The History of the Reformation…The Cowl (Part 6)

Newadvent states that the canonical hours have changed over the centuries. NOW they include just the Psalms and prose Scripture reading. At other times throughout history they contained much more.

It is unclear what Luther was force to recite. It appears from newadvent that although there are guidelines on the canonical hours, interpretations can be made. I would suspect this order that Luther was involved in required much more than others.

This is all speculation on yours and my part. They were consider obligatory and failure to do them could result in excommunication. We can only take Luther at his word that he had a lot of reciting and memorizing to do.

Speculation on your part only. The post to which you replied was accurate. You don't know what you are talking about, so you speculate. But you are a fool to speculate that your interlocutor is speculating just because you are speculating. I'm fed up with the way you and your Calvinist companions feel free just to make it up as you go.

The changes in the canonical hours over the centuries are variations on the constant pattern: the entire Psalter once a week plus readings from other parts of Scripture and homilies on Scripture (during one of the seven hours only) from the great Fathers: Leo, Augustine, Chrysostom etc.

Never was the mere reciting of hundreds of Paternosters part of the canonical office. It was a common devotional practice for lay people and lay brothers who did not know Latin (they recited in Latin but only what they could memorize, such as the Paternoster). That's why some people could not become "choir monks"--they did not know Latin and could not chant the canonical hours.

Luther loved to exaggerate and make stuff up to make a point. This is one instance of it. He knew Latin in and out. The mendicants, including the Augustinian Eremites to which Luther belonged, chanted the canonical hours but not always in convent because of their pastoral ministries. But they were obligated at least to read the Psalter hours in their Breviaries. They undoubtedly encouraged the reciting of Paternosters among the laity and in the course of that, may have led the reciting of Paternosters. But they were not "forced" to do this, they were not obligated to this. They were obligated to other things. Luther is angry at his own religious order, has come to doubt his vows and so he accuses them of mindlessness. He's exaggerating, using perfectly legitimate practices for the laity as a club with which to beat his order of friars over the head.

You can't just lift lines from the Catholic Encyclopedia and decide what they mean, apply them to this or that event or figure in history without knowing more about the history of the Church. I give you credit for acknowledging that you were speculating. You speculated badly. But you have no license to assume that just because you don't know what you are talking about, your opponent is equally ill-informed.

The truth is that he was a very confused Catholic and a very neurotic monk. It wasn't all his fault, of course.

It is amazing that God uses the most imperfect vessels for HIS glory.In Luther He saved His church from the gates of hell prevailing against His church.

Newadvent states that the canonical hours have changed over the centuries. NOW they include just the Psalms and prose Scripture reading.

I didn't say that they included only those things. The monastic hours in pre-Reformation Germany would have been substantially similar to the revised, post-Tridentine breviary. We know all about what that said, there's not a hint of speculation about it; with minor modifications, it was what every priest and nun said prior to Vatican II.

And it's not that different from the breviary today, except that the post VC2 breviary is in the vernacular.

This is all speculation on yours and my part.

Well, no, not really, Harley. It's pretty well attested what the canonical hours contained, and 175 Our Fathers a day wasn't part of it.

They were consider obligatory and failure to do them could result in excommunication.

Yes, they still are. All of that Bible reading, under pain of sin. How awful! Some of it's even from St. Paul. Some of it's even from Romans and Galatians.

Stop by my house some night when I say Vespers together with my wife and kids, and you'll see what I mean.

Unless you follow the Rule of St. Benedict at your house I don't think I'll need to stop by-even if you break out the fruitcake. Here is just a sample of what the monks had to endure in the Middle Ages under these rules:

