MEMOIRS OF THE LUTHERAN
LITURGICAL ASSOCIATION
Volumes
I-VII.
Published
by the Association Pittsburgh, Pa., 1906.
Copyright,
1906,
by
The Lutheran Liturgical Association.
[These
volumes have been scanned and proofread, but may still contain errors. Original
pagination has been indicated throughout.]
IV 1 The Liturgical Influence of the Lesser Reformers (C. T.
Benze)
IV 17 The Ecclesiastical Calendar (N. R. Melhorn)
IV 29 Luther’s Liturgical Writings (E. A. Trabert)
IV 47 The Pericopes (A. Spaeth)
IV 63 Liturgical Development in the Period of the Reformation (E.
T. Horn)
IV 67 The Liturgical Deterioration of the Seventeenth and
Eighteenth Centuries (J. F. Ohl)
IV 79 Liturgy and Doctrine (D. H. Geissinger)
IV 85 Early American Lutheran Liturgies (D. M. Kemerer)
IV 95 The Liturgy of the Icelandic Church (F. J. Bergmann)
THE LITURGICAL INFLUENCE OF THE
LESSER REFORMERS.
WHEN one studies the formative period of the doctrines and forms of worship that constitute the exclusive property of the Lutheran Church, he cannot fail to be impressed with the fact that so many influences were at work at the same time, that it is almost impossible to ascribe a greater or less effect to one cause or the other. While even the development of a doctrinal system depended on the workings of many and varied historical causes, it is found in the tracing of liturgical practices that they depend fully as much (if not more) upon the history of given conditions, as they do upon specific theories or decided views concerning their propriety. So powerful are the claims of the past, that they had to be considered and respected even in the formulating of ecclesiastical laws, and an examination of the Kirchenordnungen reveals numerous examples of the firm, stiff grasp in which the dead hand of the past clasped the issues of the present. Thus we find that exceptions from prescribed orders are made in favor of certain churches within the same sphere of jurisdiction, prescribing e. g. the robe in one church and permitting its disuse in another, ordering certain forms of Service for the whole district and exempting from it certain congregations in the same territory. Or, also we find the Reformers laying down certain rules in one Kirchenordnung and themselves departing widely from them in the composition of another. And to go further, we see instances of a complete change of view at certain periods of life, not only in the case of Luther, but notably so also in the case of Melanchthon and Brenz. Some of these changes of view were such truly speaking, others again, especially those of Melanchthon and Brenz, were enforced accommodations to existing conditions. These changes of view, according to the custom of the times, when men lived their intellectual life in the public gaze,
Page 2
as much as their outward life, were always promulgated,
always published and always had a certain effect and made a distinct impression
upon the views of the contemporaries. It was an age of argumentation and public
discussion, the utmost consequence of the scholastic spirit; but withal, the
fairest flower that sprung like a white water-lily from those dark and murky
waters. Owing to these views promulgated, changed, reiterated, embodied in
doctrines and made active in regulations, producing ecclesiastical laws through
their ethical inspirations, and voicing the devotions of the believer through
their religious aspirations, the different KOO took their origin in all Europe
among Lutherans and Reformed alike. Those of the one side frequently had a
reflex influence upon those of the other, frequently the Lutheran adopted the
hue of Reformed, frequently the latter shone in the borrowed glories of the former.
Sometimes one master-mind made a contribution which for the time was made use
of and sought after as a treasure, and then it was lost and buried, either to
remain forever unused among all the rummage in the storied attics of the past,
or to be brought to light and use again, by the descendants, who in the present
age are inquiring into the possessions of their fathers. For these reasons it
is almost impossible to give a true estimate of the influence of any given Reformer, if the
problem be to state what effect he had upon the liturgical observances of the
present day, though one might, with propriety, follow him through his works and
discover what he advocated and for what he strove. The most abiding work of all
these great ones of that great time was transmitted to us in the KOO, but even
they have not yet been adequately treated, as Rietschel tells us, though much
excellent work has so far been done upon them.
Among these KOO we can find
various types, some (and we deal here only with those that are Lutheran)
correct in their doctrinal position, but conservative in their treatment of
Roman forms; some genuinely Lutheran, based upon the Formula Missae (1523) and Lutheran in regard to
doctrine and forms; some which are more radical in their treatment of forms of
worship and mediate between the Lutheran type and the Reformed. Among the first
type we find the Brandenburg KO prepared by Stratner and Buchholtzer, the
Pfalz-Neuburg KO, 1543, the Austrian Agenda of Chytraeus, 1571. The second
type, called the Saxo-Lutheran, represented as stated, by the Formula Missae, which became authori-
Page 3
tative for Prussia under Duke
Albrecht, 1525; for the Electorate of Saxony, for all the KOO by Bugenhagen,
viz., Brunswick 1528, Hamburg 1529, Minden and Göttingen 1530, Lübeck
1531, Saest 1532, Bremen 1534, Pommerania 1535; for that of
Brandenburg-Nuremberg 1533 by Osiander and Brenz; for Hanover 1536 by Urbanus
Regius; for Naumburg 1537; for the KO of Duke Henry of Saxony by Justus Jonas
1539; for Mecklenburg 1540 and 1552 by Aurifaber, Riebling, Melanchthon and
later Chytraeus; for Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel 1543 and 1569 by Chemnitz
and Andreae; for Riga 1531; for Courland 1570; for the Hessian Agenda of 1566
and 1573 with the exception of the act of Communion. Of the third or mediating
type the regulations at Strassburg, the Württemberg KOO among which less
than the others that by Brenz for Schwäbisch-Hall 1526, the KO of Duke
Ulrich 1536 and of Duke Christopher 1533; the Palatine KO 1554, the Badensian
1556, the Wormsian 1560.* Those among the above that have become most fundamental
or basic for others are the Braunschweig KO of Bugenhagen and the
Brandenburg-Nuremberg KO of Osiander. It is upon the consensus of the orders of
the second type that the forms of Service of our Common Service are based, and
it is with them and the men who produced them that the present inquiry is chiefly
concerned. As has been indicated all of these KOO are partly based upon the Formula
Missae issued by
Luther in 1523, partly derive their spirit and impetus from it and partly
develop in the direction indicated by it. Thus even in this inquiry
Luther’s name deserves especial mention, for he is the Prometheus who
brought the fire from Heaven and taught his knowledge to the sons of men. His
giant form overtowers every other of the mighty men of the period of the
Reformation, but beside him, near him, reaching toward him and approaching his
stature in conspicuous measure are the persons of Melanchthon and Bugenhagen
How much the prophet of the Reformation was indebted to its grammarian and to
its pastor will perhaps never be known; but he refers to them so constantly,
and describes their labors and influence so lovingly, that one is compelled to
ascribe to these two, Melanchthon and Bugenhagen, no mean share in the outcome
of that momentous upheaval of the sixteenth century. It was a time of, tearing
down and of building up. Luther, the genius,
Footnote: * For this classification see Zoeckler, Vol. IV, p. 456.
