From an article on converting Anglican buildings for Russian Orthodox use in Australia, this small paragraph from Fr. Michael Protopopov.
"During the 1920’s, the Anglicans were writing the New Book of Common Prayer; it was very Orthodox in its approach. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky of blessed memory had even said that if the Anglicans were to accept the New Book of Common Prayer there would be very little separating the Orthodox and the Anglicans, and perhaps they could even be recognized as equal to ourselves. Unfortunately, they never did accept the New Book of Common Prayer, and therefore the unity between the two Churches never went ahead. However, the Anglicans still retained a great fondness for the Orthodox and supported us all the way through until Warrnambool 10 years ago."
The New Book of Common Prayer referred to was the English 1928 Proposed Book of Common Prayer (also called the Deposited Book.) This book was partly updated from the 1662 English BCP by members of the Alcuin Club following the Russian Observations Upon the American Prayer Book which was "a report drawn up by order of the committee appointed by the Holy Synod on Old Catholic and Anglican questions." This BCP, as Fr. Michael Protopopov noted, was approved by the Church of England, but rejected by the House of Commons (a failure in ecclesiology that has led to the present state of the Anglican Communion.) That is a 'could have been' - but still could be: there are still those Continuing Anglicans (APCK, HCC-AR, ACC, etc.) and Traditional Anglicans (the newly formed ACNA, or the PEV dioceses in the COE) that have members, clergy and even parishes that could bridge that "very little" that separates.
(It should be noted, the Saint Colman Prayer Book approved for use in most of ROCOR goes beyond those requirements being based on traditional English translations of the Sarum Day Hours (the Breviary excepting Nocturnes), and the Sarum Missal.)
7.08.2009
5.23.2009
Protopriest Maksim Kozlov on the modern Roman rite
Interesting interview - I'd like another translation into the English from the original (linked in the title), as this translation is by Oleg Michael Martynov of Una Voce Russia via Rorate-Caeli blog of Carlos Antonio Palad (and sent to us by Thomas Raines.)
=============================================================
Patriarchia.ru publishes this interview of protoiereus (archpriest) Maksim Kozlov, professor at the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy and rector of St. Tatiana Martyr church in the Moscow State University. It was first published by the Neskuchny Sad magazine, issue 5, 2009.
- Protoiereus Maksim Kozlov. How is the Catholic Church’s reform experience useful for us?
- The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church (1962-65) has caused the most radical reforms in her history. One of the main tasks was to bring in a ‘Church open to the world’ by ‘modern exposition of religious truths’. One of the results, reproaches cast upon the Church for becoming too modern and worldly. Protoiereus Maksim Kozlov believes the main mistake to be thinking that the society in general is willing to live in a Christian way.
– What do you think was the reason behind Vatican II’s radicalism?
– We need to understand the situation of the Catholic Church by early 1960s, as well as the general situation in the world. It was the time when people both in Western Europe and, to a certain degree, in the Americas were abandoning regular participation in church life in mass. It was the era of the starting sexual revolution, of considerable parts of the society, especially the young, showing extreme sympathy towards radical left ideas, both pro-Soviet and Maoist. It was since then that Che Guevara started to be perceived as a kind of a self-sacrificing symbol, one perhaps even greater than that of Christianity. It was the time of a profound spiritual crisis, churches were deserted, and under these circumstances the Catholic Church had to react to the situation, try to find new possibilities of dialoguing with the society as it was then – perhaps, even at the price of errors. Vatican II became an attempt at the Church’s answer to the world’s secularism, like once upon a time the Catholics’ Trent answered to the Lutheran Reformation. This move itself, requiring courage and resolution, can definitely be praised.
– Which of the reforms of Vatican II do you think to be positive?
