Skip to main content

Against Gaudete Sunday

I admit that the title is a tad provocative.  This post is not a condemnation of Gaudete Sunday.  Rather, it seeks to reflect on the rationale for its absence from trad Anglican liturgy, and the coherence of that rationale.

That Gaudete Sunday was intentionally removed by Cranmer is clear.  While he retained the traditional epistles of the Sundays in Advent, he exchanged the epistle readings for Advent III and IV.  Thus, Philippians 4:4-7 - "Rejoice in the Lord always: and again I say, Rejoice" - became the epistle of Advent IV.  Alongside this, while 1549 did provide an introit, it was not the traditional Gaudete introit.  This had been a combination of words from the epistle with Psalm 84.  In its place Cranmer simply had Psalm 4.

Cranmer's removal of Gaudete Sunday from Advent is only emphasised when we considered that his provision for Laetare Sunday - Lent IV - retained the traditional collect, epistle and gospel.

While Cranmer did keep the traditional collect of Gaudete Sunday, the collect itself does not reflect the Gaudete theme.  And then, of course, it was replaced by Cosin's collect in 1662:

O Lord Jesu Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger to prepare thy way before thee: Grant that the ministers and stewards of thy mysteries may likewise so prepare and make ready thy way, by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thy second coming to judge the world we may be found an acceptable people in thy sight...

This collect completes and fulfils Cranmer's intentions for the Third Sunday in Advent, no longer Gaudete Sunday.  As with the epistle reading (previously that of Advent IV), the collect brings together the Advent and Ember week themes.  The collect takes from the epistle the phrase "the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God", while also in "at thy second coming to judge the world" echoing the epistle's "until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness".

Cranmer's emphasis for The Third Sunday in Advent, completed by 1662 collect, is on that combination of the Advent theme of judgement and the incoming Ember Week.   Gaudete Sunday has no place in this provision, probably because it distracts from this dual emphasis.  We might speculate about other reasons for removing Gaudete Sunday.  Advent is a short season, and - despite its origins in St Martin's Lent - has not traditionally had the same penitential disciplines as Advent.  There is not, then, the same need for encouragement in penitence and penance as provided by Lent's Laetare Sunday.

The shortness of the season also means that care must be taken that the Advent emphasis - "in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty to judge both the quick and the dead" - is not overshadowed or displaced.  Thus the solemnity of the Church's Advent prayer, it might be suggested, is not aided by Gaudete Sunday.

Which brings us to Cranmer moving the traditional Gaudete Sunday epistle to the Fourth Sunday in Advent.  As this short season draws to a close, as the festive season approaches, Cranmer's placing of this epistle in Advent IV has great resonance.  The words of the epistle, "Rejoice in the Lord alway ... The Lord is at hand", carry a double meaning in the closing days of Advent.  They express the Church's Advent hope, will also echoing our festive preparations.  This is also seen in the Baptist's words in the Gospel reading: "he it is, who coming after me ...": in these last days of the season, there is a dual sense to that "coming".

In other words, as an unfolding of sacred and liturgical time, they are much more effective on Advent IV than III, holding together both themes even as we try to do so in Advent's final days (mindful that the BCP requires the Advent collect to be prayed "until Christmas Eve"). 

Within the traditional Roman rite, Gaudete Sunday has coherence and purpose.  This is not so in traditional Anglican liturgy.  Cranmer's revision of the Sunday lectionary, and his provision of a powerful seasonal collect, gave a much clearer focus on the Creed's affirmation that "he shall come to judge the quick and the dead".  With the Third Sunday in Advent also beginning an Ember Week, this - rather than Gaudete - became the dual theme of the Sunday's readings and, in 1662, the collect.  Moving the epistle and gospel of Gaudete Sunday to Advent IV, Cranmer enriched the experience of sacred time, holding together the Lord's first and second comings.

The removal of Gaudete Sunday, then, does not impoverish a Prayer Book Advent.  There is a richness and coherence to a Prayer Book Advent which can be obscured by importing Gaudete Sunday, a richness and coherence which leads us deeper into Advent and also, by the Fourth Sunday in Advent, prepares us for the festive season.

Comments

  1. Mr. Mannerist18 May 2025 at 23:21

    I must correct you on one point, that Cranmer did anything to the lectionary—the Sarum lectionary had the Philippians reading on Advent IV already. Cranmer did not move it. For this reason, your premise that its having been moved to Advent IV demonstrates some intention of Cranmer is unfounded. I am surprised that someone attempting to write so academical a speculation would make a blunder on an archival point such as this. Why did you just assume? Why didn’t you look it up.
    The stational masses do not exist in the same way that they do in Rome, and the Dominica vacat of the earlier Roman lectionaries was filled in independently in Northern Europe, while in Rome it eventually reduplicated some of the Ember Saturday Mass (one can see this in Lent as well). In the case of the displaced advent lectionary, this is a very interesting case of epistles and gospels being shifted as a whole by one all the way from Trinity Sunday in Northern Europe and pushing through the hypothetical barrier of the liturgical year into advent even to push the Gaudete epistle to Advent IV, then further changes being made on top of this. I Dont remember offhand, but I think the gospels and epistles are shifted in a bloc by a different number of Sundays.
    I think you need to reframe your argument to reflect a more accurate understanding of the origin of the BCP lectionary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. laudable Practice19 May 2025 at 13:07

      Ah, yet again this comes up! Yes, this has been raised with me on a number of occasions and my error has been pointed out: I must particularly thanks Samuel Bray (of 1662 IE fame for his correspondence with me on this). As I have said on previous occasions on X/Twitter, I keep this post up as a healthy and welcome reminder of my fallibility. Thank you for your comment and another reminder!

      Brian.

      Delete
    2. laudable Practice19 May 2025 at 17:03

      I should add that I was working from the lectionary in the Tridentine Missal: hence the error.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...
25 comments
Read more

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...
19 comments
Read more

Pride, progressive sectarianism, and TEC on Facebook

Let me begin this post with an assumption that will be rejected by some readers of laudable Practice , but affirmed by other readers. Observing Pride is an understandable aspect of the public ministry of TEC.  On previous occasions , I have rather robustly called for TEC to be much more aware and respectful of the social conservatism of the Red states and regions in which it ministers. A failure to do so risks TEC declining yet further into the irrelevance of progressive sectarianism.  At the same time, TEC also obviously ministers in deep Blue states and metropolitan areas - and is the only Mainline Protestant tradition in which a majority of its members vote Democrat .* With Pride now an established civic commemoration, particularly in such contexts, there is a case for TEC affirming those aspects of Pride - the dignity of gay men and lesbian women, their contribution to civic life, and their place in the church's life - which cohere with a Christian moral vision. (I will n...
4 comments
Read more