Page 4
did both, Melanchthon and Bugenhagen mainly built up.
Luther was the greater for he was more versatile, more many-sided; he was equal
to the destruction that his work implied, and equal to the construction that it
necessitated; but in his constructive abilities he was ably assisted and almost
matched by the other two of this great triumvirate. But if we give due credit
to the labors of the grammarian and the pastor, we cannot pass by lesser men
who influenced them and whose labors in the common cause were similar to theirs
and whose influence in certain directions as great as theirs. And so upon a
plane but little lower, acting and acted upon mutually and reciprocally with
them appear Brenz and Osiander, Justus Jonas and others whose names have been
mentioned above.
To Philip Melanchthon, the Praeceptor
Germaniae, is
usually ascribed the place of honor directly after Luther. His life is too well
known to be described here, but it may be well to recall certain details of it
which explain the part he played. Born Feb. 6, 1497 the son of a man standing
in high favor with the Palatine Elector Philip, and of a woman the niece of one
of the greatest humanists, Reuchlin, his opportunities for learning and
advancement were the very best. His learning was such that as a mere stripling,
he could easily win in debate with the wandering bachantes, that he was soon
distinguished for his knowledge of Greek and the elegance of his Latin and was
ready to take the master’s degree at the University of Heidelberg before
his age made him eligible. He distinguished himself at the University of
Tübingen, took an active part in Reuchlin’s controversy, published a
Greek grammar before he was twenty-five and received the most enthusiastic
praise of Erasmus. In the meantime he devoted himself to the study of theology,
law and medicine. Such was the man who in 1518 was installed as professor of
Greek in the University of Wittenberg and who, with his address on the “Improvement
of the Studies of Youth” attracted Luther’s attention, which grew
into admiration, then to esteem and lastly to love. And this grammarian soon
entered so heartily into theology that while he never received a doctor’s
degree, he became the master of many doctors. Entering into active
participation in theological questions by his interest in Luther’s
dispute with Eck, he soon obtained the honor of a baccalaureus biblicus, and as early as 1519 began to
lecture on the Epistle to the Romans and
Page 5
the Gospel of Matthew. Out of
these studies grew his Loci Communes which was first published in 1519, the first dogmatical
treatise of the Lutheran Church, reprinted more than eighty times during his
life.
When Luther was sent at Worms and
then at the Wartburg, the care for the University and the condition of the work
of the Gospel began to rest more heavily upon Melanchthon’s shoulders.
When Luther returned he brought with him the dawn of an era of work mutually borne.
This literary and theological partnership, of more import to the world’s
welfare than any described in the purely literary annals of the race, comprised
particularly the work of the translation of the Bible and the visitation of the
churches of Saxony. It was out of this visitation that the work originated,
which most directly influenced the composition of the various KOO. This work is
known as the Saxon Visitation Articles and appeared in 1528, the same year as
Bugenhagen’s Brunswick KO. Then followed in rapid succession, the
protestation at Spires in 1529, and the Marburg colloquy in the same year.
Early in 1530 we find Melanchthon indicating the basis of the Torgau articles,
collaborating the Schwabach articles, practically writing the Augsburg Confession,
and himself producing the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. In the next
sixteen years he is busy in assisting the establishment of the Reformation in
Saxony and Brandenburg, giving his counsels in Cologne, at Smalcald, and at
Ratisbon, and producing the Wittenberg Concordia. The remaining years of his
life were spent in endless doctrinal controversies, in which his position was
not always appreciated and which brought him many sorrows.
As has been well said, he was the
Preceptor of Germany by reason of his reforms in the management of the schools,
from the University down to the boys in the Latin schools. He would be the
Preceptor of the Church if he had left us nothing but the Augsburg Confession
and its Apology. But these two so far outshine his other productions that his
work as a theologian as shown in his other writings need not even be counted,
to make him glorious. That he was preeminently the schoolmaster of the Church
is not only evident in the lasting and imperishable instruction which he
bequeathed to her in his theological writings but in the rules for her
management and guidance which he left in the Saxon Articles of Visitation and
which scattered broad-
Page 6
cast even through his doctrinal works. Besides he does
not deny a schoolmaster’s noblest aim, the education of the young, in the
very regulations which he gives for the ordering of public Services. To him
Church and school were one, always inseparable; and while in the school he
trains the youth for the Church he does not forget, even in such matters as the
singing of Latin hymns and the chanting of the psalms in Latin to impress the
Church with the sense of her duties in the training of the young. It seems as
if this pedagogical principle for which he stood, can not be left out of
consideration when one estimates the work he did in the Church. Without a just
appreciation of this principle much in Melanchthon’s regulations appears
incongruous, and, so far as modern liturgical views go, even out of place.
With this in mind, we can
understand Melanchthon’s liturgical position. To him, as to Luther in his
earlier views, worship was of the nature of a training. It lies in the nature
of things that he demands that all things be done decently and in order and
consequently he demands a quiet dignified conduct of the things of public
worship. But beyond this, the entire Service has to him a preeminently
educative tendency. The public assemblies depend upon Christ’s command to
preach the Gospel publicly. The publicity of worship assures the widest spread
to the Gospel and prevents ethical and moral aberrations. The individual is to
confess himself a member of the congregation publicly and the congregation must
publicly separate itself from the sects. He only belongs to God’s people
who is called. He only is called, who is a member of the visible congregation
and receives its benefits. But as the congregation in its assemblies only
presents the means of thus calling to the childhood of God, the idea, consequences, effects
and aims of worship are those known, but its real essence is not grasped. Hence
Melanchthon’s view implies that the regenerated Christian has no absolute
need for this public worship. It is to Melanchthon the means and place for the
experienced Christian, to lead to perfection the inexperienced one. As Jakoby
says, an outer motive, formally God’s command, materially the
consideration for the masses, impels him to Church; it is the Law, not the
Gospel, and Melanchthon lacks the worshipping subject, while he looks to the object;
in a word, it is a pedagogical institution, exalted and spiritual, educating
for the inheritance of the children of light; but no worship.
Page 7
In this Luther and Melanchthon thought alike; but while
Luther hoped for a future worship of the trained and experienced congregation,
Melanchthon regarded this as an illusion. But on the other hand he saw the
constitutive factors of Christian worship. The way to perfection here indicated
when once entered, led to glories far beyond those aspired to by Melanchthon;
but as all worship was to him mandatory in Christ’s command, and as he
was on the other hand, confronted by the demands of evangelical liberty, he
could not harmonize the tendencies.
As to the object of worship, he, like Luther,
contended that it lay in the adoration of God. For this reason he strove to
abolish the adoration of the saints, claiming that it limited the adoration of
God, and the mediatorial work of the Savior.
