A. A. Chumichev
This article is devoted to an insufficiently-studied page in
the history of interconfessional relations in the second half of the nineteenth
century: the project for the revival of Western Orthodoxy proposed by the
German theologian living in England, J. J. Overbeck. Overbeck may rightly be
regarded as a very enigmatic and undeservedly forgotten figure. At different
times this theologian was a representative of three Christian confessions at
once: Catholicism, Protestantism, and then Orthodoxy. Overbeck’s project is a
unique phenomenon in the history of universal Orthodoxy, since it was he who
first advanced the idea of using the Western rite within the Orthodox Church,
in which for many centuries after the Great Schism only the Eastern rite had
been practiced. In the 1870s, the plan put forward by Overbeck aroused
unprecedented interest, and then support, on the part of the Holy Synod of the
Russian Church. One of the chief questions on which a special Synodal
commission worked was the discussion of the order of service he had compiled
for the Orthodox Mass (Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis).
This article touches upon the liturgical aspect of Overbeck’s project, examines
the work of the commission of the Holy Synod on the text of the liturgy of the
Western Orthodox Church, and also on certain other liturgical traditions that
were intended for use in communities of Western-Rite Orthodoxy.
The project for establishing in
England, and then throughout Europe, Orthodox communities practicing the
Western liturgical rite for Anglicans and Catholics who had decided to convert
to Orthodoxy was first officially presented to the Holy Synod of the Russian
Church in January 1870. The author and chief inspiration behind this idea,
which was without exaggeration revolutionary for the Orthodox Church, was the
German scholar and theologian J. J. Overbeck. The uniqueness of the plan
proposed by Overbeck consisted in the fact that it touched upon the problem of
the universality of Orthodox doctrine. For Overbeck and his supporters, the
chief idea was the preservation of the Western rite as the fruit of the activity
of the saints of the ancient Western Church, reflecting the mentality of the
peoples of Western Europe.
Julius Joseph Overbeck
(1821–1905) was a Catholic priest and doctor of theology and philosophy who, on
the eve of the First Vatican Council, protesting against centralization within
the Catholic Church and the introduction of new dogmas, converted to Protestantism
[1] and married. [2]
Scholarly interests compelled
Overbeck to move with his family to Great Britain, where, in the 1860s, a
number of his works on the history of the Ancient Church and the Syriac Holy
Fathers were published in Oxford. According to the theologian’s own recollections,
it was precisely the study of history that led him and his like-minded
associates to the realization of the truth of Orthodoxy and of the authenticity
of Orthodox doctrine as the doctrine of the Ancient Church, in contrast to
other Christian confessions which, in their opinion, had lost this authenticity
over the course of time. [3] Overbeck and his supporters decided to join
Orthodoxy, but at the same time, to obtain from the Orthodox side permission to
preserve the Western liturgical rite, which, in their opinion, would mean the
revival of Western Orthodoxy as it had existed before the Great Schism.
Overbeck’s supporters saw the realization of their ideas in rapprochement with
the Russian Church.
In the 1860s, in London, the
theologian became acquainted with the rector of the Dormition Church attached
to the Russian Imperial Embassy, Archpriest Eugene Popov. In 1869, Overbeck was
received by him into Orthodoxy through the sacrament of Chrismation. After his
conversion to Orthodoxy, the theologian and his supporters sent to the Holy
Synod of the Russian Church a petition requesting recognition of the
possibility of celebrating the Western rite with the correction of the dogmatic
errors of the Western Church. Initially the petition was signed by 106 people; [4]
subsequently their number increased to 144. [5]
At the beginning of its
existence, Overbeck’s project developed very rapidly and dynamically. The Synod
took an interest in the theologian’s ideas. Overbeck was invited to work out
his plan in detail and to come to St. Petersburg for its discussion. Archpriest
Eugene Popov was instructed to accompany him personally on the journey to
Russia. In order to examine the petition proposed by Overbeck, a special
Synodal commission was formed in St. Petersburg, consisting of hierarchs and
professors of the Saint Petersburg Theological Academy. The commission was
headed by Isidore, Metropolitan of Saint Petersburg.
