OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 01:35:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Western-rite Orthodoxy  (Read 48515 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #135 on: January 11, 2007, 05:53:44 PM »

How do you use the fans in the WR?  I've never seen it done.  Are they used at the same place as in the ER?
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #136 on: January 11, 2007, 06:26:53 PM »

I have found the "Church of our Fathers" volumes in on-line reading form, a good thing since they originally date from the 1800's and the copy available is from 1905.  So this is not likely to be found in most libraries or homes, I would wager. Would you please give some references for chapter/volume in order that I might read it for myself?  Thank you

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #137 on: January 11, 2007, 06:27:50 PM »

How do you use the fans in the WR?  I've never seen it done.  Are they used at the same place as in the ER?

I'm curious as to that myself.  I don't recall seeing anything about them before.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #138 on: January 11, 2007, 08:18:48 PM »

I haven't found how they would be used in the WR today, but I did find this from New Advent, the online Catholic encyclopedia:
 
Quote
The flabellum, in liturgical use, is a fan made of leather, silk, parchment, or feathers intended to keep away insects from the Sacred Species and from the priest. It was in use in the sacrifices of the heathens and in the Christian Church from very early days, for in the Apostolic Constitutions, a work of the fourth century, we read (VIII, 12): "Let two of the deacons, on each side of the altar, hold a fan, made up of thin membranes, or of the feathers of the peacock, or of fine cloth, and let them silently drive away the small animals that fly about, that they may not come near to the cups". Its use was continued in the Latin Church to about the fourteenth century.
And this:
Quote
Apart from the foregoing liturgical uses, a flabellum, in the shape of a fan, later of an umbrella or canopy, was used as a mark of honour for bishops and princes. Two fans of this kind are used at the Vatican whenever the pope is carried in state on the sedia gestatoria to or from the altar or audience-chamber. Through the influence of Count Ditalmo di Brozza, the fans formerly used at the Vatican were, in 1902, presented to Mrs. Joseph Drexel of Philadelphia, U. S. A., by Leo XIII, and in return she gave a new pair to the Vatican. The old ones are exhibited in the museum of the University of Pennsylvania. They are splendid creations. The spread is formed of great ostrich plumes tipped with peacock feathers; on the sticks are the papal arms, worked in a crimson field in heavy gold, the crown studded with rubies and emeralds. St. Paul's Cathedral, London, had a fan made of peacock feathers, and York Cathedral's inventory mentions a silver handle of a fan, which was gilded and had upon it the enamelled picture of the bishop. Haymo, Bishop of Rochester (died 1352), gave to his church a fan of silver with an ivory handle.


There is something else I've been wondering, maybe one of you can tell me: was is common before VII to have a rood screen but not an altar rail?
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #139 on: January 11, 2007, 08:53:22 PM »

The 'Correctness Police' may not like them, but they're Western and quite sound (as well as universal among apostolic Christian rites.)  It is, admittedly, an antique use (as are banners, the lion and dragon, etc.) - but it is proper and good, especially if they have enough servers. If you can stand the download, read the note below ref. Vol. 4

Re: Ebor
 Academic libraries do often have "the Church of Our Fathers". I was able to study it from Inter-Library Loan through my public library (I believe it was Emory University's copy, I forget.) Relevant portions discuss the use of the Pax-brede (an icon - holy image that is venerated during worship), and the decoration of English churches with holy images. The 1905 edition has some changes, as described in the Editor's Preface. Some of Rock's scholarship was superseded (but not on that of Images, or the Fan. Vol2 and Vol. 3 do not discuss fans or icons. Vol. 1 Chap. IV p. 244 - 255 is on the use of Images. Also see Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 57 to the end of the chapter for context. Also see Vol. 4 Chap. XII p. 229 - 233 for the liturgical use of the Fan, and Vol. 4 Chap. XII p. 187-190 for the Pax-Brede, an icon liturgically venerated. Dr. Rock, being the good Counter-Reformation loyal son of Rome that he was, has some errors in his text elsewise where later Frere, Dearmer, and others produced work that corrected those errors (such as on altars.)

http://www.archive.org/details/thechurchofourfa01rockuoft Vol. 1 PDF is 46 MB.
http://www.archive.org/details/thechurchofourfa02rockuoft Vol. 2 PDF is 37 MB.
http://www.archive.org/details/thechurchofourfa03rockuoft Vol. 3 PDF is 41.3 MB.
http://www.archive.org/details/thechurchofourfa04rockuoft Vol. 4 PDF is 33 MB.

As for the Rood screen and altar rail - the use of altar rails in churches with Rood screens is a Victorian innovation. With the rood screen, there is no need for an altar rail, and in fact one would get in the way of liturgical action. Altar rails are proper to churches without screens.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 752



« Reply #140 on: January 11, 2007, 08:54:25 PM »

How do you use the fans in the WR?  I've never seen it done.  Are they used at the same place as in the ER?