9. How Many Psalms Are to Be Said at Night.

In the winter first of all the verse shall be said: "Make haste oh God to deliver me; make haste to help me oh God." Then, secondly, there shall be said three times: "Oh Lord open Thou my lips and my mouth shall show forth Thy praise." To which is to be subjoined the third psalm and the Gloria. After this the ninety-fourth psalm is to be sung antiphonally or in unison. The Ambrosian chant shall then follow: then six psalms antiphonally. These having been said, the abbot shall, with the verse mentioned, give the blessing. And all being seated upon the benches, there shall be read in turn from the Scriptures-following out the analogy - three lessons; between which also three responses shall be sung. Two responses shall be said without the Gloria; but, after the third lesson, he who chants shall say the Gloria. And, when the cantor begins to say this, all shall straightway rise from their seats out of honour and reverence for the holy Trinity. Books, moreover, of the old as well as the New Testament of Divine authority shall be read at the Vigils; but also expositions of them which have been made by the most celebrated orthodox teachers and catholic Fathers. Moreover, after these three lessons with their responses, shall follow other six psalms to be sung with the Alleluia. After this a lesson of the Apostle shall follow, to be recited by heart; and verses and the supplication of the Litany, that is the Kyrie eleison: and thus shall end the nocturnal vigils.

16. How Divine Service Shall Be Held through the Day.

As the prophet says: "Seven times in the day so I praise Thee." Which sacred number of seven will thus be fulfilled by us if, at matins, at the first, third, sixth, ninth hours, at vesper time and at "completorium" we perform the duties of our service; for it is of these hours of the day that he said: "Seven times in the day do I praise Thee." For, concerning nocturnal vigils, the same prophet says: "At midnight I arose to confess unto thee." Therefore, at these times, let us give thanks to our Creator concerning the judgments of his righteousness; that is, at matins, etc..... and at night we will rise and confess to him....

45. Concerning Those Who Make Mistakes in the Oratory

If any one, in saying a psalm, response, or antiphone or lesson, male a mistake; unless he humble himself there before all, giving satisfaction, he shall be subjected to greater punishment, as one who was unwilling to correct by humility that in which he had erred by neglect. But children, for such a fault, shall be whipped.

The Rule of St. Benedict

Now tell me this is what you do at home. This confirms what the author states.

For clarification, the post-Vatican II revisions changed the one-week Psalter to a 4-week Psalter, so the number of Psalms per day was reduced significantly. The argument was that the one-week Psalter was out of the reach of the average working stiff to find time to recite and could only be expected of priests and monks and nuns. By reducing the amount to be recited each day, more lay people could join in.

But the basic structure remains as it has been for more than 1500 years.

Here is just a sample of what the monks had to endure in the Middle Ages under these rules.

Harley, this is a good example of why someone cannot simply take a text from Catholic history (or for that matter from 16th-century Protestant history) and assume that he knows how to interpret it. I have spent 30 years studying monastic history.

You consider this cycle of prayer onerous. Yet Benedict begins his Rule by stating that his guiding principle is "nothing harsh, nothing burdensome." Compared to previous monastic regimens, Benedict's was moderate.

Benedictine monks would have spent perhaps 5 or 6 hours a day praying, mostly together, depending on the day of the year, perhaps three hours working manually, an hour or two in meditation (the line between meditation and private prayer is fluid). At the height of the Cluniac reform in the 900s and 1000s, they might have spent 8 or more hours in prayer and less in manual labor. Prayer was to be their life. For that they had given up other responsibliities. They simply tried to live out Paul's admonition to pray without ceasing and Jesus' admonition to be vigilant for his coming. Is there anything wrong with that?

They lived this life in a world where a peasant spent up to 16 hours a day at hard manual labor in the fields during the summer, scratching out bare subsistence. Monks fasted a lot but they at least could be fairly well assured of the meals their rule permitted. They were very vulnerable to Muslim and Viking raiders, yes, so their fairly settled and even affluent way of life compared to peasants could be upset at any moment, but that was true for the peasants as well. Monks lived a much harder life than nobles, yes, but even the luxuries of nobles would be considered a hardscrabble life by the poorest Americans today.

Why do you simply assume that monks lived a burdensome, horrible life? Have you ever plotted out what the schedule or prayers you excerpted adds up to? Have you ever tried to follow the regular cycle of seven hours of prayer each day? You Protestants claim that we Catholics don't read our Bibles, don't take our faith seriously enough yet you decry the onerousness of our consecrated men and women.

As to the punishments for making mistakes in choir--the point was that the monk was not just supposed to go through the motions. He was expected to have memorized the Psalms and to put his mind and body (chanting takes energy--far more than you might realize if you've never tried it for three hours in an unheated church) into it. This was his life, he was expected to live up to the vow he took, and there were consequences if he did not. But that was true of all of medieval and traditional society: external rules and punishments were part of the way people assumed one learned, trained oneself.

