| Ряд григорианских песнопений нельзя отнести ни к антифонной, ни к респонсорной группе. Так, Gloria и Credo поются хором от начала до конца, лишь начальные слова этих песнопений интонируются служащим епископом или священником. Офферторий , исполняемый во время подготовки евхаристических хлеба и вина к совершению таинства Евхаристии, исторически был песнопением респонсорного типа, однако после исчезновения в XI-XII вв. из обихода сольных стихов он стал песнопением свободного типа (в наст. время предпринимаются попытки восстановить первоначальный способ исполнения оффертория). Совмещение в литургическом чинопоследовании антифонных, респонсорных и свободных форм отражает характерное для Г. п. жанровое разнообразие, органично сочетающееся с единством муз. стиля. Лит.: Библиогр. справочники и обзоры: Kohlhase T. , Paucker G. M. Bibliographie gregorianischer Choral. Regensburg, 1990. (Beitr. z. Gregorianik; 9-10); Addenda I. Regensburg, 1993. (Ibid.; 15-16) [ежег. доп. в ж.: Plainsong & Mediaeval Music. Camb., 1992-.]; Hiley D. Writings on Western Plainchant in the 1980s and 1990s//Acta musicologica. Basel, 1997. Vol. 69. P. 53-93; idem. Chant [Электр. ресурс]. Дискогр.: Weber J. F. A Gregorian Chant Discography. Utica (N. Y.), 1990. 2 vol. [ежег. доп. в ж.: Plainsong & Mediaeval Music. Camb., 1992-.]. Периодич. и продолж. изд.: Paléographie musicale: Les principaux manuscrits de chant grégorien, ambrosien, mozarabe, gallican. Solesmes, 1889-. [факс. изд. рукописей]; Monumenta Musicae Sacrae: Coll. de manuscripts et l " études. Macon, 1952-1981 [факс. изд. рукописей]; Études grégoriennes. Solesmes, 1954-.; Monumenta Monodica Medii Aevi. Kassel, 1956-. [транскрипции певч. памятников]; Journal of the Plainsong and Mediaeval Music Society. Englefield Green (Surrey), 1978-1990; Beiträge zur Gregorianik. Regensburg, 1985-.; Studi gregoriani. Cremona, 1985-.; Monumenta Palaeographica Gregoriana. Münsterschwarzach, 1985-. [факс. изд. рукописей]; Plainsong & Mediaeval Music. Camb., 1992-. |
| Christmas is always celebrated on December 25! But which day is December 25? Some Orthodox celebrate Christmas on December 25 of the older calendar (“Julian Calendar”), some celebrate on December 25 of the revised calendar (secular or “Gregorian Calendar”). December 25 in the Julian Calendar is January 7 of the Gregorian Calendar. The Julian Calendar has a leap year every 4 years. The current secular calendar (Gregorian Calendar) does not have a leap year in those years ending in “00” where the hundreds-part is not divisible by 5 — and thus 1900, 2100, 2200, … are not leap years. In both calendars the year 2000 is a leap year. The Gregorian Calendar (sometimes called the Revised Julian Calendar) was adopted as the secular calendar in 1585 in parts of Western Europe, in 1753 in England and North America, and 1923 in Russia. George Washington (1789-1797) was born on February 11 old calendar (i.e., before 1753). That is why his birthday is celebrated on February 22 (“Presidents Day”, new calendar). In his times the difference between the old and new calendars was 11 days. The two days when Christmas is celebrated drift apart an extra three days every 400 years. December 25 in the Julian Calendar becomes January 8 in the secular (Gregorian Calendar) starting in the year 2100. The Julian Calendar is named after Julius Caesar. The Gregorian Calendar is named after Pope Gregory. Code for blog Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. |