– Among the most positive turnabouts I would number the understanding, in a new way declared and, to a considerable degree, experienced by the Catholic Church, of all-Christian unity in the face of danger, of which Alexander Solzhenitsyn was writing during the same period: there are considerable powers in the world that would like no Christians to exist at all. Facing the challenges of modern era, in spite of all our doctrinal differences and their indisputable importance, there is something that unites the Christians. This is a new approach to, let me utter some terrible words, the ecumenical problem, and it was expressed by the Catholic Church and should, of course, be welcomed: at Vatican II, the Catholic Church has renounced equating herself and the Universal Church. Before the Council, Catholics have been stating: Catholic Church is the Universal Church, and now the Catholic Church describes herself as a ‘part of the Universal Church’, recognizing also the way of Orthodox East. The Orthodox are no longer schismatics (heretics) for the Catholics. The direct consequence of this is that the Catholics now recognize the validity of Sacraments celebrated in the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and Oriental), i. e., in the Churches that retain historical episcopate. An Eastern Church Christian can receive the Sacraments in the Catholic Church without first accepting her teaching as it has been before. Of course this does not mean that we should take a similar approach to recognizing all the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Orthodox theology goes not currently provide an unequivocal answer to the question of the existence of Eucharist in Christian Churches that retain historical episcopacy but are outside of Universal Orthodoxy, such as the Catholics and the Monophysites.
As far as the changes in Vatican’s internal ‘policies’ are concerned, here I would mention a move to overcome Rome’s centuries-old clericalism as a very important issue. I mean a very stern division of the Catholic Church into two unequal parts, the teaching Church, which is the clergy, and the taught Church, which is the laity, framed already in Trent. Vatican II has repeatedly emphasized the importance of lay people, who were now able to take a more active part in the Church. The status of lay organizations has been increased, the ecclesiastic communities were recognized as an important component of the Church. This penetrates the life of Catholic Church considerably. For example, in the town of Rimini, Italy, there are annual conventions of Christians with about a million participating every year. These includes exhibitions and lectures on the Bible, there was, by the way, a large section dedicated to Solzhenitsyn this year. These conventions are initiated and conducted by lay volunteers only, the priests are not an organizing force there. Priests can be invited, take part, etc., but the lay people are the main organizers and inspirers.
As something positive, I would also mention Vatican II’s new approach to liturgical worship. Before the Council, Catholic mass was celebrated in Latin, which even among the Europeans few could understand by the middle of 20th century. And after the Catholic Church’s mission to Latin America, Africa, Asia – countries with obviously connection to Romance culture – it became clear that Latin liturgy has come into obvious conflict with the pious needs of many millions of Catholics. This [caused] switching into national languages, which, by the way, was carried out in the spirit of Eastern Christian tradition, that supposes liturgy to be celebrated in the national language of the faithful.
But the methods by which these, reforms, per se right, were carried out, were of diverse value, and the implementation of the reforms itself can not be numbered among the Council’s positive results.
When reforms are declared, there often appears a certain managerial ardor, and at times it’s not the most wise people who find themselves in the lead of the process. In practice, alas, it was not simply permitted to celebrate in national languages, but pre-reform Latin mass virtually prohibited, for it was required to get very many permissions virtually from Vatican itself in order to celebrate it. People who wanted to pray in the old way, especially the clergy, appeared so disloyal and suspicious in the eyes of the predominating trend that Latin worship has virtually ceased to exist.
From the very beginning already, the Council’s reforms have invoked criticism from two directions. The ‘left’ majority were unhappy with lack of radicalism. People who lived in the Western secular society with its priority of human rights as a humanist secular value, and still identifying themselves as Catholics, wondered why has not the Council permitted female priests, abolished celibacy, granted even more rights (like those enjoyed by the priests) to the laity, or allowed divorce and abortions.
The ‘right’ criticism is connected with the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991). He and his followers criticized Vatican II in a number of aspects: for its excessive ecumenism, for the liturgical reforms that have, in their view, caused the loss of sacral language of worship as well as the secularization of liturgical awareness. Indeed, the secularized understanding of liturgy was one of the reforms’ negative consequences. This manifested in excessive emphasis on the ‘horizontal’ component, i. e. the fellowship of the faithful, to the prejudice of ‘vertical component’, which is the congregation’s aspiration for Heaven. The altars were taken out of the sanctuary into the middle of the churches, the priests were now celebrating facing the people and not what we would call the synthronon, as it was before, there were unrestrained and numerous variants of translations and ordos for celebrating mass. There was a rupture, loss of the liturgy’s identity and sameness. Before, for example, a Catholic could everywhere, from Africa to Polynesia, come to a service and realize that he was attending a mass, but this is not so now.
Lefebvre is absolutely correct in his criticism of the progress ideology, adopted by the Catholic Church, where ‘progress’ as progressive motion of the society is considered as a religious value regardless of this society’s religious status. This means that growth of material benefits, gentler morals, tolerance towards different value systems, human rights – regardless of their connection with Christianity are taken as a positive value. The society is estimated more by the presence or growth of these categories of progress than by the grade and quality of its piety. This is something which the Orthodox Church, of course, can not agree with.