His pedagogical views also modify
his views of the contents of worship, namely, the sacraments and their
application. As to baptism he teaches plainly that it is the implanting into
the new life; but he cannot explain the baptism of children in any other way
than that thereby they receive access to all that is implied in worship. For
this reason the faith of infants is to him, as he admits, unintelligible, but
he insists on baptizing them as in accordance with the Divine command. This has
a natural bearing upon the form of the act of baptism. In the doctrine of the
Lord’s Supper Melanchthon defended Luther’s view. It is but natural
therefore, that he contended against the sacrifice of the mass and therefore
becomes a powerful protagonist for a purified order of Service. His convictions
as to this doctrine also led him to repudiate the Romish celebration sub una
and to contend
first mildly, then emphatically for the administration sub utraque. As to confession, his views also
coincide with those of Luther. We still possess a beautiful prayer for
individual confession, composed by him. His formula of absolution however, is
replete with doctrinal statements and vindications and was condemned by Luther
as being too prolix.
In his views on the means of
worship or ceremonies, he occupies the same position as Luther. He is
conservative and does not abolish anything except what he finds to be in
contradiction to the Word of God; but he contends against the false value given
all ceremonies in the Catholic Church. This conservative position as expressed
in Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, is due partly to Melanchthon’s
pedagogical views, partly to his
Page 8
irenical endeavors. On the other hand at Ratisbon in 1541 he presented a memorandum to the Emperor in which he urged that all ceremonies should be sifted and the measure of dignity applied to all. What was accordant with churchly dignity was to remain, what was out of harmony with it was to be cast aside.
In his criticism of Catholic
forms of worship he concedes to the bishops the power of oversight limited by
the powers and rights of the congregation; but clearly separated the
ecclesiastical powers from the civil ones. This removes from them the powers
which they wielded and with these powers he takes the authorization of their
commands. Thus he looks upon fasting, not as a meritorious deed, but as a
useful honoring of festival days and a furtherance of prayer and the
consideration of the Gospel. The festivals of an evangelical character he
advised to retain. The principle guiding him herein was the abolition of
unevangelical abuses. Thus he abolished the Corpus Christi celebrations and contended
against all processions, not only those in which the sacrament was carried
about, but all others also, because he claimed that they gave occasion to
abuses.
An important liturgical
consideration is Melanchthon’s view of the language question. He and
Luther from a feeling of conservatism were both strongly in favor of retaining
the Latin language in the public Services. The sermon of course was to be
excepted, as through it the Gospel was to be conveyed to the people. When the
Zwickau fanatics appeared in Wittenberg, the question first assumed shape.
Melanchthon’s answer was, that Latin should be used for the whole Service
with the exception of the sermon and the Communion Service. In a writing to the
Senate of Nuremberg in 1525 he declared:—
“Those who do not
understand Latin have practice enough even when the singing is in Latin for
they hear the German sermon and lessons. And even if one sang in German, not
all would sing or understand the singing. The Latin singing is good for the
boys who are being educated. Besides I do not wish to cast aside figurated
singing.” From this incidentally we also learn his views on music in the
congregation. As to the use of Latin he ordered later that the lessons should
first be sung in Latin and then read in German. What solicitude for the boys
that could thus influence his liturgical views!
Intimately connected with these
questions is also the one
Page 9
concerning the vestments. His position was that they
should be continued where they were still in vogue; but he was very indifferent
to their introduction where they had fallen into disuse. However he protests
against the wearing of those vestments that recall the mass, and favors the
wearing of a robe.
Extreme unction, the chrism in
baptism, the exorcism and consecration of oil, he opposed; but owing to the
many questions to be solved at the time, he resorted to an extreme Fabian
policy, by which the discussion of the question of unction was delayed until it
was no longer a menace to the peace of the church.
Melanchthon favored the rite of
confirmation. It had fallen into disuse as Luther had regarded it as a rite to
be suffered only under certain conditions. Melanchthon considered it as an
institution which, if filled with the evangelical spirit, would become of the
greatest value for the Christian life of the young. He stands therefore as one
of the earliest Lutheran champions for confirmation, and its retention among
the institutions of the Church is very largely due to him.
In regard to the Service of the
Church he gives us an outline in his Reformatio Wittenbergensis (1545). Its constitutive factors
are enumerated as Hymns, Prayers, Scripture Lessons, Sermon, Intercession,
Communion. In the Repetitio Confessionis Augustanae 1551 he gives the following for
the first part of the Service:—Prayers, Hymns, Confession of the Creed,
Lessons, Sermon Thanksgiving and Intercession. The second part is the
administration of the Lord’s Supper, comprising the words of institution,
the self-communion of the minister, then the distribution to the congregation
(previously confessed and absolved), then the thanksgiving.
And as Melanchthon urged the
necessity for confirmation, establishing the needs and the nature of instruction
and providing a form to be used, so he also advocated a dignified conduct of
funerals. He provided for the singing of hymns, prayers and lessons. A funeral
sermon was not recommended except for persons of distinction.
Such were the principles that actuated
the man in the establishment of liturgical practices. On the whole his
influence is felt more in the principles he laid down and advocated than in
actual forms which he introduced, and this influence can hardly be estimated at
its full value because so many others worked in the
Page 10
same direction. It has been said (Jakoby) that
Melanchthon was more didactic than Luther and had not the same gift of putting
statements into concise but pregnant liturgical form. On the other hand he
exhibited a tact and dignity that were not always to be found in Luther’s
liturgical expressions, (e. g. Luther reminds those to be ordained that their congregations
do not consist of geese and cows.) To quote Jakoby: “Both reformers were
liturgical architects who drew model plans and gave permanent norms. In this
respect their work was basic and typical, a guide for all times. But to execute
their plans with equal skill and authority they had not sufficient strength.
For this work other men were called.”
Next to Melanchthon in the
assistance of Luther came John Bugenhagen, whom Luther usually called Pommer,
or Dr. Pommer, from his native land. He was the gifted and richly blessed
practician or organizer of the Reformation and has frequently been named the
“pastor.” He was born at Wollin, June 24, 1485, the son of a
counsellor. In 1502 he entered the University of Greifswald but owing to lack
of means he soon after began to teach a children’s school. During this
work he continued his studies and in 1505 was called as rector of the Latin
school at Treptow. The school flourished and Bugenhagen at the same time busily
increased his learning and was at last ordained as priest. Having loved the
Scriptures from childhood, he began a series of lectures on biblical books
after he was made lector in Belbuck and gathered many hearers. During this time
he began his “Passional” and composed a history of Pommerania.
