Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [liturgy-l] Bounced Epiphany Sked thingy

Expand Messages
  • atombomb
    Blessed be God. ... It didn t. The story about the Magi is already read among us on Christmas morning. Theophany has always been about the Baptism of Christ
    Message 1 of 54 , Dec 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Blessed be God.

      fcsenn@... wrote:
      >
      > I don't
      > know when the Visit of the Magi became an Epiphany text in the East, or even
      > if it did. Maybe John Burnett knows.

      It didn't. The story about the Magi is already read among us on
      Christmas morning. Theophany has always been about the Baptism of Christ
      (revelation of the Holy Trinity) and the Great Blessing of Waters. (The
      pericope about the birth of Christ is read at the Vesperal Liturgy on
      Christmas Eve-- keep in mind that the day begins with Vespers, so this
      is in fact Dec 25).

      My priest has been pointing out lately that in our typicon, there is no
      illusion even during the present preparatory period, that Christ has not
      been born yet-- no sentimentality about the "birthday of the baby Jesus"
      etc. Christ is come; he is here; all is already accomplished. All our
      feasts are about that-- not really about historical commemorations.
      Christmas is about the manifestation of the Messiah to the world.
      Accordingly, on Christmas we sing:

      Thy nativity, O Christ our God,
      has shone on the world as the light of wisdom.
      For by it those who worshipped the stars
      were taught by a star
      to adore Thee, the Sun of Righteousness,
      and to know Thee as the Dawn from on High.

      Regards,

      John Burnett
    • Thomas R. Jackson
      ... True. The Vatican I citation does give credence to the two usages being the same. At the very least it suggests that the Fathers of the Vatican I Council
      Message 54 of 54 , Dec 2, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Robert Riley wrote:

        >I'm not convinced that there is a distinction between Trent's and Vatican
        >I's use of the term Roman. For one thing, councils try (and claim) to be
        >consistent with previous councils.

        True. The Vatican I citation does give credence to the two usages being
        the same. At the very least it suggests that the Fathers of the Vatican I
        Council read Trent the same.


        >We read in the "Profession of the Tridentine Faith," from the bulls of Pope
        >Pius IV (Injunctum nobis, 1564; In sacrosancta, 1564): "I. I,
        >................, with a firm faith believe and profess all and every one of
        >the things contained in that creed which the holy Roman church makes use of:
        >I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, ...
        >[the Nicene Creed with filioque follows]".


        >Most germane to this discussion is Article X: "X. I acknowledge the holy
        >Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and mistress of all churches:
        >and I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to
        >St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ."

        I acknowledge that these two examples can be read either way. It is
        actually the second which, at least on the face of things to me, seems to
        support my own exegesis. The salient point is obedience to Rome, which is
        then described as "mother and mistress". The second clause about swearing
        obedience is then not a run on, but integrally derived from the second clause.

        >Note the exact same wording "holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" that was
        >used later by Vatican I.

        Yes. It is very striking. But I am still not sure that the meaning isthe
        same, or at least that the meaning intended by the authors at the time of
        writing was the same. :)

        Why would the meaning be different? Well, here I find myself caught out on
        a limb with no real expertise, so please excuse the following clumsy
        hypothesis. I suspect that the meaning shifted (if in fact it really did)
        because of a shifting ecclessiology. At the time of Trent, Rome had
        enjoyed a special respect and authority for quite some time. There was a
        long standing tradition of regarding Rome as a sure guide, a reliable and
        authoritative source of Tradition and Orthodoxy. Against the doctrine of
        the Immaculate Conception, Thomas Aquinas cited argued that the feast ws
        not celebrated in Rome. Likewise, he used Roman liturgical practices as
        fairly definitive arguments for other doctrines. With so many Reformation
        experts here on the list, I risk making a fool of myself to say much about
        the period, but perhaps it is safe to say that an important issue of the
        times was the question of Roman authority. I might even suggest that it
        was the most important issue, or at least many of the Catholic bishops saw
        it so.

        If one accepts this underlying concern, the need to reiterate the
        authority, doctrinal as well as ecclesial, of Rome becomes clear. We can
        accept the Creed because it is from Rome (with the filioque). That is good
        enough. It is important to recognize Rome as the center of the Church, and
        obedience to Rome as a duty of a good ecclesial leader. What had become
        something assumed, is now formally required. Again, I am still open to
        counter arguments, but the reading seems very congruent to the texts and
        the concerns of the time. In fact I will go further. If the formulation
        "Sancta Catholica Apostolica Romana Ecclesia" was intended to signify the
        universal Church at the time of Trent, it would seem to me to be a very
        strange formulation to introduce without explanation or defence under the
        prevailing circumstances. Now perhaps wasn't introduced then but already
        had a respectable pedigree (John suggests that it might have, but I haven't
        yet checked out the sources he provided), but unless the meaning was
        already clear and unambiguous, then I think the obvious meaning is the
        Church in Rome.

        In the times of the first Holy Council of the Vatican the situation was
        very different. The movement to centralize authority in Rome had prgressed
        to an amazing degree. Rome had assumed many of the functions and
        perogatives of the local Churches. At that time the issue was no longer
        whether Rome was the center of the Church (at least not within the Church
        itself, and the views of others no longer carried much weight). Rather, it
        was a time when the Church was regarded, by those within and without, as
        Roman. The claims advanced in the Council, to a great degree, ratified
        this view. Without a balancing document on the college of bishops, which
        wouldn't appear until the second Holy Council of the Vatican, we had on
        paper what really looked like an ultramonatanists dream: almost a complete
        monoepiscopacy.

        >We need an expert.

        Agreed. I am certainly not one. I really do welcome challenges to these
        ideas.

        thomas.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.