The Christian Wheel of the Year: The Eve of Epiphany

[readoldthings]

The Eve of Epiphany 

Tomorrow is Epiphany, which means the Twelve Days of Christmas have come to their end! 

Tomorrow is the traditional day to bless the home. To do this, in addition to our usual tools, we will use consecrated chalk. Now, if you like, you can bless your chalk tomorrow before you use it, but as it is traditional to bless the chalk on the Eve of the Epiphany, I wanted to provide the blessing ritual today. 

The Blessing of Chalk

If you've been following along up to this point, you already know what you need to do. A simple, but complete, system for blessing sacred objects has been provided in these posts, starting from the beginning of Advent. To bless Epiphany Chalk, you'll need your usual implements-- at minimum, a quiet place and a table or ledge on which you can place a crucifix, a candle, whatever holy images you find suitable, as well as holy water and incense. And, of course, chalk! 

Follow the same procedure given previously to bless incense and wine, but when it comes time to bless the chalk itself, use the following formula. Remember that the "V" and "R" are applicable if you have an assistant; if not, read everything yourself. When you encounter a +, make the sign of the cross over the chalk, which you should visualize in the form of white fire. 

V. Our help is in the name of the Lord. R. Who made heaven and earth.
V. The Lord be with you. R. And with thy spirit.

Bless, + O Lord God, this creature chalk, to render it helpful to men. Grant that they who use it with faith in Thy most holy Name, and with it inscribe upon the entrance of their homes the names of Thy Saints, Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, may through their merits and intercession enjoy health of body and protection of soul. Through Christ our Lord. R. Amen.

Sprinkle the chalk three times with holy water and cense it three times with incense.
 

Tomorrow we'll discuss the feast of Epiphany, and the visitation of the Three Magi. See you then!

Comments

[prayergardens]

Thank you! You are totally opening my eyes. I am so used to Catholicism having a middle man that doing something like this would have never occurred to me in a Christian context. I'm thinking one of the reasons I have been drawn into other religions over the years is that, in them, I get to do something other than watch. Now, I'm in a polytheistic milieu personally but being more active on the Christian side is a possibility that is unfolding.

[readoldthings]

I'm very glad to hear it!

My experience is similar to yours-- that's one of the reasons I think this project is so important.

[jruss]

So guessing you dropped the Pagan church plans?

[readoldthings]

Funny enough, no. I have the liturgy written up and a lot of other material, but this work kind of grabbed me by the throat and demanded that I get it done NOW.

(Since my overriding philosophy is Platonism first and foremost, I have some flexibility when it comes to the details of theology. The One is the One, which is also the ineffable Godhead Christians speak of; the First God that Iamblichus calls "A monad of the One, forever abiding in Himself" manifests in Christianity as God the Father; the Demiurgos is Jesus Christ, but can also be approached under other names, including Zeus Pantocrator and Hu the Mighty; and so on.)

If you're interested in the pagan church, would you be interested in helping out with some of the legwork?

[jruss]

I’d be willing to try, speaking of Platonic Philosophy ever read Edward Butler?

[readoldthings]

Great! You have my email address, right? Shoot me a message and we'll set something up.

As for Edward Butler, I tried reading him a few years back and found him somewhat off-putting. I may try again now that I have a lot more Proclus under my belt. What do you think of him?

[jruss]

Okay I will and Butler is waaaay over my head when I try reading it.

Most interesting thing for me was the idea the gods created “the one” not the other way around.

[readoldthings]

I don't think he's over your head. I think, frankly, he's an academic who writes in a deliberately obscurantist style in order in order to hide the weakness of his ideas. I'd ignore him and go right to the source-- Proclus et al are more accessible than you might think, if you know how to approach them.