Until 1520, Luther’s works seemed to make no impression upon him; but
when the tract on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church fell into his hands,
he immediately assented to its teachings. He could not stay any longer in
Treptow, but hastened to Wittenberg and met Luther just before the
latter’s departure to Worms. His first work was a series of private
lectures on the psalms; but by the time he reached the sixteenth he had so many
hearers that Melanchthon advised him to lecture in public. His explanations won
Luther’s unqualified approval and the praise that no other exegete had so
entered into the spirit of the psalms. His firmness in dealing with the
Anabaptists induced the congregation and the University to call him as pastor
of the town church. This office he filled for years with unexcelled fidelity
and left his
Page 11
post only when important duties temporarily called him away. Even the year 1527, when the pestilence raged in Wittenberg, found him comforting the congregation and lecturing to the few students who had not fled. He was busy also during these years in a literary way, defending the true doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, publishing a tract on “The Christian Faith and true Good Works,” and produced explanations of various biblical books and rendered Luther valuable assistance in the translation of the Bible.
It is, however, as an organizer
that he rendered his most valuable service. In 1528 he was called to organize
the Church of the Reformation in Braunschweig, in the same year in Hamburg,
1530 in Lübeck, 1534 in Pommerania, 1537 in Denmark where he gained the
confidence of the king and enjoyed the honor of performing the coronation, and
in 1542 in Braunschweig for the second time and in Hildesheim. The results of
his work in these Places were embodied in various KOO, first and most important
among which was that of Braunschweig. His object did not consist in formalities;
but in the training of true Christian congregations, the raising of an
efficient ministry, the founding and management of schools, and the proper
financial management of the Church. In 1542 he returned to Wittenberg to stay;
but the increasing work, the bitterness of theological strife, the thinning of
the ranks about him, and most of all, Luther’s death, visibly broke down
his constitution and in 1558 he was called to his reward.
His Braunschweig (or Brunswick)
KO is the most lasting monument of his labors, aere perennius. In it he gives directions for the
organizing of the Church, the conducting of the Services and the performance of
ministerial acts. As Melanchthon in his Loci, so Bugenhagen in this KO
establishes the principles upon which his practices are based. Baptism is the
first subject to which be attends. He develops the Scriptural and doctrinal
statements concerning the sacrament, insists on the baptism of children, and
devotes considerable attention to proving their faith. For this reason he can
follow the directions of Luther’s Taufbuechlein much more confidently than
Melanchthon. He insists on baptism in the vernacular and asserts that its real
glory lies in its application to all hearts and not in the adornments of
lights, banners, consecrations, and unctions. All these he rejects.
Page 12
In giving his directions for the
establishment of the schools, their curricula, their methods of instruction, he
pays much attention to the chanting of the psalms in Latin. For the ministers
he has explicit directions for the observance of the Church Year, giving the
details even for their preaching. He likewise insists on private confession and
absolution as well as public, permits giving the sacrament to the dying, orders
the visitation of the sick and gives directions what to do. He forbids the
blessing of water, fire, light, herbs and fruit as a sacrilege and rejects extreme
unction. He gives full directions for extra services, both Matins and Vespers
and the so-called catechism services. It is to him that we are principally
indebted for the ordering of the minor services, but to him they were mainly
acts of devotion prescribed for the schools. In regard to the sacrifice of the
mass and the true doctrine of the Lord’s Supper he maintains the same standpoint
as Luther and Melanchthon and he devotes much space to the discussion of these
subjects. For the Chief Service he orders Luther’s German Mass and does
not develop anything new. Thus Bugenhagen stands to us, considered from the
viewpoint of liturgical influence, preeminently as the Reformer who has given
the Church the minor services. It is true, they are not fully developed in the
form in which we possess and use them; but from him we have received the
essential outlines.
In the case of John Brenz we see
a most varied life and can trace in his works the influence of political and
doctrinal differences and especially the influence of the Reformed type of
doctrine and life while his doctrinal positions must be regarded as true to the
confessions of the Church. He was born in Weil, Württemberg in 1499 and
entered Heidelberg University when he was but thirteen years old. Here among
others he became acquainted with Melanchthon and Oecolampadius. At the age of
fifteen he became Bachelor of Philosophy, at seventeen Master of Arts and from
that time on devoted himself to the study of theology. Luther’s Theses
first inflamed his soul and he eagerly read everything coming from Luther and
Melanchthon. This was of the greatest influence on the views expressed in his
lectures, but he suffered himself to be ordained to the priesthood, in 1520. He
made no secret of his Lutheran tendencies and in 1521 was put under the ban. In
1522 he was called as pastor to Schwäbisch-Hall and remained there
twenty-four years. The
Page 13
next seven years were a period of severe tribulations and
persecution, but for fourteen years more he labored as provost in
Tübingen, where he ended his days in 1570.
He took part in the preparation
of five KOO. The first was that of Schwäbisch-Hall, 1526; the next that of
Brandenburg-Nuremberg in 1533; the First or Little Württemberg KO appeared
in 1536; in 1543 Brenz prepared a new KO for Schwäbisch-Hall and in 1553,
that known as the Great Württemberg KO. The KO of Schwäbisch-Hall he
prepared with the help of Isenmann and perhaps of others. The Brandenburg-Nuremberg
KO is an important one. It is said that it is second in influence only to the
Saxon Visitation Articles.* Its authority derives from the fact that it
represents the consensus of many theologians, leading and otherwise. The first
sketch was prepared by Osiander, but Luther, Melanchthon and Brenz, with the
theologians of Brandenburg and Nuremberg, added their judgment and contributed
to its final shape. The Little Württemberg KO was written by Schnepf,
revised and approved by Brenz. The history of this KO vividly illustrates the
manner in which Brenz contrary to his own judgment, was obliged to yield to Reformed
influences. When Brenz, however, after the “Interim” during which
the first KO of Schwäbisch-Hall was destroyed, found himself before the
task to prepare a new KO for this church, he was not hampered by the
difficulties that beset him in the preparation of the Little Württemberg
KO. He was free to write this himself and in so doing, based it upon the
Brandenburg-Nuremberg Order, thus giving the sanction of his authority to this
latter. He was equally fortunate when he prepared the Great Württemberg
KO. He was now free to correct at least some of the abuses of the Little Württemberg
Order and based it upon his second one of Schwäbisch-Hall. This then, is a
lineal descendant of the Brandenburg-Nuremberg KO and as it was sanctioned by
the authority of Duke Christopher, it became a model for many other Orders. It
might be interesting to trace Brenz’s departures from and returns to his
own views throughout these Orders, but this would far exceed the scope of the
present paper. The student is referred for this to the excellent article of Dr.
Horn. For the present purpose suffice it to call attention to the fact, that
the Brandenburg-Nuremberg Order is the one with which the litur-
Footnote: * Horn on authority of Richter.
Page 14
gical part of our Common Service most nearly agrees. We
must, therefore, measure Brenz’s liturgical influence by the part he took
in the preparation of this famous Order and the sanction he gave it by its introduction
and by the Orders which he based upon it. When we consider that the provisions
of this KO are the fullest and simplest for the major and minor services of the
Church, and that the ministerial acts are here treated more fully and
approximately in the form which our American Church authorizes to-day, we are
justified in concluding that this influence was no mean or insignificant one.