We don't use them - they're just stationed behind the altar on either side of the processional crucifix.  The crucifix and fans are a set that we ordered from Greece.  We're presently too small to use the fans in procession, but as we grow that's a possibility.

James
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #141 on: January 12, 2007, 12:02:20 AM »



Do these giant fans constitute as WR enough?? I guess getting your hands on anything remotely close would be very difficult...
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #142 on: January 12, 2007, 01:49:58 AM »

Good to hear you weigh in on this subject, as always, Ari.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #143 on: January 12, 2007, 03:47:28 PM »

As for the Rood screen and altar rail - the use of altar rails in churches with Rood screens is a Victorian innovation. With the rood screen, there is no need for an altar rail, and in fact one would get in the way of liturgical action. Altar rails are proper to churches without screens.

Well, by modern usage it would really be the other way around: it is the rood screen that has fallen out of purpose. A fair number of vicky churches around here recognize that by combining the two at the location generally reserved for the rail, which is what really makes sense. With the modern usage of a tripartite church in which the choir has ceased to be a clerical area, putting a screen between the nave and the choir is pretty illogical.
Logged
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #144 on: January 12, 2007, 04:43:10 PM »

A rood screen came in quite handy in the WR church I came from.  The clergy sat in the choir for the hours, so the screen made a nice addition.  The major draw back I see for having both a roodscreen and an altar rail (that aren't combined) is that is takes up a lot of room.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #145 on: January 12, 2007, 05:33:14 PM »

Quote
Well, by modern usage it would really be the other way around: it is the rood screen that has fallen out of purpose. A fair number of vicky churches around here recognize that by combining the two at the location generally reserved for the rail, which is what really makes sense. With the modern usage of a tripartite church in which the choir has ceased to be a clerical area, putting a screen between the nave and the choir is pretty illogical.

No, it is fully logical - 'modern usage' isn't what we have, though our usage is 21st c. completely, Western and Orthodox. I'm guessing by 'modern usage' you mean Anglican, which really doesn't apply or matter to us. So, it really doesn't make sense to have both - most WRO altars follow the Romanesque plan with an open altar and the altar rail. The minority that have rood screens tend not to have altar rails as well (except where they've inherited them from others.) Again, the liturgical action is disrupted if one has both.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #146 on: January 13, 2007, 01:44:33 AM »

Would a rood screen be the western equivalent of an iconostas?
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #147 on: January 13, 2007, 02:14:27 AM »

Not exactly because there aren't icons usually on the screen. It's usually just carved wood of nature and religious themes. Sometimes, there are full-bodied carved wooden statues...rood screen of these types can be found still in England, France,and I believe some places in Germany. As for it being Victorian, I dont think thats right because I've read in more than one book that in the Middle Ages in Western Europe, Mass used to be said behind a wooden screen (aka a rood screen).



Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #148 on: January 13, 2007, 02:40:47 AM »

Would a rood screen be the western equivalent of an iconostas?

They are similar. You'll find that the rood screens, along with the rest of the interior of medieval churches and cathedrals, were brightly painted with sacred images.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #149 on: January 13, 2007, 02:49:03 AM »

Not exactly because there aren't icons usually on the screen. It's usually just carved wood of nature and religious themes. Sometimes, there are full-bodied carved wooden statues...rood screen of these types can be found still in England, France,and I believe some places in Germany. As for it being Victorian, I dont think thats right because I've read in more than one book that in the Middle Ages in Western Europe, Mass used to be said behind a wooden screen (aka a rood screen).

In a sense, he's right about England. Rood screens were torn out en masse during the Reformation. Many English churches got rood screens back during the Anglo-Catholic Oxford Movement in the Victorian era. The modern ones tend not to have pictures on them, just as the church walls were wiped clean of the old medieval painted pictures in the modern era.

Here's an example of an icon from a medieval rood screen in St. Botolph's Church in Trunch. Note the defacement of the faces by Protestant iconoclasts.

Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #150 on: January 13, 2007, 03:03:28 AM »

Here's an example of an icon from a medieval rood screen in St. Botolph's Church in Trunch. Note the defacement of the faces by Protestant iconoclasts.

It looks like an interesting  place to visit. 
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #151 on: January 13, 2007, 03:10:39 AM »

From what I've read, there are only a couple substantially intact medieval rood screens left in Britain. One is at St.Ellyw Church in Llanelieu, Wales. The church is also notable for having some surviving medieval interior wall paintings---most, of course, were whitewashed or otherwise destroyed in the Reformation.



Wish there was a better picture online. When I'm in Wales again (probably next summer or summer after next), I'll be sure to visit with my digital camera.