The idea of progress is associated with the notion of ‘anonymous Christianity’, developed at Vatican II. It means that not only people who visibly belong to the Church, but also those who do not openly run counter to her, to her spirit, are recognized as those not alien to her. This can perhaps be true for non-Christian countries, for communities that have not encountered the Gospel. But this is absolutely inapplicable to European and American society that is, step by step, turning away from Christianity. This is not anonymous Christianity but rather apostasy from God and the Church.
The Catholic Church’s experience after the reforms shows: in spite of the Church’s coming to meet the society trying to become more modern, intelligible, and close to this society, the society did not come to meet the Church. This is to be realized and admitted, practically, historiosophically, and eschatologically: to expect that the society in its majority will be willing to reaccept Christian values not as declarations but as norms implemented in real life means to live in an illusion.
Another important lesson that we can learn from the experience of Vatican II is how cautiously should we approach the centuries-old Church Tradition, first of all in the field of liturgy. It is important to recognize that we are on the same side with the Catholics, also suffering from certain impenitence among a considerable part of churchgoing folk, a view that service is something not to be understood but rather to incite a kind of pious mood. On the other hand, it is important to realize that the way to modifying the liturgy should not be through its adaptation to the society’s simplistic conceptions formed by the mass media and simply by the very low level of education in the humanities. Christianity as such is something complicated. But understanding Church Slavonic it is not the most complicated thing in Christianity. Rather we should put the question, and look for the answer, on how to bring the beauty and significance of this liturgy to the people.
=============================================================
Patriarchia.ru publishes this interview of protoiereus (archpriest) Maksim Kozlov, professor at the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy and rector of St. Tatiana Martyr church in the Moscow State University. It was first published by the Neskuchny Sad magazine, issue 5, 2009.
- Protoiereus Maksim Kozlov. How is the Catholic Church’s reform experience useful for us?
- The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church (1962-65) has caused the most radical reforms in her history. One of the main tasks was to bring in a ‘Church open to the world’ by ‘modern exposition of religious truths’. One of the results, reproaches cast upon the Church for becoming too modern and worldly. Protoiereus Maksim Kozlov believes the main mistake to be thinking that the society in general is willing to live in a Christian way.
– What do you think was the reason behind Vatican II’s radicalism?
– We need to understand the situation of the Catholic Church by early 1960s, as well as the general situation in the world. It was the time when people both in Western Europe and, to a certain degree, in the Americas were abandoning regular participation in church life in mass. It was the era of the starting sexual revolution, of considerable parts of the society, especially the young, showing extreme sympathy towards radical left ideas, both pro-Soviet and Maoist. It was since then that Che Guevara started to be perceived as a kind of a self-sacrificing symbol, one perhaps even greater than that of Christianity. It was the time of a profound spiritual crisis, churches were deserted, and under these circumstances the Catholic Church had to react to the situation, try to find new possibilities of dialoguing with the society as it was then – perhaps, even at the price of errors. Vatican II became an attempt at the Church’s answer to the world’s secularism, like once upon a time the Catholics’ Trent answered to the Lutheran Reformation. This move itself, requiring courage and resolution, can definitely be praised.
– Which of the reforms of Vatican II do you think to be positive?
– Among the most positive turnabouts I would number the understanding, in a new way declared and, to a considerable degree, experienced by the Catholic Church, of all-Christian unity in the face of danger, of which Alexander Solzhenitsyn was writing during the same period: there are considerable powers in the world that would like no Christians to exist at all. Facing the challenges of modern era, in spite of all our doctrinal differences and their indisputable importance, there is something that unites the Christians. This is a new approach to, let me utter some terrible words, the ecumenical problem, and it was expressed by the Catholic Church and should, of course, be welcomed: at Vatican II, the Catholic Church has renounced equating herself and the Universal Church. Before the Council, Catholics have been stating: Catholic Church is the Universal Church, and now the Catholic Church describes herself as a ‘part of the Universal Church’, recognizing also the way of Orthodox East. The Orthodox are no longer schismatics (heretics) for the Catholics. The direct consequence of this is that the Catholics now recognize the validity of Sacraments celebrated in the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and Oriental), i. e., in the Churches that retain historical episcopate. An Eastern Church Christian can receive the Sacraments in the Catholic Church without first accepting her teaching as it has been before. Of course this does not mean that we should take a similar approach to recognizing all the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Orthodox theology goes not currently provide an unequivocal answer to the question of the existence of Eucharist in Christian Churches that retain historical episcopacy but are outside of Universal Orthodoxy, such as the Catholics and the Monophysites.