Closely associated with the
labors of Brenz, but more especially identified with the Reformation at
Nuremberg and consequently the production of the just mentioned famous Order,
is the name of Osiander. Andrew Osiander was born at Gunzenhausen in 1498 and
studied at Leipzig, Altenburg and the University of Ingolstadt. His education
and early history have never been traced and he never obtained academic honors.
His enemies taunted him with being a self-made theologian. Still he became
distinguished in humanistic studies, mathematics and theology and was a master
of Hebrew. At Nuremberg he was ordained a priest and made teacher of Hebrew. He
soon became the mainspring of reformatory activity in this city and soon became
widely known for his bold preaching and his literary activity. He did not meet
Luther until 1529 and always strictly maintained his independence of him. He
never fully entered into Luther’s view of justification and thereby
became the occasion of numerous theological controversies; but he thoroughly
agreed with Luther in the main and especially in regard to the doctrine of the
Lord’s Supper. His name also was soon known everywhere as that of a
spirited and uncompromising champion of evangelical truth. It was on this account
that he was enabled to take a prominent part in the organization of the Church
at Nuremberg, both by aiding in the Brandenburg-Nuremberg Church visitation and
also by preparing the first draft of the Brandenburg-Nuremberg KO. It is,
perhaps, due to his personality that this Order prevailed so extensively, for
during many years he was a power in Nuremberg, of such influence as to be
called the Nuremberg Pope. His fearless defence and promulgation of the truth,
his unrelenting opposition to everything unevangelical, his uncompromising
insistence on the carrying out of the Reforma-
Page 15
tion ideas, all these gave the supports and backing that
his KO needed to secure its adoption and retention. And having said this, we
need say no more to characterize his influence.
One more character deserves mention
in this connection. It is Justus Jonas, the intimate friend of Luther. He was
born in 1493, studied at Erfurt and took his degree in 1510. He devoted much
attention to eloquence and the composition of Latin verses; but soon entered
upon the study of law to please his father. While studying at Wittenberg he
heard Luther and was converted by him, as he himself says. He soon turned from
law after having been licensed, and devoted himself to theology. It was he who
translated the Ninety-five Theses, but notwithstanding he was made canon at
Erfurt and rector of its Latin school. It was Erasmus who persuaded him to
devote himself entirely to theology and in this, his knowledge of languages and
history served him admirably. His eloquence soon increased the number of his
hearers and he attracted such attention that he was soon
called—“another Luther”—to the provostship at
Wittenberg. In 1521 he became Doctor of Divinity and in his new position and
dignity he began an earnest controversy against all abuses, principally that of
the mass, of mariolatry and worship of the saints, and proposed a new Order of
Service, which, however, was not adopted until the accession of a new elector.
He is preeminently the German translator of the documents of the Reformation, principally
of Luther’s “De Servo Arbitrio,” Melanchthon’s “Loci” and the
“Apology.” He has left the Church some beautiful hymns which he
composed. In 1523 he conducted the second Saxon Church visitation; in 1536 he
aided the introduction of the Reformation at Naumburg; in 1539 he was engaged
in the same work at Meissen and in 1541 at Halle. At Halle he composed a KO
based on the one at Wittenberg. His death occurred in 1555. His direct
influence upon the ordering of the Church at Wittenberg is not so directly
appreciable on account of the presence and labors there of so many other great
minds; but the KOO of Meissen, Naumburg and Halle are enough to entitle him to
distinction in this field also.
Upon such men and their labors
did the ordering of the Church of the Reformation depend. We can not read a
detailed description of this period without thinking of the “helden lobe
bæren, und grozzer arebeit” of the Nibelungen, but far greater,
Page 16
far more wonderful are the great
labors of these praiseworthy heroes. We are astounded at their condition, we
are humbled by their faith, we admire their versatility, we can not comprehend
the many and varied causes to which they gave their attention. We can not but
think of the great things they accomplished and compare with them the humble following
of their footsteps to which we of a latter day, are limited, and we exclaim as
Schiller did of Kaut, “Wenn die Könige bauen, haben die Kärrner
zu thun. “
Authorities consulted and
used:—JAKOBY: Liturgik der Reformatoren; BELLERMANN: Das Leben des
Johannes Bugenhagen; HORN:
The Liturgical Work of John Brenz, (Church Review, 1882); RIETSCHEL: Lehrbuch der Liturgik; ZÖCKLER: Handbuch der
theologischen Wissenshaften; MEUSEL: Kirchliches Handlexikon.
C. THEODORE BENZE.
Erie, Pa.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL CALENDAR.
THE Calendar, (from Calends), is the mode of adjusting
the artificial divisions of time, such as months, Lent, Advent and the like to
the natural or Solar year. Calendars are devised for civil and religious purposes,
each embracing the same period of time as their unit, (365 1/4
days), but differing in accordance with the use for which they are intended. We
are concerned with the civil calendar only in so far as the religious is
related to it. In the beginning, the Christians simply employed the divisions
of time current in the country of which they were citizens. Certain days were
marked as anniversaries of great events in the life of Christ; for example the
festival days of the early Church. To these were added commemorations of the
deaths of the first martyrs. As the Roman wrote on his tablets the obligations
he must meet, or the debts he would receive, connecting each with its date in
the Julian year, so the Christian marked opposite certain dates, the name or event
he thought worthy of special note in his devotional life. Such lists were the
earliest Calendars of the Church. A formal and authoritative division of the
year for religious use was arranged as early as the middle of the fourth
century.
As the religious Calendar was
simply an adaptation of the civil year, and grew up from traditional usages by
different bodies of believers, many differences are to be found in the various
parts of Christendom, by which local conditions of the life of the Church are
marked. Nationality, controversy and doctrinal fundamentals have each been
factors in the determination of what should be marked by the Church. Almost
every day in the year in the Greek Church, is dedicated to some event in the
life of Christ, or to the Apostles, or saints, or national heroes. With the
Puritans at the other extreme, even the anniversary of our Lord’s nativity
was scarcely admitted to form a special day in
Page 18
their year. In general, however,
it may be said that there are two great families of Calendars; one from the
Eastern, the other from the Western division of Christendom. Through the Roman
or Western wing, we derive the Church Year in use by Lutherans.
The three great events in the
life of Christ, His birth, His resurrection, and the sending of the Holy Ghost
have been the nuclei around which all the Calendars have been formed. The
latter two of these were marked from the Apostolic period, and in fact, are
simply modifications of feasts established by God for the Jews. Instead of the Passover,
we have Easter and its associated days, and in the room of the Harvest festival,
we celebrate Pentecost as the memorial of the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost.
