At 06:29 PM 2/8/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Esteemed List,
>For years I have been coming across references to both church
>dedications and church consecrations without thinking much about
>them. The two terms, indeed, appear in many instances to be used
>almost interchangeably. Does anyone know just how the two
>expressions are related to one another. One possibility, I guess,
>would be that the dedication was the same as the original
>consecration, as opposed to subsequent consecrations, after murders
>in the cathedral, etc. And did building activity in churches
>necessitate re-consecration?
>Thanks in advance for any replies.
> Jim Bugslag
Jim, take a look at these references. I follow with a somewhat technical
discussion that many may wish to skip.
Cryille Vogel, _Medieval Liturgy: Introduction to the
Sources_, Trans./rev. Wm. Storey and Niels Rasmussen. Pastoral Press, 1986.
M. Andrieu, _Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age_. Louvain, 1951.
According to Vogel (p. 180, and n.177), the dedication of a church is a
ceremony for which written instructions have been traced to about 775,
though the form that emerges in the early 9th century _Hadrianum_ (that
first "regulated" version of liturgical practices accomplished by Benedict
of Aniane and sanctioned by Charlemagne, who had it diffused throughout the
empire) combines several traditions (Roman, Gallic and/or Frankish,
Visigothic, etc.). The ceremony, as such, was transmitted as Ordo XLI,
Ordo Quomodo Ecclesia Debeat Dedicari. It is followed in the list of
Ordines (as compiled and edited by Andrieu) by Ordo XLII, Ordo Quomodo in
Sancta Romana Ecclesia Reliquiae Conduntur (ordo for the consecration of an
altar with relics--ceremony for the "deposition of relics" in an altar.)
Going back to the dedication ordo as constituted in the later 8th C, it
incorporates two varient ritual/ performative traditions, conveyed in two
mss under titles: Ordo consecrationis basilicae novae, and Orationes in
dedicatione basilicae novae. It appears that the dedication of a church
included the consecration of an altar with relics, though an altar may be
consecrated for the first time (or reconsecrated w/ new relics) without the
entire church having to be rededicated (I forget when it became a
requirement to enclose relics in altars). One would have to interrogate
one's sources with regard to whether a full dedication w/ altar
consecration was intended, or just altar consecration; unhappily if the
source is a modern, secondary source, the author might be speaking as
though the two words were synonymous, regardless of what "actually" went on.
The foundation of a (church) building might be "consecrated" and relics
installed in the foundation itself prior to any further construction.
I suspect that additions to the fabric of a church would be "consecrated"
through a new altar or altars, and even newly erected non-church buildings
w/o altars in a church complex (I'm thinking of monasteries, but also
cathedral complexes) could / would? be "consecrated" through aspersion.
Even cemetaries (or particularly cemetaries) needed to be "consecrated" and
"dedicated" (to a patron saint?), and this was done with procession,
aspersion and making the sign of the cross in the corners and in the center
of the designated area.
The doors of the conventual buildings in a cloister were aspersed once a
week, for instance, in a type of liturgical procession carried out by abbot
and monks that in effect "reconsecrated" this residence every time. There
are no discrete Ordos, or prescribed liturgical rituals, for these special
cases, but possibly Ordo XLII for the deposition of relics was used with
variations (remember that even if the liturgy was "regulated" by Rome,
actual practice could vary and was permitted in order to accomodate local
conditions).
When a whole church was opened, or reopened after a significant
enlargement/rebuilding campaign (no doubt involving a new sanctuary and/or
nave), it would be "dedicated". This happened in 1130 at Cluny when that
church (Cluny III) was "dedicated" by Innocent II. But when Urban II was
there in 1095, he would only have been able to "consecrate" altars in the
east end (as the rest of the church was not yet finished). The same thing
must have happened at Saint-Sernin in Toulouse. When Urban II arrived on
his preaching tour for the 1st Crusade in 1096, he was able to "consecrate"
only the east end of the basilica, because the nave of the basilica was not
completed to the west doors for some twenty years. Pope Calixus II
"dedicates the altar" [according to Kenneth Conant ! ] in 1119, though at
that point the building may have been unfinished. But it must have been
finished at least to the inside of the west doors, so that the interior
could be "closed" off for a general dedication, and hey it was a matter
of seizing the moment--the Pope was in town.
The medieval dedication ceremony includes an array of ritual "acts"
designed to purify the interior spiritually and materially--to drive out
devils/demons/unclean acts and to infuse the space with appropriate
biblical traditions and the weighty presence of collective Christian
history (invoked through mimetic acts, chants, prayers and recitations from
Scriptures). It is customarily enacted by a Bishop or the Pope and a
retinue of church dignitaries, so the ceremony is found throughout the
middle ages in Pontificals (liturgical books containing the ceremonies of
Bishops), with some prayers for the altar found in Sacramentaries (books w/
prayer formulas for liturgical celebrations). Here we can read, in more or
less detail depending upon the ms, what the Bishop and his party were to do.
For instance, the dedication ceremony begins the night before with a vigil,
held in a nearby church. A deacon is selected to spend the night (alone!)
in the church to be dedicated, behind locked doors. He is there the next
morning when the Bishop arrives at the church w/ other dignitaries: abbots,
monks, pueri, and lay nobles (in heirarchical order). The Bishop must
knock on the door three times, calling out "Who is the King of Glory"
(psalm 24). There is a prescribed exchange (using some of the psalm
verses) with the deacon behind the door, but the Bishop may not enter until
he has circled the church three times, each time knocking and asking the
same question/making the same replies. Some mss indicate that he must
write the alphabet on the door each time, but the alphabet comes into play
at a later point, and then most prominently. After a series of ritual
acts, including the consecration of the altar with oil and aspersion of
walls around the altar (among other things), the Bishop takes up the
crosier and traces the Latin and Greek (or Hebrew) alphabets in a bed of
ashes that has been laid diagonally on the floor of the church (as part of
the preparation of the space, the night before), uniting all corners in a
great X.
There is a commentary tradition that details the Bishop's progress and
"interprets" its significance at every step. It includes for the 11/12th
centuries (my particular interest) Honorius (of Autun), Bernard of Segni,
Hugh of St. Victor, and Wm Durandus. These are all in Migne, PL volumes,
with the later writers repeating the earlier ones in every substance,
though in less lexically rich voices (the Latin becomes more impoverished,
metaphorically and mellifluously-speaking, the closer it gets to the age of
scholasticism).
I have gone on here in some detail and perhaps too much length, but its a
fascinating topic (the dedication ceremony was important to one aspect of
my dissertation research). Not every part of the medieval ceremony is
continued today, and in particular I believe the alphabet sequence is
omitted, but I'd like to know if anyone has seen it used, or used it
themselves (Roman ecclesiastics on the list?)
Leah
Leah Rutchick, PhD
Visiting Scholar, Hanes Art Center
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
TEL / FAX 919-471-5041
E-mail [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|