As far as the changes in Vatican’s internal ‘policies’ are concerned, here I would mention a move to overcome Rome’s centuries-old clericalism as a very important issue. I mean a very stern division of the Catholic Church into two unequal parts, the teaching Church, which is the clergy, and the taught Church, which is the laity, framed already in Trent. Vatican II has repeatedly emphasized the importance of lay people, who were now able to take a more active part in the Church. The status of lay organizations has been increased, the ecclesiastic communities were recognized as an important component of the Church. This penetrates the life of Catholic Church considerably. For example, in the town of Rimini, Italy, there are annual conventions of Christians with about a million participating every year. These includes exhibitions and lectures on the Bible, there was, by the way, a large section dedicated to Solzhenitsyn this year. These conventions are initiated and conducted by lay volunteers only, the priests are not an organizing force there. Priests can be invited, take part, etc., but the lay people are the main organizers and inspirers.
As something positive, I would also mention Vatican II’s new approach to liturgical worship. Before the Council, Catholic mass was celebrated in Latin, which even among the Europeans few could understand by the middle of 20th century. And after the Catholic Church’s mission to Latin America, Africa, Asia – countries with obviously connection to Romance culture – it became clear that Latin liturgy has come into obvious conflict with the pious needs of many millions of Catholics. This [caused] switching into national languages, which, by the way, was carried out in the spirit of Eastern Christian tradition, that supposes liturgy to be celebrated in the national language of the faithful.
But the methods by which these, reforms, per se right, were carried out, were of diverse value, and the implementation of the reforms itself can not be numbered among the Council’s positive results.
When reforms are declared, there often appears a certain managerial ardor, and at times it’s not the most wise people who find themselves in the lead of the process. In practice, alas, it was not simply permitted to celebrate in national languages, but pre-reform Latin mass virtually prohibited, for it was required to get very many permissions virtually from Vatican itself in order to celebrate it. People who wanted to pray in the old way, especially the clergy, appeared so disloyal and suspicious in the eyes of the predominating trend that Latin worship has virtually ceased to exist.
From the very beginning already, the Council’s reforms have invoked criticism from two directions. The ‘left’ majority were unhappy with lack of radicalism. People who lived in the Western secular society with its priority of human rights as a humanist secular value, and still identifying themselves as Catholics, wondered why has not the Council permitted female priests, abolished celibacy, granted even more rights (like those enjoyed by the priests) to the laity, or allowed divorce and abortions.
The ‘right’ criticism is connected with the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991). He and his followers criticized Vatican II in a number of aspects: for its excessive ecumenism, for the liturgical reforms that have, in their view, caused the loss of sacral language of worship as well as the secularization of liturgical awareness. Indeed, the secularized understanding of liturgy was one of the reforms’ negative consequences. This manifested in excessive emphasis on the ‘horizontal’ component, i. e. the fellowship of the faithful, to the prejudice of ‘vertical component’, which is the congregation’s aspiration for Heaven. The altars were taken out of the sanctuary into the middle of the churches, the priests were now celebrating facing the people and not what we would call the synthronon, as it was before, there were unrestrained and numerous variants of translations and ordos for celebrating mass. There was a rupture, loss of the liturgy’s identity and sameness. Before, for example, a Catholic could everywhere, from Africa to Polynesia, come to a service and realize that he was attending a mass, but this is not so now.
Lefebvre is absolutely correct in his criticism of the progress ideology, adopted by the Catholic Church, where ‘progress’ as progressive motion of the society is considered as a religious value regardless of this society’s religious status. This means that growth of material benefits, gentler morals, tolerance towards different value systems, human rights – regardless of their connection with Christianity are taken as a positive value. The society is estimated more by the presence or growth of these categories of progress than by the grade and quality of its piety. This is something which the Orthodox Church, of course, can not agree with.
The idea of progress is associated with the notion of ‘anonymous Christianity’, developed at Vatican II. It means that not only people who visibly belong to the Church, but also those who do not openly run counter to her, to her spirit, are recognized as those not alien to her. This can perhaps be true for non-Christian countries, for communities that have not encountered the Gospel. But this is absolutely inapplicable to European and American society that is, step by step, turning away from Christianity. This is not anonymous Christianity but rather apostasy from God and the Church.