Christmas and the connected festivals of Epiphany and Circumcision arose
somewhat later, and are of Gentile origin. These three feasts became the
centers of cycles and octaves. As the Church grew older, and its cultus became
more complex, various customs were added. Martyriology gave us Saints’
days, asceticism furnished the preparatory seasons of fasting, and now and then
the settlement of a great doctrinal battle added a special day to the Calendar.
By the time the Reformation occurred, the entire year was occupied with the
commemoration of events in the history of the Church. The opposition of the reformers
to the worship of the saints and of the Virgin resulted in the removal of many
names and customs from the list; or, where they were not officially removed,
the spirit of the denomination caused them to fall into desuetude. By us,
little not directly connected with the life of our Lord, was retained.
If we should study the seasons of
the Church Year in the order of its development, we would begin with Easter,
this being the festival earliest observed, and for a long time the beginning of
the year. But since we are accustomed to Advent being considered as the first
of the Calendar, we will begin with the Christmas cycle, of which Advent is the
Preparatory season.
Concerning Advent itself, it may
be said, that there is no mention of this season under this title before the
seventh century. Essentially however, it had a place in the Calendar at a much
earlier time. Jerome has pericopes and collects for “the five Sundays
before the Nativity of our Lord.” Like Lent, it was observed as a season
of penance and fasting. An ancient canon
Page 19
forbids marriages during its continuance. The time over
which it extended, varied at different places and dates. In Jerome’s
time, and in parts of France at a later date, it covered five Sundays. In the
Greek Church to the present day, under the name “Fast of the
Nativity” it covers forty days and is one of the four great periods of
fasting, set for each year. To Gregory the Great, is ascribed its duration of
the four Sundays preceding Christmas. One of its four Sundays was used for each
of the four comings of Christ to man; i. e., to mankind in the flesh, to
the believer in the hour of death, to Jerusalem at its fall, and on the day of
judgment.
Since the sixth century, Advent
has been the beginning of the Church Year in the Western Church. The chief
cause of the change from the Easter cycle was the desire to have the Christian
year begin at a time different from the beginning of the Jewish ecclesiastical
year.
The Christmas cycle makes its
appearance in the Church under the name of Epiphany. There was a heathen
festival widely celebrated among the Greeks, in honor of the manifestation of
one of their myths to mankind, under the name of EPIPHANEIA (ejpifavneia); this was replaced in the
Oriental Church by the festival in honor of the coming of Christ in the flesh.
The date first set for the celebration was the sixth of January, which date is
still retained by the Armenian Church for the Christmas festival. The only
attempt to explain the choice of this day, so far as we have seen, was an
example of Oriental allegory. Since Adam was created on the sixth day of time,
the sixth of the year might well be chosen to commemorate the birth of Christ.
Meantime, the Western Church had adopted December 25th as the Natal Day. When
the controversies of the Grecian Church required more emphasis to be placed on
the human birth of the Lord, the Greek Church, retaining Epiphany, added the
Festival of the Nativity to their Calendar, using for it the date current among
the Roman Christians.
When December 25th was chosen as
the date of the anniversary of the birth of Christ, is not known, nor have we
any clear reason given, why this time was taken. Chrysostom says in a Christmas
homily, that Pope Julius I, (A. D., 337-352), had caused strict inquiry to
be made as to the time of Christ’s birth, and confirmed its customary
celebration on this day. Some his-
Page 20
torians claim that this date was chosen by the Church to
counterbalance a heathen festival occurring December 25th by the Julian
calendar. Piper derives the date from March 25th, which the early Church
considered as the normal time for the beginning of the world, the resurrection
of Christ, and the date of His conception.
Early in the development of the
Church Year, it became customary to connect with a festival, its Octave. The
events of Easter week probably form the precedent for this habit. With
Christmas was thus connected the eighth day after, and from a Gospel basis,
this became specifically the Festival of the Circumcision, after the 6th
century. Between Christmas and the Festival of the Circumcision, our Church
also retains the minor days of St. Stephen and St. John, Dec. 26th and 27th. In
the ancient Church, Dec. 28th was also marked as the Festival of the Holy
Innocents. The association of Stephen with Christ is in the manner of his
death. That of John is probably due to his nearness to Christ during His
ministry and the distinctive teaching in his Gospel concerning the Incarnation.
The innocency of the child victims of Herod’s jealousy, so similar to
Christ’s faultlessness, probably led the Early Church, deeply honoring
martyrdom of every kind, to connect their death with the festival of the
Master’s birth.
We have already said that
Epiphany so far as name is concerned, was earlier in its origin than Christmas.
It was less specifically devoted to Christ’s birth, however, than to
marking in general His manifestation to men. The baptism by John, and the
appearance in the home at Cana of Galilee were themes in its celebration as
well as the assuming of the flesh. Only after the fourth century was it coupled
with the Visit of the Magi and the Manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles.
Theophaneia, Bethpaneia, are early titles showing its first significance. Our
Gospel Lessons for the season still show its various applications. The length
of the season of Epiphany varies, and first shows the influence of the
“Queen of Festivals,” Easter, around which is grouped the second
cycle of our year.
We have already said that the
celebration of Easter is of Apostolic origin. It would be only natural that the
Jewish converts to the faith in the first year of Apostolic preaching, should
give a peculiar significance to their great Paschal feast, whenever
Page 21
it would occur. They would recall
Christ’s teaching concerning Himself as the true Lamb of God, and with
the eating of unleavened bread, they would connect the crucifixion, and the
resurrection. Of course the date of this commemoration would be that of the
Jewish Pascha, i. e., the 14th Nisan. Nisan was a lunar month, beginning
with the moon following the Vernal Equinox. With the Gentile converts, however,
the Jewish Passover had little or no significance. They had not even adopted
the keeping of the Sabbath, but observed instead the first day of the week,
distinctively the Lord’s Day. The Resurrection rather, than the Crucifixion
was most emphatically preached to the non-Jewish converts, and their whole
religious life made only Sunday suitable for the commemoration of the festival
of Christ’s coming from the grave. The result was that the Roman Church
adopted the custom of making Easter a movable festival, seeking to mark it only
on Sunday, and caring only to have a time approximately corresponding to the
day of the month on which Christ rose from the dead. By the middle of the
second century, the influence of the Italian Church had become sufficient to
make a marked conflict between the days on which Easter was celebrated. The
first colloquy on the subject was between Polycarp of Smyrna and Anicetus,
bishop of Rome. Polycarp declared that it was the custom of John to observe the
14th of Nisan, but Anicetus refused to be convinced. Tradition was invoked that
Peter and Paul might offer authority to the Roman party. A bitter controversy was
carried on for more than a century, until finally at the Council of Nicea, the
matter was settled by passing the rule now in force for determining the date of
the celebration of Easter. That rule is, that Easter shall occur on the first
Sunday, following the first full moon on, or next after the 21st of March. When
this is Sunday, the following Sunday shall be taken.