(Modified to add: Those openings probably would have been at least partially covered by curtains or something else.)
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 03:12:07 AM by lubeltri » Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #152 on: January 13, 2007, 08:04:41 AM »

There are more than a few surviving screens - the point is that altar rails do not go with rood screens. Churches that had Rood screens did not also have altar rails until the Victorian period when miseducated people started placing both in the same space. If one has a Rood screen, then an altar rail isn't needed. By contrast, if one doesn't have a rood screen (like ancient Occitanian or Italian churches) then an altar rail is more normative. Rood screens grew out of an early Gallican form of the altar rail that enclosed the whole chancel including the quire.

As for the rood screen and iconstasis - not exactly the same as the rood screen encompasses the quire. This is based on a monastic model where the Quire (Choir) was usually Canons or a Monastic College of a Cathedral or Minster. Rood screens originally did have the Sacred Images (icons) on them as well. Often it is only the lower panels, and then the images on top of the beam - the Rood (crucifix) with St. Mary and St. John on either side, and a pair of angels.

In the AWRV, Rood screens are not so common (though not unheard of - does St. Benedict of Nursia have one?) - most of the parishes or missions that I have experience with have the Romanesque plan of an open altar in the apse enclosed by an altar rail with the choir outside. In ROCOR WRITE the rood screen seems to be more popular (and in fact, encouraged) though not everyone has them. Some of the spaces are too small to include a choir inside the Rood screen, but we still have them.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #153 on: January 13, 2007, 10:05:43 AM »

St. Benedict's has a rood screen and an altar rail.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #154 on: January 13, 2007, 11:58:37 AM »

An interesting church to note is St. Mark's Basilica in Venicet's covered with Byzantinue murals and architecture but has a western rood screen with carved figures before the altar. I'm so going there one day Wink Above the church as many know are replicas of the 4 byzantine bronze horses...the real ones are in the church second floor i believe.



http://www.abiyoyo.com/italia/venecia/iglesia_S_Marco2/iglesia_S_Marco24.htm

« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 12:04:26 PM by Timos » Logged
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #155 on: January 13, 2007, 04:02:14 PM »

An interesting church to note is St. Mark's Basilica in Venicet's covered with Byzantinue murals and architecture but has a western rood screen with carved figures before the altar. I'm so going there one day Wink Above the church as many know are replicas of the 4 byzantine bronze horses...the real ones are in the church second floor i believe.

Both St. Mark's and the 4 horses you mention were stolen from Constantinople during the crusades. They look "Byzantine" because that is what they are.
Logged

Joseph
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #156 on: January 13, 2007, 04:38:15 PM »

Strange that the bronze horses were taken from the Hippodrome, the activities of which the Orthodox Church had been perenially against. Accordingly, the horse's aren't Byzantine but most likely were made by Lysippos for Alexander the Great. Nero had them installed in Rome, and it was St. Constantine that moved them to Constantinople along with many other pre-Christian artifacts from across the Empire. The horses would have been about 6 centuries old by that time - so, pagan Greek rather than Byzantine. The real oddity should be that the Venetians installed them on a Church.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #157 on: January 13, 2007, 05:01:49 PM »

Aristibule is right about the horses origins, my comments about "They" really should be just directed at St. Mark's since the horses are really Classical Hellenic in style.
Logged

Joseph
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #158 on: January 14, 2007, 12:01:45 AM »

At least those things were preserved that were taken from Constantinople.

A better fate than what the protesant did (the gouged faces of the icon on the ealier post, for example, or all the white washed church walls)
« Last Edit: January 14, 2007, 12:02:26 AM by BrotherAidan » Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #159 on: January 14, 2007, 12:28:43 AM »

I dont get it. How was St. Mark's stolen from Cos'tpole?

Do you mean artifacts and icons inside it or the actual building? That would've taken hundreds of ships sailing back and forth to ship the building piece by piece from there to Venice. Or do you mean the iconography and style itself is (clearly) Byzantine Huh

As for the horses statues...I've read once somewhere (and I dont have my source on me) that Hagia Sophia had hundreds of statues INSIDE and OUT, so even though statuary was not part of orthodox worship maybe Hagia Sophia is one exception to the "orthodox norm".
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #160 on: January 15, 2007, 11:42:18 AM »

There are more than a few surviving screens - the point is that altar rails do not go with rood screens. Churches that had Rood screens did not also have altar rails until the Victorian period when miseducated people started placing both in the same space. If one has a Rood screen, then an altar rail isn't needed. By contrast, if one doesn't have a rood screen (like ancient Occitanian or Italian churches) then an altar rail is more normative. Rood screens grew out of an early Gallican form of the altar rail that enclosed the whole chancel including the quire.

Perhaps so, but the structure of the rood screen as a rule prohibits its use as an altar rail. In general, the screen serves to separate the choir from the nave, thereby making the former into a sort of subchapel. Therefore (for instance) at All Saints Convent in Catonsville the screen separates the choir (used by the nuns) from the nave (the rest of us). The altar rail, however, has a purpose besides division of space: it is the place to kneel for receiving communion. Therefore their chapel also has such a rail.