| But actually, Pope Gregory introduced the new calendar for a different reason. The main idea behind the Gregorian reform was a correction in the Paschalia. Scholars of the time, mainly Italians, found that the lapse given in the classic Julian year will in several tens of thousands of years lead to Pascha falling in autumn, and this would disrupt certain principles. A commission was created, and after fairly long discussion it came to the conclusion that a reform had to be made in precisely the Paschalia, and for the sake of the Paschalia the entire Julian year would need to be reformed. Changes were made, which shortened the year a little. The rule of determining the leap years was introduced: years divisible by four and 400 remained leap years, and those divisible by 100 remained non-leap years. And what about the Paschalia for which the calendar was changed? The entire Orthodox world follows the traditional Alexandrian Paschalia, while the Roman Catholic world never did finish its work on its own Paschalia, and essentially its reckoning of the Easter date depends upon the same Alexandrian Pascalia to which are simply joined some corrective add-ons. Moreover, only very recently, almost just last year, the Catholics of the Holy Land changed directly over to our Orthodox Paschalia, returning to the tradition they had departed from in the sixteenth century—admitting by this that the main task in creating the Gregorian calendar is recognized as not having been satisfactorily completed. All the Orthodox Churches that for practical convenience changed to the “new style” calendar in the twentieth century have also acknowledged this fact. Formally, they have changed not to the Gregorian calendar but a New Julian calendar, but for the next several centuries it will still correspond to the Gregorian calendar. However, in changing over to this new calendar these Churches still observe the Paschalia according to the old tradition, the Julian calendar, because the Alexandrian Paschalia cannot be combined with the Gregorian calendar—such is its inner mathematical apparatus, you might say. It is calculated only on the Julian calendar. |
| RTE: Orthodox Christians who see the Council of Whitby as an Armageddon that stifled a great spiritual tradition often don’t know that after the Russian Revolution in 1917, one of the conditions set by the newly independent state of Finland to recognize Orthodoxy as one of its national churches, was that the Finnish Orthodox would exclusively use the Gregorian calendar. FR. JOHN: Which is a radical change because the Gregorian calendar is now in conflict with Nicea, although that wasn’t done deliberately. Still, once or twice a decade, Pascha celebrated according to the Gregorian calendar falls either on or before the Jewish Passover, not after, as the Nicean Council decreed it must. Pascha must follow the Old Passover. It cannot coincide or precede it. Moving Pascha to the Gregorian calendar was a fundamental change, it broke the ancient practice of the Church, whereas Whitby brought all into unity. The Idea of a Celtic Church Church on Farne on the site of St Cuthbert " s cell RTE: Why do you think people are so drawn to this idea of a Celtic church that had a separate, almost otherworldly, existence? Is it because we live in a technological age that we long for a more wholesome and natural way of life? FR. JOHN: I think there is a lot in that, and if you read the Frenchman Ernest Renan and the Englishman Matthew Arnold, they make a radical distinction between the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons – the Celt being nature-loving, mystical, spiritual and the Anglo-Saxon being organized, efficient and technocratic. They even talk about industrialization, but from the standpoint of their own nineteenth-century anti-industrialization movement, which they project back onto these two peoples. What’s even more bizarre, of course, is that St. Cuthbert is always presented as a great representative of the Celtic tradition, but in fact, he was an Englishman, an Anglo-Saxon... RTE: …who was quite in agreement with the Synod of Whitby. FR. JOHN: Yes. And Aidan, on the other hand, who was one of the “real Celts” from Iona, was running around the peninsula organizing: converting kings, baptizing people, setting up churches, like any good “Anglo-Saxon.” |