This Nicean legislation simply
compromises by determining that the Sunday nearest to the 14th of Nisan shall
be Easter. At least that would be the result if the beginning of Nisan is
accurately determined. For this month would begin with the new moon following
the Vernal Equinox, i. e., the 21st of March, and the 14th was the day of
the full moon. The followers of the Jewish custom had already been
contemptuously called Quartodecimanians, and after the Nicean Council, any one
holding to the fixed festival, was excommunicated. It is none the less true
Page 22
however, that so far as Apostolic authority is concerned,
its weight is in favor of the 14th of Nisan.
Any date fixed in a lunar month
would yet be movable in the solar year, and hence in a civil year which
corresponded in length with the sun’s annual revolution. The requirement
of a certain day in the week would add a second mutation. In the years
immediately following the Nicean Council the Bishop of Alexandria was deputed
to announce to the other bishops the date on which Easter would occur, and the
bishops through their metropolitans would inform the whole Church. This plan
was soon found inadequate however, and the mathematicians set themselves to
formulate tables by which the date of the moon following the Vernal Equinox
could be found, and the day of the week could be determined. The Metonic cycle
of nineteen years for determining the date of the moon’s phases had
already been in use for centuries. A “solar” cycle for twenty-eight
years was also known, by which the succession of the days of the week could be
found. Victorinus of Aquitain combined these two numbers as factors in a period
of 532 years, to which the name of the Victorian cycle has been applied. The
factors in this unit are indicated in our Calendars by the Golden Number and
the Dominical or Sunday letter. The first is obtained by dividing the number of
the year plus one by 19. If there is no remainder, the Golden Number is 19. Any
remainder from the division is the Golden Number for the year divided. The
Dominical letter is the capital set opposite Sunday. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th,
5th, 6th and 7th of January are named A, B, C, D, E, F and G. If the 1st of
January is Sunday, A is the Dominical letter; if the 3rd is Sunday, the letter
is C; and so on. The table of the Victorian Cycle was used for determining the
date of Easter until the time of the papal reign of Gregory XIII, without
correction, although the Venerable Bede had noted that the Vernal Equinox no
longer fell on the 21st of March. Owing to the various errors in the ancient
Julian year and in the Victorian cycle, a day was lost every 130 years. In
1582, the actual date of the Vernal Equinox was March 11th. To correct this
error, Gregory ordered the 5th of October to be called the 15th. The Catholic
countries adopted the revision at once; the Protestant governments later,
England making a correction of eleven days in 1752. The Greek Church has not
yet adopted the correction, so that
Page 23
there is a divergence of twelve days between the dating
of their events in their own “Old Style” and our “New
Style.” Necessary corrections in the Victorian cycle have made it so
complex that it can no longer be generally employed in determining Easter.
Hence tables are published giving the actual date of its occurrence during a
period of years.* A very good article on the formulae for the Golden number and
the Dominical letter can be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica under “Calendar.”
Footnote:
* Cf. Church Book.
By the time the Nicean Council
had decreed the date of the occurrence of Easter, many of the elements of its
cycle had become established in the customs of the Church. The custom of
fasting in the days preceding the festival is very early, although it was first
practiced only during the forty hours during which Christ’s soul was
separated from His body. Yet it was not long until the tendencies toward
asceticism led to the extension of this preparatory season over a period of
forty days. Origen makes mention of this length of time as proper for the
preceding of Easter. This period of course grew out of the time of the
Master’s temptation in the wilderness. The number of weeks covered by a
fast of forty days was effected by the estimate in which the days of the week
were held by various parts of the Church. Sundays were universally, excluded
from the list of fast days. Parts of the Church also excluded Saturdays and
Thursdays. Such omissions would extend the forty days to the ninth week before
Easter, and would account for the cycle beginning with Septuagesima Sunday,
although the names of the Sundays before Lent are derived by analogy with
Quadragesima. In the Western Church, Gregory the Great brought uniformity by
enacting that Lent should consist of the forty-six days preceding Easter,
Sundays being excepted from fasting. Thus it takes its beginning on Wednesday
of the seventh week before Easter.
Ash Wednesday takes its name from
a custom of the Roman Church of burning the palm branches consecrated at the
previous Palm Sunday and with the ashes making the sign of the cross on the
forehead of those kneeling before the altar on this day. The ancient name is Caput
Jejunii. In the
Lutheran Church, the day is marked simply as the beginning of the Lenten
season.
The English word Lent is from the
old word for Spring, this season of the Church Year being distinguished as the
Lenten
Page 24
Fast. The names of the first five Sundays are taken from
the initial words of the Latin Introits for each day; i. e., Invocavit,
Reminiscere, Oculi, Laetare and Judica. Palm Sunday takes its name from the custom of bearing
branches in the processionals. By Gregory it is called Dominica in ramis
palmarum, by Ambrose, Dominica in ramis
olivarum. By St.
Jerome it is entitled Indulgence Day from the custom of the Emperors of setting
free prisoners and closing the courts of justice during the week beginning with
this Sunday. Very early in the history of the Church, this week received the
name of the Great Week or the Holy Week, and was marked by special religious
observances and by the closing of places of business.
Maundy Thursday has its popular
name either from a corruption of the Latin title “Dies Mandati”or from the custom of
delivering gifts to the poor in baskets (maunds). The Lord’s command,
“Do this” of course led to the name Mandati. Other titles, arising from the
Lord’s teaching in the Upper Room are, Feria mysteriorum, Lavipedium and Megalhv Revnta".
It has already been noted that
the marking of the day of the Lord’s death by a suitable memorial is one
of the earliest customs of Christendom. The Jewish converts in selecting the
14th of Nisan as their Easter, gave the crucifixion the first place as compared
with the resurrection. At first in the Western Church, both the crucifixion and
the resurrection were connected with the Sunday celebration of the Pascha, but after the time of Leo I, the
two events are definitely separated, and Friday marked as the Paraskeue or Dies
Dominicae passionis. Saturday
following, called by the Jews, An high Day, is known to the Christians as The
Great Sabbath. It has been marked only by the Easter vigils.
The name Easter is derived by
Venerable Bede from the name of a Pagan goddess Eostre or Ostera, whose
festival occurred about the time of the Vernal Equinox. Later philologists
derive the name from the Saxon “urstan,” to rise,
“urstand,” the resurrection. The ancient name was “Pascha
Dominica resurrectionis,” and later simply “Dies Paschae.” From the purely Church
standpoint, it is and always has been the greatest of the Church festivals.
The forty days following Easter
belong to the Easter cycle and are characterized by the prolongation of the
Easter festivi-
Page 25
ties. Fasting was not permitted, and the most joyous
celebrations of the Church and family were set for this period. The Sundays
take their names from the Introits.