Let us try to trace the course of
the commission’s work on the liturgical traditions that were intended for use
in Orthodox communities of the Western rite, and also to answer the question of
what the Holy Synod’s attitude toward the project was, and whether the members
of the Synodal commission considered the realization of this idea possible. The
most important topic for discussion by the commission of the Holy Synod was the
project for an Orthodox liturgy of the Western rite—an Orthodox Mass—the
celebration of which, according to Overbeck’s conception, was to become the
central event in the realization of the project of Western Orthodoxy. Work on
the text of the Orthodox Mass (Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae
Occidentalis) was apparently begun by Overbeck immediately after his
reception into Orthodoxy, still in 1869. However, during the theologian’s visit
to Russia at the turn of 1869–1870, besides the text of the Mass itself, other
important questions were also considered concerning the status and future
liturgical practice of the communities of Western Orthodoxy. Let us dwell on
this in more detail.
Liturgical Customs
Intended for Use in Communities of the Orthodox Church of the Western Rite
Before his journey to St. Petersburg,
Overbeck worked out the basic provisions of the Western-Rite Orthodox community
he was establishing: concerning the canonical affiliation of the communities of
Western Orthodoxy, the architecture and arrangement of churches, the place of
the priest and the community during divine services, and also various
liturgical traditions. All these questions were brought by him before the
commission for discussion, and many proposals underwent substantial changes in
the course of its work.
From the materials of the
commission, however, it follows that its members approved in principle
Overbeck’s idea concerning the possibility of the existence of different ritual
forms that did not contradict Orthodox doctrine:
“Since Dr.
Overbeck, in formulating his task, proceeded from a principle accepted by the
Orthodox Church—to allow diversity in rites with unity of faith—the commission
recognized his formulation of the task as correct, his motive as worthy of
respect, his considerations as well-founded, and the rules adopted by him as
guidance for the proper resolution of his task as sufficient.” [6]
The chief idea of the theologian
and his supporters was not to attempt to reconstruct the Western rite in the
form in which it had existed before the period of the Great Schism, but to
adapt the contemporary rite of that time, cleansing it of the dogmatic
distortions of the Catholic Church. [7]
The first question considered by
the Synodal commission was the question of the canonical affiliation of the
communities of Western Orthodoxy. This question had been discussed even before
Overbeck’s arrival in Russia. According to the theologian’s proposal, the
communities were initially to be subject to the Holy Synod of the Russian
Church; subsequently, however, with the appearance of their own episcopate,
they were to become independent national local Churches “in union of faith with
the Eastern Patriarchs.” [8] This idea was approved by the commission with the
following formulation:
“This close
union of the newly created Western Orthodox-Catholic Church with the Eastern
Church serves, not only at the present time but also in the future, as the
surest and firmest guarantee of strict ecclesiastical unity and purity of faith
for the newly created Orthodox Church in the West.” [9]
Church
Architecture and Liturgical Vessels
The next group of questions
considered by the commission was connected with the architecture of
Western-rite churches. Disputes were provoked by the theologian’s ideas that
the Orthodox church, in its arrangement, had preserved a greater similarity to
the arrangement of the Old Testament temple, whereas Catholic churches had
departed from this arrangement. Thus, the rectangular form had allegedly been
replaced by the form of a cross only in the West. The commission pointed out to
Overbeck that the form of the cross in the foundation of a church had first
been used precisely in the Eastern Church, and not in the Western, where the
form of a ship had originally been practiced. Thus, the question of church
architecture was resolved in favor of preserving the existing Western
architectural forms, which did not contradict the Eastern tradition.
However, the use of statues in
church architecture, at Overbeck’s proposal, was prohibited; statues were to be
replaced by icons. [10] The use of organ music during divine services was
permitted by the commission:
“Taking into
account, on the one hand, the centuries-old custom, and on the other, the
indifference, from the dogmatic point of view, of the use or non-use of music
during divine services, it considers it permissible to allow the use of organs
during divine services in the future Orthodox churches of the West.” [11]
At the same time, certain
restrictions were also adopted regarding the use of the organ, establishing
distinctions between the new Western community and the practice of the Catholic
Church. Thus, playing the organ could not be combined with the singing of the
choir or with the exclamations of the priest and deacon; their singing likewise
was not to be accompanied by organ playing. Accompaniment by organ music was
permitted during the singing of the laity, in order to support the orderliness
and harmony of their singing. All works of organ music that had a secular
character were excluded by the commission’s decision.
The commission agreed with
Overbeck’s proposal to abolish the Catholic practice of celebrating the liturgy
simultaneously on several altars in one and the same church. The corporal,
Latin corporale, which in the Western Church served as a certain
analogue of the antimins, was proposed to be replaced by a true antimins.