The only people who still live that way today are athletes and soldiers. No pain, no gain. They recognize that an external regimen, or rule, is essential if one is to make real progress in training. Their goal is important enough to make the suffering during training worth it. Monks believed that we are all on a pathway that can lead to heaven or hell. They chose to give up a lot of things in order to train rigorously for heaven. The Rule was their training regimen set forth in advance; the abbot who enforced the Rule was their personal trainer or drill sergeant. Olympic-level athletes know that they can't train on their own--they cannot by sheer self-discipline hold themselves to a schedule that will get them to their goal. They voluntarily choose to surrender to the authority of a trainer and, having done so, obey him because if they start second-guessing him, they'll never get where they want to go.

"Forced to endure"--they chose to submit themselves to the Rule of Benedict and their life seems onerous only if one knows nothing about monastic life or the life of a medieval peasant.

One more point. Luther turned against his monastic rule and said all sorts of horrid things about it. From his biography, it would appear that he either did not have good counsel as he considered entering monastic life or he ignored good counsel. He made a rash commitment to become a friar, but that was not a binding promise. Surely the "admissions committee" of the Augustinian Eremites who received his request to be admitted must have told him he was not bound by his private promise made under emotional duress. It was Luther who considered it binding. He went against all the standard manuals for discerning a vocation that were common in his day. I have read some of these manuscripts of advice for potential monks.

In short, Luther was excessively legalistic (overly scrupulous) in his own private interpretation of his private vow. He did not have to follow through on it. I cannot imagine that he was not informed of this--he himself should have known it simply from his own university studies in law. But he considered it binding and went ahead, against the advice of others, including his father.

Later he regretted it and decided that he should never have become a friar. But once more, instead of putting the blame solely where it rested--on himself--he wrote a book claiming that all monastic vows were unbliblical and against God's will. In his anger at his own failed vocation he then wrote the nasty stuff about monasticism that colored the article you posted and influenced your assumption that monastic life was nasty, brutish and short.

In short, you've been taken in by Martin Luther's personal vendetta against monastic life, a vendetta that originated in his own stubborn refusal to listen to counsel from others as a young man. It did not have to be this way for him but he chose to make it this way. Why should we have to be afflicted by his messed up monastic vocation?

Luther did have many solid insights about Christian living. He was right to criticize many abuses. But on the matter of monastic life, he was so personally entangled in it that anything he wrote about monasticism needs to be teased apart with a fine set of tweezers before the useful can be distinguished from his personal grief, anger, and self-loathing.

Please read Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 2 vols. McGrath is on your side, an Evangelical, convert from atheism. He recognizes that forensic justification and imputed righteousness was an innovation in the 16thc. He thinks it was a good invention because it restored the true interpretation of Paul. The only problem is that no one before the 16thc realized they were misinterpreting Paul. But then, better late than never.

If you would read qu. 23, articles 1 and 3, you would discover that by "God reprobates some" Aquinas takes pains to explain that this means "God permits them to be reprobated" and by "predestines" he means to lead, direct but that he excludes any strictly deterministic understanding of predestination. In qu. 23, art. 1, ad primum he quotes John of Damascus's point that "God does not will malice nor compel virtue" as evidence that predestination is not necessitarian and takes place in accord with man's free will and cooperation (if you would read the sections of the Summa on grace, free will, human nature you might even understand how unlike the necessitarian predestinarians Aquinas was.

Prooftexting is not very helpful, Johannes.

Prooftexting is not very helpful, Johannes.

Shucks Dion, ya forgot to exhort gbcdoj to refrain from prooftexting.

Nevertheless, I sure would like to know how the redundancy of "necessitarian predestinarian" is different from the oxymoronic "nonnecessitarian predestinarian"?

Frankly, I was trying to figure a way to respond to gbcdoj since the essence of his two quotes are noncontradictory. Sure there are nuances between Calvin and Aquinas in regards to the God-human relation. Perhaps what is most notable is that Calvin is not very politically correct in his coherent understanding of original sin. Yet, first cause is first cause irrespective of the spin. But hey, you guys have been propogandized for so long ya probably don't realize that Biblical Christians understand secondary causes. Here's a little sampler from HG Hart on secondary causes.