The Catholic Church’s experience after the reforms shows: in spite of the Church’s coming to meet the society trying to become more modern, intelligible, and close to this society, the society did not come to meet the Church. This is to be realized and admitted, practically, historiosophically, and eschatologically: to expect that the society in its majority will be willing to reaccept Christian values not as declarations but as norms implemented in real life means to live in an illusion.
Another important lesson that we can learn from the experience of Vatican II is how cautiously should we approach the centuries-old Church Tradition, first of all in the field of liturgy. It is important to recognize that we are on the same side with the Catholics, also suffering from certain impenitence among a considerable part of churchgoing folk, a view that service is something not to be understood but rather to incite a kind of pious mood. On the other hand, it is important to realize that the way to modifying the liturgy should not be through its adaptation to the society’s simplistic conceptions formed by the mass media and simply by the very low level of education in the humanities. Christianity as such is something complicated. But understanding Church Slavonic it is not the most complicated thing in Christianity. Rather we should put the question, and look for the answer, on how to bring the beauty and significance of this liturgy to the people.
11.08.2008
St. Brendan in Florida?
The Gaelic foundation of Orthodox Catholic Christianity in America in the 1st Millenium.
Follow the link for an extract from "From A History of the Irish Settlers in North America" by Thomas D'Arcy McGee. About the Icelandic records of 'Irland it Mikla' (Ireland the Great) in the region from Virginia to Florida. Hvitramannaland - White-robed men's land, being conterminous with Dixie.
There are strong local oral traditions about this and similar matters - including that of St. Brendan making his landfall at what is today Jacksonville, FL on the St. John's River (later in the colonial period, site of the first attempt in the region by the French - who were burned out by the Spanish when St. Augustine's was founded down the coast.) In the Gulf Coast, at Mobile, AL we have the much later site of Prince Madoc of Gwynedd's landing (apparently with knowledge obtained through the old Gaelic and Norse traditions.)
3.25.2007
Retreat Reflections
A few notes:
This Lent I had the blessing of attending an Orthodox Retreat in England. We also had the occasion for the 100 year anniversary celebration of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church approving the adaptation of the English Western rite services to Orthodox use. The liturgy was celebrated in a rural chapel (Fr. Hieromonk Michael of Saint Petroc, Cascades, TAS and Fr. Barry Jeffries of St. Stephen's, Launceston, TAS presiding) - Anglo-Saxon in origin, rebuilt by the Normans, and refurbished by the Victorian English. The Hours were kept at the Granary (a granary converted to lodging). The liturgy and hours were after the English Use chanted in Anglican plainchant with Sarum Psalm Tones. Liturgy was according to the English rite in the Saint Colman Prayer Book, of which I finally got my copy! We practiced silence between sessions, had communal Lenten meals together (many thanks to Mr. John Bruckin and Dr. Gilbert Meal), and sessions on Responding to God's Will - covering everything from our individual response, to that of nations and civilizations. Personally, it provided time to discover what lesson I needed to learn this Lent. Many thanks to Dr. John Ward of Hobart/Launceston, TAS for use of cassock, alb, amice and cincture. My poor Florida garb was a bit light (in weight and color) for the job, and my shoes were not quite up to the job either - but we still managed. I was thrilled to be allowed to participate in the worship as a chorister, and found myself drafted as Crucifer on Sunday as well (the first time as an Orthodox Christian doing so - and I don't remember them being so heavy! The cross was brass with a solid iron shaft - no doubt Victorian!) The retreat was organized by Mr. Eadmund Malcolm Dunstall of the Saint Eanswythe Orthodox Study Society of Folkestone, Kent, UK. (Some of my readers and friends might recognize the name as the founder of Tha Engliscan Gesithas back in 1966 who rightly protested the 900 year anniversary of the Norman invasion of England - I didn't realize who was who until the retreat was over! Forgive me for not knowing how to include Anglo-Saxon letters in this post.) We also made a trip to St. Mary and St. Eanswythe Church in Folkestone to venerate the relics of St. Eanswythe, who founded the first convent ever in England back in the 7th c. We arrived late, so we held our service out in the cold in front of the church - but still, we were there! (Saint Eanswythe, pray for us!)