In addition, the commission pointed out the necessity of placing relics in the
altar. Overbeck doubted the antiquity of this custom, regarding it as a later
Western tradition, but he agreed with the commission’s arguments.
Overbeck’s proposal concerning
the celebration of the Mass facing the people, so that the altar would stand
between the parishioners and the priest, was perceived by the commission as an
“innovation,” inconvenient in practice and contrary to Overbeck’s own thesis:
“...not, without
extreme necessity, to trouble the popular feeling by departures from forms and
rites to which the people had become accustomed, and which were not justified
by any weighty reasons.” [12]
The laity were to be communicated
of the Body and Blood of Christ under both kinds. In connection with this, the
sacred vessels were to include: the chalice, diskos, spoon, and spear.
The Eucharist was to be celebrated only on leavened bread. [13]
Liturgical
Vestments
The vestments for the Orthodox
Churches of the Western rite, according to Overbeck’s proposal, also had to
undergo certain changes. The vestments were to become longer and to resemble
ancient models. In all, five liturgical colors were established, and the times
for wearing them were regulated: white was to be worn during feasts of the Lord
and of the Theotokos, of the heavenly powers, holy virgins, and
confessors; red during the celebration of Pentecost and in commemoration of
martyrs; green on the Sunday after Theophany and Pentecost and on the weekdays
of those weeks; violet was to be worn on the Sundays of Great Lent and on the
days of the fast before the Nativity of Christ. [14]
Another proposal of Overbeck’s
was to permit the wearing of the riassa, as in the Eastern Church, over
the talar, Latin tunica talaris—the Latin analogue of the cassock. The
commission approved these proposals. [15]
On the Types of
Liturgies
Overbeck’s idea of abolishing the
Catholic practice of classifying liturgies as “solemn,” “low,” and “private”
was approved. In connection with this, many rites which Catholic liturgical
practice of that time prescribed to be performed only during the celebration of
the so-called solemn Mass were, by decision of the commission, recommended for
use during the celebration of any liturgy. It was permitted only “to allow, on
non-feast days, a more expedited celebration of the liturgy without singing,
with clear and distinct pronunciation.” [16]
Discussion of the
Project for the Order of Service of the Orthodox Mass
First of all, it must be noted
that for Overbeck the most important aspect of the work of revising the text of
the Roman Missal for the composition of the order of service of the Western
Orthodox liturgy was practical, not theoretical. Since, because of the
centralization of the Roman Church, all other liturgical practices had
gradually been removed from use, he proposed taking as the basis for revision
the contemporary text of the Roman, or Tridentine, Mass and removing from it
those passages that contradicted Orthodox doctrine.
In the theologian’s opinion, the
use of the Tridentine Mass was necessary because for many years it had been
celebrated everywhere and was comprehensible to Western Christians. The
Tridentine Mass was a continuation of the ancient Roman Missal, which had taken
shape in the first centuries of Christianity’s existence. It became dominant
among Roman Christians only at the end of the fourth century. For a long time,
it remained only the liturgical practice of Rome and its immediate environs.
The only exception was England, where the first missionaries arrived from Rome.
However, with the rise of Charlemagne’s empire, the Roman liturgical tradition
began to spread in Europe, displacing other liturgical practices.
Let us recall that Overbeck’s
chief thesis in his work on the text of the Mass was not to carry out a
reconstruction, but to use the contemporary text of the Mass. In his appeal to
the Synod, he wrote:
“We strive to
cleanse the Western liturgy of every trace of teaching contrary to Orthodoxy,
and we have no need to enter into questions of purely archaeological
antiquity.” [17]
However, in the initial version
of the Mass that was presented to the Synod, it is evident that some
“archaeological” work had nevertheless been carried out by him. Thus, for
example, the Roman epiclesis was replaced by the more ancient epiclesis
of the Mozarabic rite, which was practiced on the territory of modern Spain
in the era preceding the Great Schism. More will be said about this below.
According to Overbeck, the Mass
was to be celebrated not in Latin, but in the national languages. [18] However,
in the materials of the Synodal commission there are no references concerning
this question; the commission examined the Latin text.
Let us now turn to the
corrections that were introduced by the Synodal commission into the order of
service of the Roman Mass. These amendments may be divided into three groups:
1) those aimed at eliminating dogmatic positions that contradicted Orthodox doctrine;
2) those aimed at correcting inaccuracies of translation; 3) those aimed at
eliminating certain rites that the commission recognized as inappropriate.
