[log in to unmask] wrote:
>RE:
>2.Bent twig_____ can't say! Yet the curly willow is a remarkably resilient
tree. and will outlast many a sturdy oak.
oh, yeahright.
i've been working on making sturdy acorns all these years and *NOW* you tell
me?
thanks, a lot.
>3.Disability and eligibility for institutional or governmental support____
I'm counting on it.
Me too, for some fast-approaching Golden Years.
Bonne Chance à tout!
It just seems so *unfair*.... somehow.
>The local synod convened in the time of Heraclius against Isidorus (613
a.d.), decreed that two liturgies should not be celebrated on one and the same
day and on one and the same table. I cite the following:
>"It is not lawful on one table in the same day for two liturgies to be said;
nor on the same table on which the Bishop officiated in a Liturgy, for any
presbyter to officiate in a Liturgy on [t]he same day",
>This canon from a local synod was officially affirmed as binding upon
all by Nicea II ( 787).
>....Symenon made a point of noting that the synod's decree must be seen
a corrective to those who had argued that repeated offering of the
Eucharist (presumably in the same day, or on the same Feast [or: the same
*altar/"table"*???]) was a proper mode of emphasis of its importance and
impressiveness. Symeon seems concerned that the "theological" principle behind
its issue be understood and any practice of it be seen as an act
of absurd impropriety.
So, what was the situation in 11th-12th c. Central and Northern France?
Was Nicea II really part of, say, Abbot Hugh of Cluny's (1024-1109)
thinking/practice at the end of the 11th c.? Is there *any* possibility that
the proliferation of chapels in High Romanesque architecture was driven by
these *particular* theological/liturgical considerations? (Obviously they were
driven by *some*suchlike considerations: these guys weren't building tourist
motels, after all; but could this business of "altar fatigue"
[i'm too proud of the concept and too lacking of pride in other contexts to
give it up without a struggle] have really have been a consideration?)
Just idle questions from a the Devil's own Workshop.
Don't pay it any mind: "Against the Sky there are no Fences Facing."
>The Roman position on the practice may be related to later Frankish
objections to certain canons and issues of Nicea II.
"Later", as in 11th-12th cc.??
In my blissfull, near-perfect ignorance i tend to place some kind of deep
(yet, perhaps, somewhat permeable) ditch between these pre-carolingian
goings-on and the later, H.M.A. ones. A foolish notion, no doubt.
Best from Sunny San Hosay,
Christopher
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|