I can't speak for Catholicism, but as far as the Anglicans are concerned, the rail "came first"-- in that the rail was already an established fixture before Gothic rivivalists brought back the screen.
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #161 on: January 15, 2007, 05:07:59 PM »

They didn't have to 'bring back' the screen, it survived in many places. Many rood screens are fitted with gates, which served to demark the quire and chancel as sacred space throughout the week.

The altar rail didn't 'come first' as the normative way of receiving communion is at the Rood upon a prayer desk covered by the houseling cloth. We receive communion that way in our chapels that have Rood screens. Again - Anglicans aren't concerned here, it is Western Rite Orthodox practice, not Anglican practice.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #162 on: January 15, 2007, 07:02:10 PM »

I find all of this interresting.  Are there some books on church architectural developement in the west?

I'm also wondering where the gospel is traditionally read from.  At St. Benedict's where we had a rood screen, the gospel readings were done from under the rood.  At St. Peter's where they only have the altar rail they were done the way I was more used to- in the middle of the nave.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #163 on: January 15, 2007, 10:27:04 PM »

If you're talking bout St. Peter's in Fort Worth TX, when I was there visiting, at the Mass, the Gospel was read from the Gospel Side of the Altar, not the middle if the nave...
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #164 on: January 16, 2007, 01:15:03 AM »

Timos -- when did you last visit?  Every time I've gone, they've read the gospel from where Landon described.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #165 on: January 16, 2007, 01:48:26 AM »

Timos -- when did you last visit?  Every time I've gone, they've read the gospel from where Landon described.

August, for their WRV Conference where I learned a whole lote about the WR. they did a Funeral Mass and a regular High Gregorian Mass. At the Funeral Mass, the Rite was Tikhon so (if I recall correctly) the Gospel was read as you described but I remember for the St. Greg Mass, the Gospel was read facing the altar towards the Gospel Side.
Logged
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #166 on: January 16, 2007, 02:19:48 AM »

  Well, I've only seen the Liturgy of St. Gregory in a small chapel.  I have seen the Gospel reading done from the sanctuary during Easter- the priest and deacon read it in turns.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 02:21:04 AM by Landon77 » Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #167 on: January 16, 2007, 03:08:38 AM »

  Well, I've only seen the Liturgy of St. Gregory in a small chapel.  I have seen the Gospel reading done from the sanctuary during Easter- the priest and deacon read it in turns.

Where? The one in Mesquite? I really like that one.
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #168 on: January 16, 2007, 05:05:51 PM »

The times I've visited St. Peter's, I recall the reading from the Nave as well. Landon is right about St. Benedict's - when one has a rood then one reads the Gospel from a station just under the rood (the entrance to the chancel.) When we do so, it is facing the northwest - I'm not sure if St. Benedict's reads it in that manner towards the northwest or facing to the West as some later English use folks have done.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #169 on: January 16, 2007, 06:14:03 PM »

They didn't have to 'bring back' the screen, it survived in many places. Many rood screens are fitted with gates, which served to demark the quire and chancel as sacred space throughout the week.

Well, "survived" is perhaps a misstatement. It survived as an architectural feature, to be sure, in places; but did it survive as an integral part of the liturgy? Surely for the Anglicans the answer must be "perhaps in local custom in a few places, but in general, no." When I read discussion of the rood screen, I am always struck by the variety of purposes and acts ascribed to it. I do not gain the impression of a fixed and regular feature, but rather something whose usage varied in time and place.

Quote
The altar rail didn't 'come first' as the normative way of receiving communion is at the Rood upon a prayer desk covered by the houseling cloth. We receive communion that way in our chapels that have Rood screens. Again - Anglicans aren't concerned here, it is Western Rite Orthodox practice, not Anglican practice.

And who is the authority for what is western? After all, there does come a point at which the rood screen itself is an innovation. If you choose to go around the remainder of western development and fish in the past, you can come up with precedents for nearly anything you would like to do; but the falsification of those precedents by the historical pattern of usage is as much the rule as the exception. Take the altar rail itself. In modern usage in the western churches, it is not only a division in the church, but a place to kneel. And its removal is more about the latter than the former; when you look at modern rail-less churches, the spatial division tends to remain, and the removal of the rail is strongly coupled with discouraging kneeling. The spatial division then tends to turn around and convert the sanctuary from a walled off sacred space into a stage for sacred performance, but that's not an intended consequence, as a rule.

Let's go back to your original statement. You said, "(T)he use of altar rails in churches with Rood screens is a Victorian innovation." Well, whose Vicky churches are we taking about anyway? Not Orthodox, Western Rite churches, but Anglican churches. And it's just the history of the thing that rails were by that time an established feature of Anglican architecture, and that rood screens were reintroduced as part of the Victorian Gothic Revival. And since practice had evolved for several hundred years without them, Victorian architects who put them where medieval practice dictated also found that they needed to put in a rail as well, because that was what (then) modern practice required. It's a little hard to claim as an innovation at that point what was in truth long established practice.