Let us consider these amendments
in the order of the service.
In the Liturgy of the
Catechumens, in the “prayers at the foot of the altar,” the following change
was introduced: in the second part of the secret prayer pronounced by the
priest: Oramus te, Domine, per merita Sanctorum tuorum, quorum reliquiae hic
sunt, et omnium Sanctorum: ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea. Amen
(“We pray Thee, O Lord, by the merits of Thy saints, whose relics are here, and
of all the saints, that Thou wouldst deign to forgive all my sins. Amen”), the
form of the prayer per merita Sanctorum tuorum (“by the merits of Thy
saints”) was replaced by the commission with per preces Sanctorum tuorum
(“through the prayers of Thy saints”), in order to exclude any mention of the
Latin teaching on supererogatory merits and indulgences. Also approved was the
change introduced by Overbeck into the text of the Great Doxology (Gloria in
excelsis): the Greek ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία (“good will among men”),
rendered in the traditional Latin version as hominibus bonae voluntatis
(“to men of good will”), was replaced with hominibus beneplacitum (“good
will to men”). This version of the translation was recognized by the commission
as more exact and recommended for use. [19]
The next point was the use of the
Trisagion in the order of the Mass. According to Overbeck’s conception,
this prayer was to testify to unity with the Eastern Orthodox Church. He placed
the prayer “Holy God” after the reading of the Apostle. The commission approved
the idea of using this prayer, but proposed that it be used immediately before
the reading of the Apostle, since this was practiced in the Orthodox Church. According
to the theologian’s idea, this prayer was to be sung twice in Greek and the
third time in the national language. The practice of the deacon blessing the
people (Dominus vobiscum), which the theologian had retained in
composing the Mass, was annulled, since, in the commission’s opinion, this
blessing could be performed only by a priest.
Also abolished was the sign of
the cross made in Latin practice over the text of the Gospel before its
reading, “as not being in keeping with the character of the book.” [20]
From the text of the Creed (Credo),
the words Deum de Deo were excluded as a pleonasm alongside the words Deum
verum de Deo vero. The commission noted that these words were likewise
absent from the Greek text of the Creed in use at that time.
In the Canon of the Mass (Canon
Missae), in the commission’s opinion, there occurred an excessive
repetition of the sign of the cross not only over the unconsecrated Holy Gifts,
but also over the consecrated Holy Gifts. “Finding such repetition over the
unconsecrated Gifts superfluous, and over the consecrated Gifts inappropriate,”
[21] the commission proposed that Overbeck retain the making of the sign of the
cross only during the consecration itself of the Holy Gifts. In addition, the
commission succeeded in convincing Overbeck to accept the form of making the
sign of the cross practiced in the Eastern Church, as the more ancient one.
To the prayer Te igitur
Clementissime Pater per Iesum Christum Filium Tuum (“Most merciful Father,
through Jesus Christ, Thy Son”), the words una cum famulis Tuis patriarchis
et Synudis orthodoxis (“together with Thy servants, the Orthodox Patriarchs
and Synods”) were added before the words Antistite nostro NN (“and our
Hierarch N.”), “as a sign of union with all the Orthodox Churches.” [22]
In the same prayer were included
commemorations of the authorities of the country in which the liturgy is
celebrated: after the words Memento, Domine (“Remember, O Lord”), the
words Regis (Reginae) nostri, gubernii nostrii (“Remember, O Lord, our
king/queen, our government”) were added, with the commission’s formulation: “in
accordance with the rule of the Orthodox Church—to pray for the authorities
that be.” [23]
The prayer of invocation of the
Holy Spirit was borrowed by Overbeck from the Mozarabic liturgy. The epiclesis
taken from the Mozarabic rite was, apparently, the most successful choice
for Overbeck: on the one hand, it recalled the time when the Western rite
existed merely as the fruit of the Western mentality within the common Orthodox
Church; on the other hand, it recalled the time when other rites besides the
Roman also existed in the Western Church. However, this prayer was found by the
commission to be “not clearly expressing the meaning of the action being
performed, and moreover lacking the sacred-actional formula of the Eucharistic
change of the Holy Gifts.” [24] By agreement with Overbeck, it was replaced
with the form of invocation and blessing used in the Orthodox Church in the epiclesis
of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It was inserted, by analogy with the
place it occupies in the Orthodox liturgy, as a continuation of the prayer of
the Roman rite: Unde et memores, Domine, nos servi tui, sed et plebs tua
sancta (“Wherefore also we, O Lord, Thy servants, and Thy holy people”).