Thursday, the fortieth day after
Easter is set apart for the marking of the Lord’s ascension. Holy
Thursday is the name usually applied to it in the old Calendars, though it is
not shown to be very early marked by the Church. Chrysostom is the first
authority for its observance, he having a homily for the day. Augustine and
Gregory of Nyssa mark it in a similar manner.
Pentecost, the fiftieth day after
Easter, is one of the earliest festivals, being probably contemporary with
Easter in its first observance. Its Christian observance is simply a
transformation of the Jewish Harvest Feast, with a new significance due to the
outpouring of the Holy Ghost on this day. Pentecost is of course the earliest
name. Our English title of Whit-Sunday is usually derived from the custom of
the catechumens appearing in white robes on this day, their baptism having
occurred at the vigil immediately preceding. Other derivations are
“Whitsun Day” from the German “Pfingsten Tag,” and Wit
Sunday, the day of the pouring forth of wisdom, from the old English word for
wisdom, Wit. In the early Church, the remaining Sundays of the year were
attached to Pentecost, and this custom still obtains in the Greek Church, where
Trinity Sunday is not observed.
Trinity Sunday is the latest of
the great festivals to be placed in the Calendar. There was no occasion for its
observance until after the Arian controversy, the Sunday following Pentecost
being simply the octave of that feast, and specially set apart as the Day of
all the Martyrs. In some parts of the Church, the Sunday before Advent was
connected with the Trinity. The Synod of Arles, 1260, officially gave it its
present place in the Calendar, choosing the Sunday following Pentecost, because
after the sending of the Holy Ghost, man had for the first time full knowledge
of the Trinity.
Our custom of naming the
remaining Sundays of the year “Sundays after Trinity” is not so
much the forming of a long Trinity cycle, as it is the making of a second
principal division of the Church Year. The first division with its three great
feasts and their cycles is the Semester Domini, ending with Trinity Sunday. The
second half is the Semester Ecclesiae. In the first, we mark the history of the life of
Christ from its Advent to the send-
Page 26
ing of the Holy Ghost; in the second, we have man’s
appropriation of redemption. In this, the lessons mark the Call to the Kingdom
of God, the Righteousness of the Kingdom of God, and the Final Consummation of
the Christians’ Life. (Spaeth.)
In the Greek Church on the other
hand, the entire year is divided into cycles grouped around the great festivals
commemorative of the ministry of Christ. Their conception of the Church Year
can best be shown by tables. They are quoted from Neale’s Holy Eastern
Church.
Festivals are divided into three
classes:
A. GREAT.
1. Easter.
2. The following twelve:
Christmas,
Dec. 25th.
Epiphany,
Jan. 6th.
Hypapante, Feb.
2nd. (Meeting of our Lord with Simeon and Anna.)
Annunciation,
Mar. 25th.
Palm
Sunday.
Pentecost.
Transfiguration,
Aug. 6th.
Repose of the
Mother of God, Aug. 15th.
Nativity of the
Mother of God, Sept. 8th.
Exaltation of the
Holy Cross, Sept. 14th.
Presentation of the
Mother of God, Nov. 21st.
3. Festivals Adodekata. (Fewer
than 12.)
The Circumcision,
Jan. ist.
Nativity of S. John
the Baptist.
SS. Peter and Paul.
Decollation of John
the Baptist.
B. MIDDLE.
1. Festivals in
which the office is not entirely of the commemoration, but has the addition of
a canon in lauds in honor of the Mother of God; such as Jan. 30, SS. Basil,
Gregory, and Chrysostom. May 6th, St. John, the Divine.
2. Those in which
the Polyeleos (135th and 136th Psalms) occur in the lauds. For the minor
apostles, the God-bearing Fathers, (Simon Stylites), and the more famous
Metropolitans.
Page 27
C. LiTTLE.
1. Those having the
Great Doxology.
2. Those without
the Great Doxology.
The great Fasts of the Greek
Church are as follows:
The Lenten Fast,
Monday after Quinquagesima to Easter.
The Fast of the
Apostles, Monday after Trinity to June 29.
The Fast of the
Mother of God. Aug. 1st to 14th.
The Fast of the
Nativity. Nov. 15th to Dec. 25th.
The first of these Fasts, the
Lenten, is of exceeding rigor. “Not only is meat forbidden, but fish,
cheese, butter, oil, milk, and all preparations of it. The Fast continues on
Sunday, though a little oil is permitted. General indulgences are never
granted.” “In all 226 days of the year are observed with scrupulous
fidelity as Fasts. In the Lenten Fast, poor men throw away their only loaf of
bread, if a drop of oil or forbidden food happens to fall upon it.”
N. R. MULHORN.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Page 28
|
GREEK CHURCH (Constantinople) |
LUTHERAN |
ARMENIAN |
|
Sunday of the Publican and
Pharisee (Year begins)* Sunday of the Prodigal Son Sunday of Apocreos. Monday of
Tyrophagus Sunday of Tyrophagus. (Tyrophagus
a semi-carnival in which cheese is eaten) Monday after Tyrophagus, fast
begins Orthodoxy Sunday 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th Sundays of
Fast Palm Sunday Pascha or Bright Sunday Anti pascha Sunday of the Ointment Bearers Sunday of the Paralytic Sunday of the Samaritan Sunday of the Blind Man The Ascension of our Lord Sunday of the 318 (Nicean
Fathers) Pentecost All Saints Sunday 2nd Sunday after Pentecost * * *
* Sundays after Pentecost - - - 27th Sunday after Pentecost 28th Sunday after Pentecost Sunday of the Holy Forefathers Sunday before Nativity Nativity (Dec. 25th Sunday) Jan. 1st, Sunday before the
Lights Jan. 6th, The Holy Theophany Sunday after the Lights 29th-32nd Sundays after Pentecost Sunday of Publican and Pharisee |
3rd Sunday after Epiphany Septuagesima Sexagesima Quinquagesima 1st Sunday in Lent Sundays in Lent Palm Sunday Easter 1st Sunday after Easter 2nd Sunday after Easter 3rd Sunday after Easter 4th Sunday after Easter 5th Sunday after Easter Ascension or Holy Thursday Sunday after Ascension Whit Sunday Trinity 1st Sunday after Trinity * * *
* 6th Sunday after Trinity * * *
* 12th Sunday after Trinity 14th Sunday after Trinity 16th Sunday after Trinity 25th Sunday after Trinity 1st Sunday in Advent 2nd Sunday in Advent 3rd Sunday in Advent 4th Sunday in Advent Christmas Circumcision Epiphany 1st Sunday after Epiphany Sundays after Epiphany |
3rd Sunday after Epiphany 4th Sunday after Epiphany 5th Sunday after Epiphany 6th Sunday after Epiphany †2nd Sunday in Fast 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th Sunday in
Fast Palm Sunday Pascha New Sunday Green Sunday Beautiful Sunday 5th Sunday after Pascha 6th Sunday after Pascha Ascension Sunday after Ascension Pentecost 1st Sunday after the Descent |