I also had a recurrence of pneumonia - having had a few bouts in the past. I made the error of not dressing warm enough (again, Florida wardrobe), nor of getting preventive care from my physician. I took a sore throat with me, and the cold air, exertion and rain did me in. I've recovered quite well, and though the illness was a slight irritation, it was not successful in robbing us of profit during the retreat. I also finally got to see London by someone who knows the city - including Westminster Abbey, the Priory Church of St. Bartholomew the Great, and St. Paul's Cathedral (including the American Memorial Chapel, and the side altar with Hunt's "Light of the World" icon reredos - unfortunately, my medication kept me from realizing until I returned home that I had indeed seen the American Memorial Chapel! We were also given a tour of Charterhouse by one of the Brothers, Mr. Michael Farrar (who has written books on the history of quite a few English churches - some of which I hope to find copies of.) We also were able to visit with another Brother of Charterhouse, the retired Right Reverend Ambrose Weeks of the Church of England.
Pubs visited included The Valiant Sailor in Capel-Le-Ferne, Kent, the Butcher's Hook and Cleaver in London (Ukrainian chef specializing in English pies, of which I had a wonderful mushroom and onion pie with tarragon), Ye Olde Six Bells, Horley, Surrey, and The Albert Tavern in Westminster (I think that was one, I was quite ill at the time and only remember mushroom soup and large etched windows). The great discovery was a nice Kentish ale - Shepherd Neame Kent's Best that reminded me a bit of eating a Red Delicious Apple. It was nice to finally meet several people I've normally only either spoken to on the Internet, or talked with on the phone (including two Shipmates from the Ship of Fools, of which I've lurked quite awhile - and once participated in long ago.) I also saw why Kent is "The Garden of England" - and came within visual distance of France. There were also a few Celtic/Roman sites I saw in Kent that I really wanted to go see - unfortunately, I lacked time or good health for the walks.
12.02.2005
O Tannenbaum
Externsteine Relief - a Benedictine carving at once was the center of German pagan religion in the Teutoburger Wald. It portrays the cutting down of the 'Irminsul' and the rising in its place of the 'Evergreen' Cross of the Conquering Christ.
Originally uploaded by Aristibule.
This also produced the custom of the 'community Christmas tree' which is an 'outside' tree. The custom spread across the South from Williamsburg in the years before the War. Before the German Christmas tree (which might have been used in the Carolinas amongst the Germans since the early 1700's) there was already the custom of Christmas greenery in Southern households: though primarily Mistletoe and Holly.
Also, the origins with St. Boniface "When St. Boniface chopped down the pagan Thor's oak at Geismar, he claimed that the tiny fir tree growing in its roots as the new Christian symbol. He told the heathen tribes: "This humble tree's wood is used to build your homes - let Christ be at the center of your households. Its leaves remain evergreen in the darkest days - let Christ be your constant light. Its boughs reach out to embrace and its top points to heaven - let Christ be your comfort and your guide." So the fir tree became a sign of Christ among the German peoples, and eventually it became a world-wide symbol of Christmas."
One thing I plead of readers: the Christmas Tree is not an *Advent* custom. Traditionally (and still in Germanic Europe) one should put the tree up on Christmas Eve - as a surprise for the children on Christmas morning before leaving for the 'Christ Mass'. The tree is taken down at Epiphany/Theophany (after the 12 days of Christmas.) Also: St. Nicholas is a good traditional date for the giving of gifts: but it needn't be excessive, or a replacement for providing for family what one should normally provide.
11.30.2005
XII. The Blessing
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
XI. Gloria In Excelsis
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
X. Prayer of Consecration
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
IX. The General Confession
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
---------------
---------------
VIII. The Offertory
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
VII. The End of the Creed
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
VI. The Gospel
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
V. The Epistle
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
IV. The Collects
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
III. The Decalogue
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
---------------
Not done in our Orthodox Western Rite.
--------
---------------
Not done in our Orthodox Western Rite.
--------
II. Preparation of the Elements in a Chapel
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
I. The End of the Procession
From 'Illustrations of the Liturgy' Alcuin Club Collections XIX by Clement O. Skilbeck with notes and Introduction by Percy Dearmer, D.D. A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. London/Oxford, 1912.