The Latin translation of the epiclesis
of St. John Chrysostom was made by Overbeck himself:
S. Suplices
Te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: mitte Spiritum Sanctum Tuum super nos et super
haec Tua dona oblata: et fac panem huni pretesiosum corpus Christi Tui (Signans
super panem) P. Amen.
“Priest: We
humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God: send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon
these Gifts here offered, and make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ (pointing
to the bread). People: Amen.”
S. (Signans
super calium) Et quod in hoc Calice est pretiosum sanguinem Christi Tui. P.
Amen.
“Priest (pointing
to the chalice): And that which is in this Chalice, the precious Blood of Thy
Christ. People: Amen.)”
S.
(benedicens utrumqe donum sanctum) Transubstantiando per Spiritum Sanctum Tuum.
P. Amen, Amen, Amen.
“Priest (then,
blessing the Holy Gifts together): Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit. People:
Amen, Amen, Amen.”
A part of the prayer Unde et
memores (“Wherefore also we”), namely: donis ac datis, hostiam puram,
hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, Panem sanctum vitae aeternae, et calicem
salutis perpetuae (“we offer unto Thy most glorious Majesty, from Thy good
things and gifts, a pure sacrifice, a holy sacrifice, an immaculate sacrifice,
the holy bread of eternal life, and the chalice of everlasting salvation”), was
removed by the commission without explanation of the reasons.
In addition, in the commission’s
opinion, kneeling, adoration, and the elevation of the Gifts after the
so-called words of institution were to be removed, “since the Eastern Church
holds that the consecration of the Holy Gifts takes place only in the invocation
of the Holy Spirit.” [25]
The Synod approved this project,
declaring its readiness to support Overbeck’s plan with all its authority and
to assist him in every way. Subsequently, in 1871, the text of the Mass was
published in the journal issued by Overbeck, Orthodox Catholic Review.
Having received initial approval from the Holy Synod, Overbeck and his
supporters began work on translating liturgical books, orders of service, and
prayers into English, among which were: the Octoechos, [26] the Hours,
[27] akathists to the Savior [28] and to the Mother of God, [29] the Canon
before Communion, the prayers of thanksgiving after Holy Communion, [30] the
Great Penitential Canon of Andrew of Crete, [31] the Penitential Canon to our
Lord Jesus Christ, [32] the Order of Services for Great Friday [33] and Great
Saturday, [34] the service to the Holy Great Martyr Alban, Protomartyr of
Britain, [35] and a number of other prayers.
Before many of the translations
there was placed information about the existing practice of using the
particular order of service being translated in the liturgical tradition of the
Orthodox Church. Thus, before the Great Penitential Canon of St. Andrew of
Crete, the life of this saint was published, the liturgical works composed by
him were described, and an account was also given of the practice of the
Orthodox Church in using this canon during Great Lent.
The purpose of the translations
was to prepare liturgical texts for use in the Western Orthodox Church being
created, and also to bring this Church closer to the spiritual tradition of the
East by adapting it to local practice. [36]
Summing up everything said above,
one may conclude that, in its work on adapting the liturgical practice of the
Roman Church for use in the communities of Western-Rite Orthodoxy, the Synodal
commission affirmed, as its chief principle, the principle proposed by
Overbeck: the preservation, where this did not contradict Orthodox doctrine, of
the practices of the Roman Church that existed at that time. In the most
significant questions, however, such as, for example, the arrangement of the
altar, it was decided to bring the Western tradition as close as possible to
the Eastern. In composing the text of the Orthodox Mass, Overbeck adhered to
two principles: 1) maximum closeness of the source text to the Western
mentality, which is precisely why the text of the Tridentine Mass was taken as
the basis; 2) correction of this text from dogmatic inaccuracies that reflected
Catholic doctrine. In this connection, the order of service of the Mass, after
the joint work of Overbeck and the commission, represented a synthesis of the
liturgical practice of the Catholic Church and the theological-liturgical
principles of the Orthodox Church. The changes introduced by Dr. Overbeck and
the Synodal commission into the initial text of the Roman Missal affected
practically all its parts; the greatest changes, however, concerned the anaphora,
which, through the inclusion in it of the epiclesis of St. John Chrysostom, was
brought as close as possible to the tradition of the Eastern Church.