If modern Orthodox WR churches want to do something else: well, whether that's fine or not is beside the point. Their choices do not mean anything for those "wrongheaded" Victorians except insofar as they are the descendants of those Victorians (which I would argue they are, but that's a dispute for another time). IF the OWR doesn't owe anything to Anglican practice, then the lack of obligation is surely mutual.
Logged
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #170 on: January 16, 2007, 07:07:47 PM »

Where? The one in Mesquite? I really like that one.

No, I haven't been to the one in Mesquite.  The one is Tyler is the one I've been to that uses the Liturgy of St. Gregory.  St. Benedict's is the one that on Easter will read it from the sanctuary with the deacon and priest.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #171 on: January 16, 2007, 07:10:49 PM »

If you are still reading this thread at this point, you may be interrested in subscribing to CREDO, if you don't already.  It is a bi-monthly publication that is about thirty pages and cost $15 a year.  You can subscribe by sending your check to St. Nicholas's Orthodox Church in Spokane, WA.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #172 on: January 16, 2007, 07:15:26 PM »

I hope you don't mid me asking as I think this was mentioned before, but what is Credo and what type of articles does it publish?  WR, yes?
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #173 on: January 16, 2007, 08:26:41 PM »

Most of it is WR specific.  Some of it is more general to Orthodoxy or even just Christian.  They have the Calander in them with the saints days and the fast and abstinance days.  And it has parish updates.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #174 on: January 25, 2007, 08:35:49 AM »

Surely for the Anglicans the answer must be "perhaps in local custom in a few places, but in general, no."

So, yes - it would be a survival. Survival does not depend on the majority or the whole. And, again - more importantly it survived in the rubrics and architecture belonging to the English old Catholics (from whom the Ritualist Anglicans later learned.) So, again not primarily an Anglican issue but a Catholic issue.

Quote
I do not gain the impression of a fixed and regular feature, but rather something whose usage varied in time and place.

Again - it is in the rubrics. For our tradition (again, being Catholic and not particularly 'Anglican' in sofar as Anglican by and large is not liturgical) it does have the quality of a fixed and regular feature in that liturgical action is rubrically fixed within the framework of the roodscreen as a station for procession, the Liturgy of the Word, the Communion, etc.

Quote
  If you choose to go around the remainder of western development and fish in the past, you can come up with precedents for nearly anything you would like to do; but the falsification of those precedents by the historical pattern of usage is as much the rule as the exception.

The authority is the tradition - local and universal. It doesn't have anything to do with 'innnovation' or 'fish in the past' or 'falsification of precedents'. It has to do with the requirements for a liturgical tradition according to its rites and ceremonies.

Quote
Take the altar rail itself.

I guess in your definition of what 'western churches' are - but that doesn't apply to the Church. The place to kneel for communion in a church with the rood screen as a liturgical feature is at the communion bench placed before the rood, and not at the subdeacon's step. The sacred space is enclosed by the rood screen as well, so again your worries don't apply to Western Orthodox praxis.

Quote
"(T)he use of altar rails in churches with Rood screens is a Victorian innovation." Well, whose Vicky churches are we taking about anyway? Not Orthodox, Western Rite churches, but Anglican churches.


No they were not Anglican features - but Catholic features that some Anglicans began to mimic in the latter 19th c. Anglican churches were typically without a rail - the faithful sat around 'the table' and received there - not at a rail or a prayer bench. When some Anglicans began to affect Catholic architecture to go with adopted Catholic liturgy and ceremonial, the conflation of altar rail and rood screen from disparate liturgical uses was effected (from what I can tell, likely borrowed from churches in northern France and the Low Countries where an altar rail was added post-Tridentine to churches that formerly only had Rood screens or a Rood-beam within the chancel arch. ) The combination of features was most certainly *not* at a time when receiving at the altar rail was 'long established' in the Anglican communion.


Quote
If modern Orthodox WR churches want to do something else: well, whether that's fine or not is beside the point. ... IF the OWR doesn't owe anything to Anglican practice, then the lack of obligation is surely mutual.


Yet it is entirely the point - the thread is about WRO, not Anglicans of any stripe. The Victorian argument does apply though, though few are descendents of 'those Victorians'. The fact is, we most often have inherited, acquired, or make use of church spaces not designed particularly for our liturgy - including Victorian or Victorian-informed architecture. In our Western rite, it is a point of discussion - that the altar rail hinders the action of a Solemn Mass. The Antiochian Western Rite, not so much (as their ceremonial is typically after Lamburn or Fortescue) - where the rood screen is not so often a liturgical feature. 'Lack of obligation' on the part of Anglicans? Of course - who ever said otherwise? But, we don't owe it to 'the Anglicans' - it is simply Western Catholic returned to pre-schism faith - we got it from the same place the Anglicans re-acquired it from - the Western Catholic tradition. In our case, holding the the same faith as the Undivided Church, ie the Orthodox East. (And go ahead and make the argument - WRO is far more Old Catholic in origin than 'Anglican', and today its members are also again more often than not of an origin other than 'Anglican'. The Victorian relation has almost entirely to do with liturgical scholarship and the translation of our ancient rites into English, our venacular as for millions of other Christians and human beings.)
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #175 on: January 25, 2007, 10:48:49 AM »

This area is thick with old Anglican churches; a fair number are 1692 parishes. Near my high school there is an unmodified colonial church, with box pews and a triple decker pulpit even. And not surprisingly, it has a rail. So does every other Episcopal church nearby-- the closest example I can think of is the cathedral in Philly, which was recently wrecknovated.