11.18.2005
Our Lady of Glastonbury
the second in a three part series
--------------------
"Glastonbury was the most ancient and venerable sanctuary of Our Lady in England. In 530 St. David of Menevia, accompanied by seven of his suffragan bishops, came to Glastonbury, invited thither by the sanctity of the place, and consecrated a Chapel of Our Lady on the east side of the church. As a mark of his devotion to the Queen of Heaven, he adorned the golden superaltar with a sapphire of inestimable value, known as the Great Sapphire of Glastonbury. The Silver Chapel of Our Lady was stored with costly gifts, the value of which, at our present standard, mounted to a prodigious sum. Among the Saxon kings who came hither on pilgrimage may be mentioned Athelstan and Edgar the Peaceable, the latter laying his sceptre on the Blessed Virgin's altar and solemnly placing his kingdom under her patronage." - The Catholic Encyclopedia.
Note: The uncle of St. David of Wales was one Melchinus, called Maelgwyn who wrote of St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, and much more. As the Cornish Archaeologist Charles Thomas pointed out, there has been a direct unbroken continuity of Christian tradition in the 'cradle' of West England, South Wales, and Devonia since the first centuries of Roman-Britain til the present day.
--------------------
"Glastonbury was the most ancient and venerable sanctuary of Our Lady in England. In 530 St. David of Menevia, accompanied by seven of his suffragan bishops, came to Glastonbury, invited thither by the sanctity of the place, and consecrated a Chapel of Our Lady on the east side of the church. As a mark of his devotion to the Queen of Heaven, he adorned the golden superaltar with a sapphire of inestimable value, known as the Great Sapphire of Glastonbury. The Silver Chapel of Our Lady was stored with costly gifts, the value of which, at our present standard, mounted to a prodigious sum. Among the Saxon kings who came hither on pilgrimage may be mentioned Athelstan and Edgar the Peaceable, the latter laying his sceptre on the Blessed Virgin's altar and solemnly placing his kingdom under her patronage." - The Catholic Encyclopedia.
Note: The uncle of St. David of Wales was one Melchinus, called Maelgwyn who wrote of St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, and much more. As the Cornish Archaeologist Charles Thomas pointed out, there has been a direct unbroken continuity of Christian tradition in the 'cradle' of West England, South Wales, and Devonia since the first centuries of Roman-Britain til the present day.
In Apologia St. Joseph Arimathea
Above link to an article on an ACA parish homepage included for interest.
---------
In the Litany of Dunkeld we have the 'Naming of the Holy Martyrs - beginning with the first martyr of the Church Universal, and then the martyrs of the Brittanic Isle, St. Joseph of Arimathea and St. Aristibule. The list continues with Ss. Alban and Amphibalous, then the local martyrs of Alba (Scotland) beginning with St. Kilian and his kindred (and Ss. Colman, Duncan, Colonach, King Constantine, etc.)
What is interesting about this is the date of the Litany - in its present form, no later than AD 889. The Litany prays for the King Gregory of Scotland as he still rules (being Giric, known as 'King Gregory the Great', murdered in AD 889.) What makes this interesting is that the beginning point for those who denounce the claims of St. Joseph of Arimathea (and St. Aristobulus) mission to Brittania stand upon the late 19th c. claim that William of Malmesbury 'invented' the story around 1125... 235 years after the Litany of Dunkeld took its final form.
The early Church in Britain centered around the Silurian capital at Caerleon (near present day Cardiff) which was at the time a new Roman fort. The site of Glastonbury was important as being where the Gospel is supposed have first been preached in the 'Extreme Occident' and the foundation of what would become the basis of Celtic/Saxon monasticism. (Note - St. Joseph of Arimathea by tradition was only presbyter, not episcopus.)
The list of those who attest to the Apostolic origin of the Church in Britain includes Eusebius of Caesarea 3rd - 4th c., St. Hilary of Poitiers 4th c., St. Gildas the Wise 5th - 6th c. , St. Augustine of Canterbury 7th c., St. Nicephorus of Constantinople 8th - 9th c., Blessed Maurus Rabanus of Mainz 8th - 9th c. (and other documents of lesser mention.)
Those who attest to St. Joseph of Arimathea as the first father in Britain, include the later western 'Father of Ecclesiastical History' the Venerable Cardinal Cesare Baronius of Naples 16th - 17th c., and the Jesuit Melchior Inchofer 16th - 17th c., and the earlier St. Gregory of Tours 6th c, St. Isidore of Seville 7th c., as well as various Welsh and English medieval documents*, or the claims of John of Glastonbury 14th c. and John Capgrave 14th c. as to seeing the same claims from the Holy Emperor Theodosius 4th c.
