What do we mean by God's grace? I fear some people think of it as an
infused quality, kneaded up into the soul like a chemical ingredient, and
producing goodness or virtue therein, just as such an ingredient might give
a particular colour, or taste, or smell to that with which it is mixed. But
in reality grace is nothing else than the working of God's Holy Spirit in
the soul; it is not a quality; it is the operation of a Divine Person."
("The Collects of the Day", vol. II p. 11). He remarks in a footnote, "I am
indebted for this thought to a very masterly sermon preached by the present
Bishop of London before the University of Oxford, in which he exposes and
explodes the Scholastic conception of grace as an infused quality."
Whether or not this is so, it is indubitable that the Collector regarded
Grace as an infused quality, for the collects again and again ask God to
"pour thy grace into our hearts" ('Cordibus nostris, quaesumus, Domine,
gratiam tuam benignus infunde' is the opening of one collect).
Goulburn continues:
"Again; we ask here for the help of God's grace. In what way may we expect
His grace to help us? The Spirit of God does not force or compel any man to
be good (there is no compulsion in the kingdom of God); all that He does is
to act upon our affections, and through our affections upon our will, which
is always free." (vol. II p. 11).
I do not think Augustine would have been too happy with this. He regarded
Grace as irresistible, for it unfailingly attained its object. Goulburn's
position looks very much like semi-pelagianism as defined (s.v. "Grace" in
the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church):
"Its chief exponent, John Cassian, while accepting Augustine's teaching on
original sin, rejected total depravity, irresistible grace, and
unconditional predestination . . . Though grace was universally necessary,
the will remained free at all stages."
To look in a little more detail at the wording of our collect - and let us
remind ourself of its wording:
Deus, in te sperantium fortitudo, adesto propitius invocationibus nostris;
et quia sine te nihil potest mortalis infirmitas, praesta auxilium gratiae
tuae, ut in exsequendis mandatis tuis, et voluntate tibi et actione
placeamus. Per Dominum . .
The reformers translated 'fortitudo' as 'strength', reasonably enough. It
rarely however means physical strength, more often mental and moral strength
- fortitude, firmness, manliness, courage, intrepidity. It is actually one
of the four cardinal virtues, together with prudence, justice and temperance.
You would think it negligent of me not to point out the hyperbaton, whereby
'Deus' is separated from 'fortitudo' and those hoping in God - in te
sperantium - are sheltered inside, as it were in a stronghold, kept safe and
sound by God their strength. In a rather similar way 'tibi' is enclosed
between 'voluntate' and 'actione' - God is at the centre of our endeavours,
being pleased on the one side by our good will and on the other by our good
actions.
'infirmitas' is more or less the opposite of 'fortitudo'. It can mean
simply physical weakness, but often has the sense of 'want of spirit,
feebleness, cowardice'; like fortitudo, it is a moral quality. The
reformers sought to bring out this moral quality by introducing the word
'good'. The Latin says simply 'sine te nihil potest' - 'without you can do
nothing.' The reformers expanded this to 'can do no good thing without
thee'. As a rule they are thoroughly Augustinian, strong on total depravity
and Original sin, and beef up the Latin collects if they think they perceive
any weakness in that department.
'auxilium' is frequently used in a military sense and perhaps there is just
a hint here of grace being sent as reinforcement to a beseiged garrison
which because of its weakness cannot hold out against the enemy.
Doctor Elasticus.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