I've just looked at the 1789 rubrics, and other than a direction at one point for the minister to stand at the north end of the table and to stand close to it during the consecration, and directions for the confession and reception of communion to be done kneeling, I see no rubrication of posture or position.

Fishing for "traditions" among the few English churches that retained their screen is, at best, the elevation of local custom to universal rule. Even then I have to say that I'm not at all convinced of the survival of any custom to use a prayer desk set at the screen or any other similar arrangement. What I definitely see in the USA, however, is that screens were unknown until their Victorian revival by the Anglicans.

I have to say that where an Anglican-based liturgy is being used in OWR churches, it's going to be a bit hard to cut the Anglicans out of the picture entirely. I don't have as good a picture of the origins of the other rite, but I have to suspect that it has its origin in some modern Roman rite. Well, okay, but then to wave Fortescue at that and then jump back four or five or six or ten centuries back from that is extremely uncompelling as tradition, because there is simply far too much tradition that has to dismissed to make such a leap. It is manifestly picking and choosing; and if that's what you want your tradition to be, okay; but complaining about what the Victorians did wrong in such a context is irrelevant to all, because they aren't in that context. You're using them as a whipping boy in the same manner as the modernist wrecknovators did.

Of course, Fortescue's church had a baldichin, not a screen-- but then, that would have been typical Roman practice of the era....
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #176 on: January 25, 2007, 12:15:02 PM »

Quote
I've just looked at the 1789 rubrics, and other than a direction at one point for the minister to stand at the north end of the table and to stand close to it during the consecration, and directions for the confession and reception of communion to be done kneeling, I see no rubrication of posture or position.

The altar rail was still a later addition. During the 1700s and early 19th c. The people *sat* around the 'table' while the priest (minister by some Prayer Books) stood at the north end. It was only later in the 19th c. that the table (again called altar) was separated from the laity. Are you certain you are not seeing 19th c. additions? Colonial churches were not 'museums' during the 19th c. Don't underestimate the influence of the Ritualists on the 'house use' even of late 19th c./early 20th c. Episcopal churches. Their influence was to return the altar to the apse (and reoriented) - where formerly it had been 'amongst the laity' lengthwise, with the communicants sitting around it (and, even the surplice and gown disdained as 'papist'.)

Quote
Fishing for "traditions" among the few English churches that retained their screen is, at best, the elevation of local custom to universal rule.

Because again, it isn't 'fishing for traditions' - it owes to the preservation by the Catholics of that period, not the Anglicans. Besides, something can't be universal if there is an exception. The rood screen is the architectural norm for the approved liturgical rites and ceremonies of our WRO tradition in the Russian Church. The Victorian 'revival' by the Anglicans was a borrowing of still existing Roman Catholic tradition (see JJ Overbeck http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/overbeck/catholic1866.html as many of the Ritualists toured Continental Europe towards that end (even the 'Sarum' or 'English use' party were finding and adopting the same uses still in use in Northern France, the Low Countries, etc. at that time.) So, as Overbeck puts it - Roman Catholicism purged of its errors. (Of course, we take Overbeck seriously - the only error I believe he made would be in his understanding of the controversy surrounding Parker. If you can understand Overbeck's pov, you could understand ours - and why we can't be Episcopalians or  Roman Catholics, but only Western Orthodox. )

Quote
I have to say that where an Anglican-based liturgy is being used in OWR churches, it's going to be a bit hard to cut the Anglicans out of the picture entirely.

The adaptations done by both the Antiochians and Russians are to formerly (no-longer) Anglican liturgies that with their restorations have more in common with Catholic liturgy than Anglican liturgy. What makes them 'Anglican' for the most part is keeping particulars belonging to the English uses of the Roman rite. Again, not things properly 'Anglican' though truly English. IIRC, Michno is still standard ceremonial in ECUSA where the parish tends towards 'high'? AWRV doesn't use Michno, and I know we don't.


Quote
I don't have as good a picture of the origins of the other rite, but I have to suspect that it has its origin in some modern Roman rite.


The 'other rite' is the traditional Roman rite in the vernacular (usually Benedictine or Sarum use.)

 
Quote
Well, okay, but then to wave Fortescue at that and then jump back four or five or six or ten centuries back from that is extremely uncompelling as tradition, because there is simply far too much tradition that has to dismissed to make such a leap.