* As with the Fathers, many documents are quoted by various authors, but no longer are extant - though a copy might exist somewhere. According to various authorities, there are still thousands of untranslated documents in various medieval and ancient languages in the monasteries, libraries, and private collections of Europe.
---------
In the Litany of Dunkeld we have the 'Naming of the Holy Martyrs - beginning with the first martyr of the Church Universal, and then the martyrs of the Brittanic Isle, St. Joseph of Arimathea and St. Aristibule. The list continues with Ss. Alban and Amphibalous, then the local martyrs of Alba (Scotland) beginning with St. Kilian and his kindred (and Ss. Colman, Duncan, Colonach, King Constantine, etc.)
What is interesting about this is the date of the Litany - in its present form, no later than AD 889. The Litany prays for the King Gregory of Scotland as he still rules (being Giric, known as 'King Gregory the Great', murdered in AD 889.) What makes this interesting is that the beginning point for those who denounce the claims of St. Joseph of Arimathea (and St. Aristobulus) mission to Brittania stand upon the late 19th c. claim that William of Malmesbury 'invented' the story around 1125... 235 years after the Litany of Dunkeld took its final form.
The early Church in Britain centered around the Silurian capital at Caerleon (near present day Cardiff) which was at the time a new Roman fort. The site of Glastonbury was important as being where the Gospel is supposed have first been preached in the 'Extreme Occident' and the foundation of what would become the basis of Celtic/Saxon monasticism. (Note - St. Joseph of Arimathea by tradition was only presbyter, not episcopus.)
The list of those who attest to the Apostolic origin of the Church in Britain includes Eusebius of Caesarea 3rd - 4th c., St. Hilary of Poitiers 4th c., St. Gildas the Wise 5th - 6th c. , St. Augustine of Canterbury 7th c., St. Nicephorus of Constantinople 8th - 9th c., Blessed Maurus Rabanus of Mainz 8th - 9th c. (and other documents of lesser mention.)
Those who attest to St. Joseph of Arimathea as the first father in Britain, include the later western 'Father of Ecclesiastical History' the Venerable Cardinal Cesare Baronius of Naples 16th - 17th c., and the Jesuit Melchior Inchofer 16th - 17th c., and the earlier St. Gregory of Tours 6th c, St. Isidore of Seville 7th c., as well as various Welsh and English medieval documents*, or the claims of John of Glastonbury 14th c. and John Capgrave 14th c. as to seeing the same claims from the Holy Emperor Theodosius 4th c.
* As with the Fathers, many documents are quoted by various authors, but no longer are extant - though a copy might exist somewhere. According to various authorities, there are still thousands of untranslated documents in various medieval and ancient languages in the monasteries, libraries, and private collections of Europe.
8.16.2005
Plan for a Modern Chancel and Chapel
Originally uploaded by Aristibule.
_____________
Index to Plan
(The first bay only of the Nave is shown. A Transept room is suggested at the south transept, as a subsidiary church room, suitable for general purposes, for a tea-room, for classes or other meetings, and suitable also for Sunday Kindergarten -- when the Nave would be occupied by the Great, and the Choir Vestry by the Little Catechism, or their equivalants. The Choir Vestry, with its Platform and Aisle, would be used for the Easter Vestry and other large meetings.)
Numbers represent steps.
1,2,3. (Under Rood Screen) Chancel steps.
4. (In Sanctuary) Communion step.
x. x. Standard candlesticks.
T,T. Usual position of Taperers (o o, their candlesticks.)
The below figures show the usual position of the ministers.
---
5. Subdeacon's step.
6. Deacon's step.
CL. Position of Clerk.
7. Foot-pace.
L. Lectern.
P. Pulpit.
CC. Cupboard for children's material.
a,b,c. Servers' cupboards for Albes, &c.
d. Sacristan's store cupboard.
f. Churchwardens' cupboard for books.
V. Verger's cupboard.
e. Parson's cupboard for Cassocks, &c.
g. CUpboard for Surplices and Albes.
In Priest's Vestry, a press, with drawers, under the window.
3. In Chapel, foot-pace.
N. In Chapel, normal position of Server.
2. In Chapel, communion step.
h. In Chapel, Credence.
S. In Chapel, Sedile for minister.
From "The Parson's Handbook" 12th edition, Percy Dearmer, Oxford University Press, London, 1932.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