| Aldershot, 1993; Capitani O . Esiste un «Età Gregoriana?»//Rivista di storia e litteratura religiosa. Firenze, 1965. Vol. 1. P. 454-481; Boelens M . Die Klerikerehe in der Gesetzgebung der Kirche unter Besonderer Ber ü cksichtigung der Strafe. Paderborn, 1968; Cowdrey H . E . J . The Papacy, the Patarenes and the Church of Milan//Transactions of the Royal Hist. Society. L., 1968. Ser. 5. Vol. 18. P. 25-48; idem . Was There a Gregorian Reform Movement?//Study Sessions/Canadian Catholic Hist. Assoc. Ottawa, 1970. Vol. 37. P. 1-10; idem . The Epistolae Vagantes of Pope Gregory VII. Oxf., 1972; idem . Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085. Oxf., 1998; idem . Popes and Church Reform in the 11 th Cent. Aldershot, 2000; Brooke C . N . L . Gregorian Reform in Action: Clerical Marriage in England 1050-1200//Medieval Church and Society. L., 1971. P. 69-99; Denzler G . Das Papsttum und der Amtszölibat. Stuttg., 1973. Bd. 1; Petrucci E . Ecclesiologia e politica di Leone IX. R., 1977; Schmidt T . Alexander II. (1061-1073) und die römische Reformgruppe seiner Zeit. Stuttg., 1977; Milo Y . Dissonance between Papal and Local Reform Interests in Pre-Gregorian Tuscanu//Studi Medievali. Torino; Spoleto, 1979. Ser. 3. Vol. 20. P. 69-86; Blumenthal U . -R . Der Investiturstreit. Stuttg. e. a., 1981; eadem . Gregor VII.: Papst zwischen Canossa und Kirchenreform. Darmstadt, 2001; Fornasari C . Celibato sacerdotale e «autocoscienza» ecclesiale: Per la storia della «Nicolaitica haeresis» nell " Occidente medievale. Udine, 1981; Vrégille B . , de . Hugues de Salins, archévêque de Besançon, 1031 - 1066. Besançon, 1981; Barstow A . L . Married Priests and the Reforming Papacy. N. Y., 1982; Laudage J . Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum im 11. Jh. K ö ln, 1984; idem . Gregorianische Reform und Investiturstreit. Darmstadt, 1993; Stoller M . E . Schism in the Reform Papacy: The Documents and Councils of the Antipopes, 1061-1121: Diss./Univ. of Columbia. S. l., 1985; Cibes-Viad é A . Main Aspects of the Gregorian Reform in Spain: 1022-1085. |
| В пасхалии Эаса, к-рой до сего дня пользуется Армянская Апостольская Церковь , имеется всего 1 отличие от александрийского 19-летнего цикла полнолуний - 6 апр. вместо 5 апр. В итоговом 532-летнем пасхальном цикле это дает расхождения в датах Пасхи с периодичностью 95-95-95-247 лет. Случаи, когда арм. Пасха оказывается на неделю позже «греческой» (александрийской), в арм. традиции именуются «кривыми Пасхами» (цра затик). После 552 г. такими оказались Пасхи в 665, 760, 1007, 1102, 1197, 1292, 1539, 1634, 1729 и 1824 гг. (в последнем случае Армянская Церковь добровольно приняла александрийскую дату); ближайшая «кривая Пасха» будет в 2071 г. Лит.: Duchesne L. La question de la Paque au concile de Nicée//RQH. 1880. T. 28. P. 5-42; Krusch B. Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichen Chronologie. [I]: Der 84-jahrige Ostercyclus und seine Quellen. Lpz., 1880; [II]: Die Entstehung unserer heutige Zeitrechnung. B., 1938; Болотов В. В. Доклад, чит. в 3-м заседании Комиссии 31 мая 1899 г.//Журналы заседаний Комиссии Рус. астрономического об-ва по вопросу о реформе календаря в России. СПб., 1900. Прил. 5. С. 31-49; он же. Александрийская пасхалия: логика и эстетика//Календарный вопрос: Сб. ст./Ред.: А. Чхартишвили. М., 2000. С. 105-144; Schwartz E. Christliche und judische Ostertafeln. B., 1905; Mentz A. Beitr. z. Osterfestberechnung bei der Byzantinern. Königsberg, 1906; Bach J. Die Osterfest-Berechnung in alter und neuer Zeit: Ein Beitr. z. christl. Chronologie. Strassburg, 1907; Schmid J. Die Osterfestberechnung in der abendlandischen Kirche vom I. allgemeinen Konzil zu Nicäa bis zum Ende des VIII. Jh. Freiburg i. Br., 1907; Lohse B. Das Passafest der Quartadecimaner. Gütersloh, 1953. (Beitr. z. Forderung der christl. Theologie; R. 2, 54); Grumel V. La Chronologie. P., 1958; Richard M. La question pascale au IIe siècle//OrSyr. 1961. T. 6. P. 179-212; Nautin P. Lettres et écrivains chrétiens des IIe et IIIe siècles. P., 1961; Mohrmann Ch. Le conflit pascal au IIe siècle: Note philologique//VChr. |