No one is 'jumping centuries back' - the Church weighed the received traditions in their particulars - that in error was excised, that not contrary to the faith was retained. And, again - Fortescue and Lamburn is a description of the Antiochian use - I'm not Antiochian, though I also support their uses.

Quote
It is manifestly picking and choosing; and if that's what you want your tradition to be, okay; but complaining about what the Victorians did wrong in such a context is irrelevant to all, because they aren't in that context. You're using them as a whipping boy in the same manner as the modernist wrecknovators did.


You misunderstand and falsely accuse. Its not about using the Victorians as 'whipping boys' - it is simply a recognition that much they did was more from zeal than from knowledge, and affects us due to existing architecture which must be adapted as best as we can. Also, its not about 'wanting a tradition it is the tradtion we have handed down. We don't just get to 'choose' anything - it relies upon the Bishops and the tradition preserved by the communities recieved into the Church. Many ARWV parishes do have baldacchinos - it is appropriate to the ceremonial they have approved, as are altar rails. Our (ROCOR Western Rite) chapels by contrast where purpose built have the rood screen as a liturgical feature after the approved ceremonial for our rites. Part of the point being that most often we WRO don't get much of a choice - spaces formerly belonging to Lutherans, Catholics, Syriacs, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. have to be adapted - often with the constraints that the fabric cannot be changed. IOW, the ideal is often just that - the ideal for future construction and/or renovation. The attempt to make 'guilt by association' with the wreckovationists is just pitiful though - no similarities nor mutual regard between either party. (But, speaking of Anglicans - the Anglicans in America, the AMiA, appear to be introducting the English 1662 BCP service in lieu of the American 1979. That might be an appropriate topic for another part of the site - but not Liturgy on an Orthodox Christianity board.)
« Last Edit: January 25, 2007, 12:19:47 PM by Aristibule » Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,798


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #177 on: January 25, 2007, 01:15:57 PM »

The altar rail was still a later addition. During the 1700s and early 19th c. The people *sat* around the 'table' while the priest (minister by some Prayer Books) stood at the north end. It was only later in the 19th c. that the table (again called altar) was separated from the laity. Are you certain you are not seeing 19th c. additions? Colonial churches were not 'museums' during the 19th c. Don't underestimate the influence of the Ritualists on the 'house use' even of late 19th c./early 20th c. Episcopal churches. Their influence was to return the altar to the apse (and reoriented) - where formerly it had been 'amongst the laity' lengthwise, with the communicants sitting around it (and even the surplice and gown disdained as 'papist'.)

I don't know if mediæval English churches had altar rails.

'Amongst the laity lengthwise' between the old chancel's choir stalls as shown here is what happened in 1552 and AFAIK IIRC lasted until William Laud was Archbishop of Canterbury under King Charles I in the 1600s. He put the table back into the apse altarwise (against the wall) and put a rail in front of it (which is why American colonial churches have rails as Keble notes) but the old instruction about standing at the north end, which made sense in the lengthwise arrangement but not altarwise, was retained. So you had the priest standing at the left side of the altar facing the congregation sideways! The C19 Ritualists/second wave of Anglo-Catholics did the sensible thing and started using the altarwise arrangement for eastward celebrations (priest and people facing the altar/'priest's back to the people' like traditional Roman and like Eastern Orthodox practice).

The rule was cassock, surplice, scarf and academic hood (mediæval choir dress as Ari and Keble know) for actually conducting the service - Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer or Communion - but an academic gown for preaching, whence I'm told the old Episcopal custom of the hymn after the Gospel at Communion comes. It was a time-filler while the vicar changed clothes!

The high churchmen including the Tractarians/original Anglo-Catholics strictly followed this rule of vesture; Ari has a point that it lapsed in other places. (So you may have seen academic robes all the time in church or even the vicar in lay attire?)

WRO comes in two versions, modified pre-Vatican II RC liturgy and, much more often (most WROs are ex-Episcopalians), modified Book of Common Prayer Anglican liturgy. Both are slightly byzantinised (no filioque and an epiklesis added). The latter is catholicised as well per both the Russian Holy Synod's suggestions circa 1900 for adapting the BCP for Orthodox use and also high-Episcopal (both Anglo-Catholic and high-Central) practice pretty much as it had come to be in the 1930s-1950s when the Ritualists' influence peaked and before modern liturgical revision. So I imagine an old-fashioned Episcopal service like from that period and a WRO service would be nearly indistinguishable to a visitor. I understand from Ari and others that WRO does not claim to be a re-enactment of pre-schism practice; it obviously is not. It takes the best of RC and Anglican practice, nearly all of which (as I've described) I'm guessing is compatible with Orthodox beliefs, and uses them, more so than many modern RCs and modern Anglicans.
Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #178 on: January 25, 2007, 05:50:23 PM »

Are you certain you are not seeing 19th c. additions? Colonial churches were not 'museums' during the 19th c. Don't underestimate the influence of the Ritualists on the 'house use' even of late 19th c./early 20th c. Episcopal churches. Their influence was to return the altar to the apse (and reoriented) - where formerly it had been 'amongst the laity' lengthwise, with the communicants sitting around it (and, even the surplice and gown disdained as 'papist'.)