According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, for instance, providence is "God's most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures and all their actions." What lies behind this understanding is the belief that God works his purposes through secondary means, not simply through his direct and miraculous deeds. Whatever appears to be the cause of natural effects, as believers we know also that God is using those secondary causes for the effects he desires. To say that the sun burned off the morning fog does not deny God's hand in nature; we are merely describing the means he used to clear the sky. Likewise, in Reformation studies, to claim that the buffer role Prince Frederick III played in the life of Martin Luther doesn't negate God's role. Frederick was the secondary cause God used to protect Luther from the higher powers of the papacy and the emperor (something that the martyrs John Wycliffe and John Huss lacked).
The same point can be made about conversion or salvation. Ordinarily God does not dramatically claim us as he did the Apostle Paul. God does not appear in person and blind the new believer. Rather, he uses a variety of means in the course of a believer's life to carry out his saving purpose. One example of this kind of providence is the influence of family and friends. Statistics reveal overwhelmingly that those who come to make a profession of faith do so in part because of the influence of a believing family member or friend. Another example is preaching. God does not wallop sinners over the head but uses the proclamation of the Word as a means toward faith and repentance. The same is true of sanctification. Paul exhorts us to work out our faith in fear and trembling. This means that we must, in the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, make "diligent use" of the means of grace: the Word and the Sacraments. But we know that ultimately it is God who is at work in us (Phil. 2:10-11).
These secondary means alone do not guarantee God's saving grace. His Spirit has to be at work for any of these means to be effective; thus, the need for supernatural and miraculous activity as the fundamentalists insisted. But Scripture clearly teaches that God uses secondary means to carry out his purposes both in restraining evil and in redeeming his people. In other words, God saves both though providence and miracles. What is more, the secondary causes are as much the work of God as are miracles. If we fail to see this we run the risk of espousing a deistic view of salvation, one where God winds up the clock of the soul in the act of conversion and then lets it run its own course by its own powers. Contrary to deism, the Bible teaches that God is always involved and ever active in sustaining and upholding his creation. The same is no less true of redemption. Whether it occurs providentially or supernaturally, nothing happens without God's purpose.

The only problem is that no one before the 16thc realized they were misinterpreting Paul.

Ya know, it's just not that difficult. Now that your church has permitted you to read Scripture for yourself, I encourage you to do so.

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."
Rom. 3:24, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"
Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,"
Rom. 4:16, "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."
Rom. 9:33, "just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
Gal.3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you."
Gal. 3:14, "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."
Gal. 3:22, "But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."
Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
Eph. 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."
Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
1 Tim. 1:16, "And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life."

I love prooftexting.

If Scripture declares it, what more is there?

Why do you simply assume that monks lived a burdensome, horrible life?

I do not assume monks lived a burdensome, horrible life. If someone today wanted to spend 8 hours of their day in freverent prayer I would not say that was either burdensome or horrible. I'd say have at it.

OTOH, if someone today told me that

2) they needed to spend 8 hours of their day in freverent prayer so they could draw closer to God,

I would say they're wrong in either situation. I believe that is the conclusion Luther came to.

In one of the articles the author states that he believes Luther was the first post-modernalist because of this change of thinking. I would agree to some extent except that Luther simply went back to simplier times when you didn't have to work out your forgiveness for sin or your holiness before God. In either case this is the reason our Lord Jesus came.

Now tell me this is what you do at home.

We aren't Benedictines, but then again, neither was Luther.

And this long preceded the formal institution of the Divine Office; Benedict lived in the 6th century; we're talking about the 15th.

This confirms what the author states.

??? It does? Really? I looked in vain for the 175 "Our Fathers" part. I did see this:

And all being seated upon the benches, there shall be read in turn from the Scriptures-following out the analogy - three lessons; between which also three responses shall be sung.

I guess if you find psalms and Scriptures to be an onerous burden, it's onerous, but I was under the impression that Protestants thought exposure to Scripture was a good thing. Was I wrong?

If Scripture declares it, what more is there?

I feel the same way about Scripture, especially Matthew 16, Matthew 25, and James chapter 2.