| R., 1979; Dormeier H. Montecassino und die Laien im 11. und 12. Jh. Stuttg., 1979; Loud G. A. Abbot Desiderius of Montecassino and the Gregorian Papacy//JEcclH. 1979. Vol. 30. N 3. P. 305-326; idem. Montecassino and Byzantium in the 10th and 11th Centuries// Idem. Montecassino and Benevento in the Middle Ages: Essays in South Italian Church History. Aldershot, 2000. P. 30-58; idem. The Latin Church in Norman Italy. Camb.; N. Y., 2007; idem. The Age of Robert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest. N. Y., 20132; Le culte et les reliques de saint Benoît et de sainte Scholastique/Éd. A. Beau e. a. Montserrat, 1980; Monastica. Montecassino, 1981-1984. Vol. 1, 3, 4: Scritti raccolti in memoria del XV centenario della nascita di S. Benedetto (480-1980); L " abbazia di Montecassino: Storia, religione, arte/Ed. G. Spinelli. R., 1982; Landry B. La vie au Mont-Cassin à la fin du XIIIe siècle d " après les écrits de l " abbé Bernard Ier//Lettre de Ligugé. 1982. N 215. P. 9-33; San Benedetto e il suo tempo: Atti del VII Congresso intern. del Centro italiano di studi sull " alto medioevo (Norcia-Subiaco-Cassino-Montecassino, 29 sett.- 5 ott. 1980). Spoleto, 1982; Citarella A. O., Willard H. M. The 9th-Cent. Treasure of Monte Cassino in the Context of Political and Economic Developments in South Italy. Montecassino, 1983; Cowdrey H. E. J. The Age of Abbot Desiderius: Montecassino, the Papacy, and the Normans in the 11th and Early 12th Cent. Oxf., 1983; Collett B. Italian Benedictine Scholars and the Reformation: The Congregation of Santa Giustina of Padua. Oxf., 1985; Clark F. The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues. Leiden, 1987. 2 vol.; idem. The «Gregorian» Dialogues and the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism. Leiden; Boston, 2003; Montecassino dalla prima alla seconda distruzione: Momenti e aspetti di storia cassinese (sec. VI-IX)/Ed. F. Avagliano. Montecassino, 1987; Houben H. Malfattori e benefattori, protettori e sfruttatori: I Normanni e Montecassino//Benedictina. 1988. Vol. |
| B., 1976; Pohlmann K.-F. Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Ein Beitr. zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches. Gött., 1978; Bogaert P. M. Le Livre de Jérémie. Leuven, 1981. P. 145-167; Ittmann N. Die Konfessionen Jeremias: Ihre Bedeutung für die Verkündigung des Propheten. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981; Ahuis F. Der klagende Gerichtsprophet: Stud. zur Klage in der Überlfg. von den alttestamentlichen Gerichtspropheten. Stuttg., 1982; Blenkinsopp J. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Phil., 1983; Amsler S. Les Actes des Prophètes. Geneva, 1985; Hayward R. Jewish Traditions in Jerome " s Commentary on Jeremiah and the Targum of Jeremiah//Proc. of the Irish Bibl. Assoc. Phil., 1985. Vol. 9. P. 100-120; Soderlund S. The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis. Sheffield, 1985; Carroll R. Jeremiah: A Comment. Minneapolis; L., 1986; Holladay W. L. Jeremiah 1: A Comment. on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chap. 1-25. Phil., 1986; idem. Jeremiah 2: A Comment. on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chap. 26-52. Minneapolis, 1989; McKane W. A Critical and Exegetical Comment. on Jeremiah. Edinb., 1986-1996. 2 vol.; Rusche H. Zum «jeremianischen» Hintergrund der Korintherbriefe//BiblZschr. 1987. Bd. 31. N 1. S. 116-119; Smith M. S. Jeremiah IX 9: A Divine Lament//VT. 1987. Vol. 37. N 1. P. 97-99; idem. The Laments of Jeremiah and their Contexts. Atlanta, 1990; The Targum of Jeremiah/Transl. R. Hayward. Wilmington, 1987; Clements R. E. Jeremiah. Atlanta, 1988; Diamond A. R. P. Jeremiah " s Confessions in the LXX and MT: A Witness to Developing Canonical Function?//VT. 1990. Vol. 40. N 1. P. 33-50; Craigie P. C., Kelley P. H., Drinkard J. F. Jeremiah 1-25. Dallas (Tex.), 1991; Stipp H.-J. Jeremia im Parteienstreit: Stud. z. Textentwicklung von Jer 26, 36-43 und 45 als Beitr. zur Geschichte Jeremias, seines Buches und judäischer Parteien im 6. Jh. Fr./M., 1992; Vieweger D. Die literarischen Beziehungen zwischen den Büchern Jeremia und Ezechiel. Fr./M., 1993; Dassmann E. Jeremia//RAC. 1994. |