I cannot be sure of anything since I wasn't there in 1776. I have found reference to a restoration in the 1950s (by then the church hadn't see regular use for seventy years; they built a new vicky gothic thing in town). The building is square; the altar sits under a big Palladian window on the east end, with the pulpit et al. centered on the north wall. The box pews fill pretty much everything else, and those along the rear (west) wall face towards the east, while those on the other walls face each other. There is a gallery on the south and west walls.

How much of this is an "improvement" on the original colonial layout is of course open to question. The box pews, however, are original, and it's hard to see how the altar could have been anywhere but where it is now. Was there or was there not a rail? If you trust the restorers, then yes. If you don't, then who knows? I have found reference in HABS/HAER documents to rails pre-1800 (e.g. here). A characteristic form seen in these parts is a shortish brick Georgian box with two doors on the "west" end, corresponding to the pair of aisles running through the pews. Putting the altar among the pews in these buildings is impossible, and the altars were always in the "east" (additionally evidenced by the gallery in the west end of Christ Church Oakland Mills, less than a mile from where I sit). In general I see a great lack of uniformity of form in colonial churches, but it's quite clear that by the end of the 1700s the cross-ways non-east-oriented form had died off. That's a good bit before the Victorian gothicizers, though.

It is abundantly clear that in the Victorian period Episcopal churches pretty much without exception had rails. I continue to doubt the assertion that they first appeared at that time, but even so, the point remains that in the larger context of the period, praxis essentially dictated its presence. No such obligation attended the screen; it was introduced, with the gothic revival, because the ideal of the gothic church included it. The variety of positions for it, not to mention its more usual absence, testifies to their lack of consensus as to how it fit into the fabric. The rail, by contrast, is utterly regular in its form and position. So it's impossible for me to see the screen as the norm and the rail as the abberation, in that context.
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #179 on: January 25, 2007, 11:23:16 PM »

Quote
The rule was cassock, surplice, scarf and academic hood (mediæval choir dress as Ari and Keble know) for actually conducting the service - Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer or Communion - but an academic gown for preaching, whence I'm told the old Episcopal custom of the hymn after the Gospel at Communion comes.
- sure, according to the Ornaments Rubric, but it was not generally followed at any period in the history of the Protestant Church of England, Episcopal Church of Scotland, etc. Even to wear the gown was scandal and brought cries of 'Popery!'

Quote
WRO comes in two versions, modified pre-Vatican II RC liturgy and, much more often (most WROs are ex-Episcopalians), modified Book of Common Prayer Anglican liturgy. Both are slightly byzantinised (no filioque and an epiklesis added). The latter is catholicised as well per both the Russian Holy Synod's suggestions circa 1900 for adapting the BCP for Orthodox use and also high-Episcopal (both Anglo-Catholic and high-Central) practice pretty much as it had come to be in the 1930s-1950s when the Ritualists' influence peaked and before modern liturgical revision

First: I don't believe we have more than anecdotal evidence on your part that most WROs are ex-Episcopalians. The origins and growth of the movement suggest otherwise. Yes, some are ex-Episcopalians but not 'most'.  Secondly: WRO does not come in 'two versions'. Your descriptions might apply to the AWRV, but not to our other communities which have Gallican, Roman rite in various uses, and the English Use (unlike anything the ECUSA has ever approved.) Only the Gallican has Byzantine elements, the rest are entirely Western - the restored epiclesis (not an Eastern epiklesis) comes from the Western liturgical tradition. You can ignore it, smear it as Byzantinization - but that's what it is ... Western epiclesis, Western sans filioque.

Quote
...the point remains that in the larger context of the period, praxis essentially dictated its presence. No such obligation attended the screen; it was introduced, with the gothic revival, because the ideal of the gothic church included it.

No - the point remains that what Episcopalians did with liturgical features has no bearing on why we have rood screens and find them incompatible with having an altar rail. Because the rood screen at the chancel by medieval law demarques the 'sacred space', specifically the area of responsibility for the priest - outside the chancel is the responsibility of the laity. Our liturgical tradition - ritual, ceremonial, and ornamentation dictate the presence of a rood screen as part of the liturgical fabric of our churches. And, the original point - having both rood screen and altar rail gets in the way of the proper celebration of the Solemn Mass. Again - note the topic, it isn't 'Episcopalians' but 'Western Rite Orthodox'.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Tags: Rood screen Western Rite ROCOR roman catholic Anglican Church Episcopalian Church Protestant Christianity Americanization Antiochian AOCA 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.142 seconds with 73 queries.