| On January 1/14, Metropolitan Sergius wrote to Archbishop Gregory demanding an explanation for his usurpation of power. Gregory replied on January 9/22, saying that while they recognized the rights of the three locum tenentes, " we know no conciliar decision concerning you, and we do not consider the transfer of administration and power by personal letter to correspond to the spirit and letter of the holy canons. " Sergius wrote again on January 16/29, impeaching Gregory and his fellow bishops, banning them from serving and declaring all their ordinations, appointments, awards, etc., since December 9/22 to be invalid. On the same day, three Gregorian bishops wrote to Metropolitan Peter claiming that they had not known, in their December meeting, that he had transferred his rights to Sergius, and asking him to bless their administration. The free access the Gregorians had to Peter during this period, and the fact that Sergius was at first prevented from coming to Moscow, suggests that the OGPU, while not opposing Sergius, at first favoured the Gregorians as their best hope for dividing the Church. Fearing anarchy in the Church, Metropolitan Peter went part of the way to blessing the Gregorians' undertaking. However, instead of the Gregorian Synod, he created a temporary " college " to administer the Church consisting of Archbishop Gregory, Archbishop Nicholas (Dobronravov) of Vladimir and Archbishop Demetrius (Belikov) of Tomsk, who were well-known for their firmness. This resolution was made during a meeting with the Gregorians in the GPU offices on January 19/February 1. Tuchkov, who was present at the meeting, was silent about the fact that Nicholas was in prison. He agreed to summon Demetrius from Tomsk, and even showed Peter the telegram. But he never sent it. When Peter, feeling something was wrong, asked for the inclusion of Metropolitan Arsenius (Stadnitsky) in the college of bishops, Tuchkov again agreed and promised to sign Peter's telegram to him. Again, the telegram was not sent. |
| Changes in the organizational structure of the Greek Church were met with additional moves that had significant impact on the faithful. In 1919 the government of Venizelos adopted the use of the Gregorian calendar (New Calendar) for civil purposes. Within the Orthodox world, discussions regarding the replacement of the Julian calendar, which lagged 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar used by Western Christians, had been going on since 1902. In April 1923 the Church of Greece, following the lead of the ecumenical patriarchate, accepted the New Calendar and, one year later, on March 10, 1924, the Church of Greece’s ecclesiastical calendar was suddenly advanced to become March 23. The calendar change met with some resistance, and unfortunately the state resorted to the use of force to ensure the adoption of the new calendar among some communities. In 1935 three Greek metropolitans came together and ordained new metropolitans for the Old Calendarist movement in Greece, giving the movement an identifiable hierarchy. The movement has since fragmented, though it still claims the loyalty of many. WORLD WAR II, CIVIL WAR, AND DICTATORSHIP World War II and the Greek Civil War (1943–9) unleashed a period of personal and national suffering unmatched in the history of the Greek nation. With the Axis occupation of Greece complete by April 1941, the archbishop of Athens, Chrysanthos, refused to participate in the swearing in of a provisional government under German control and was replaced by the hierarch Damaskinos. Although not liked by all (Churchill once called him “a pestilent priest, a remnant from the Middle Ages”) Damaskinos worked hard to alleviate the incomparable suffering of the Greek people. He created the National Organization of Christian Solidarity to provide social welfare to his needy faithful, many of whom were dying of starvation. He protected Jewish families in Athens from the Nazis. He became the most visible of Greek citizens as he interacted with the various Greek political factions, the occupying forces, and the British. |
|
|