The support given to Overbeck’s
project by the Synod of the Russian Church gave impetus to the further
development of the idea of the revival of Western Orthodoxy. The theologian’s
supporters carried out extensive work on the translation of liturgical texts
intended for use in Western-rite communities.
Thanks to archival data, one may
conclude that, at the time when the plan presented by Overbeck was being
examined, the members of the commission of the Holy Synod were convinced that
the project of Western Orthodoxy could be implemented and that the idea of
using the Western rite in the Orthodox Church was possible. In this connection,
the reasons why the project was not realized remain a mystery and require
special study.
NOTES
1. Huber P. Jenseits von Ost und West. Berlin, 2006,
p. 35.
2. Kahle W. Westliche Orthodoxie: Leben und Ziele Julian
Joseph Overbecks. Cologne, 1968, p. 16.
3. Abramtsov D. Dr. J. J. Overbeck and His Scheme for the
Re-establishment of the Orthodox Church in the West. A.B., University of
Pittsburgh, 1959, p. 4.
4. Kopylova E. A. “The Overbeck Case” in the Life of the
Saint Petersburg Department of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment
// Bulletin of V. N. Tatishchev Volga University. Series “Humanities and
Education.” Issue 4 (14), vol. II. Tolyatti, 2013, p. 172.
5. RGIA. Fond 796. Inventory 150. File 638. On the
Establishment of a Special Commission for the Examination of Petitions Received
from Persons of the Anglican Church. Fol. 132.
6. RGIA. Fond 797. Inventory 205. File 396. Journals of
the Commission attached to the Synod for the Examination of Dr. Overbeck’s
Proposal concerning the Creation of an Orthodox English Church. Fol. 27.
7. Kahle W. Westliche Orthodoxie: Leben und Ziele Julian
Joseph Overbecks. Cologne, 1968, p. 63.
8. RGIA. Fond 797. Inventory 205. File 396. Journals of
the Commission attached to the Synod for the Examination of Dr. Overbeck’s
Proposal concerning the Creation of an Orthodox English Church. Fol. 23.
9. Ibid.
10. Overbeck J. J. “The Indisputable Advantages of the
Orthodox Catholic Church over Other Christian Confessions” // Christian
Reading. 1883. Nos. 3–4, p. 418.
11. RGIA. Fond 797. Inventory 205. File 396. Journals of
the Commission attached to the Synod for the Examination of Dr. Overbeck’s
Proposal concerning the Creation of an Orthodox English Church. Fol. 27.
12. Ibid., fol. 27 verso.
13. Overbeck J. J. “The Orthodox Catholic Church. A Protest
against the Papal Church and a Return to the Foundation of Catholic National
Churches,” by J. J. Overbeck, Doctor of Theology and Philosophy // Christian
Reading. 1868. No. 12, p. 822.
14. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond
172. Box 467. Archival unit 2. Overbeck J. J. Liturgia Missae
Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis. Lithograph with marginal notes by
Arseny, Metropolitan of Kiev. Fol. 68.
15. RGIA. Fond 797. Inventory 205. File 396. Journals of
the Commission attached to the Synod for the Examination of Dr. Overbeck’s
Proposal concerning the Creation of an Orthodox English Church. Fol. 27
verso.
16. Ibid., fol. 27.
17. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond
172. Box 467. Archival unit 2. Overbeck J. J. Liturgia Missae
Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis. Lithograph with marginal notes by
Arseny, Metropolitan of Kiev. Fol. 32.
18. Overbeck J. J. “The Providential Position of Orthodox
Russia and Her Calling to Restore the Orthodox Western Catholic Church” // Christian
Reading. 1870. No. 1, p. 173.
19. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond
172. Box 467. Archival unit 2. Overbeck J. J. Liturgia Missae
Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis. Lithograph with marginal notes by
Arseny, Metropolitan of Kiev. Fol. 33 verso.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., fol. 34 verso.
23. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond
172. Box 467. Archival unit 2. Overbeck J. J. Liturgia Missae
Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis. Lithograph with marginal notes by
Arseny, Metropolitan of Kiev. Fol. 34.
24. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond
172. Box 467. Archival unit 2, fol. 34.
25. Ibid., fol. 34 verso.
26. Shann G. V. The First Tone of the Octoёchos // The
Orthodox Catholic Review (далее —OCR.) / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1877. Vol. VI.
P. 109-144.
27. Shann G. V. Divine and Sacred Horology // OCR / J.
J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1879. Vol. VIII. P. 162–191.
28. Shann G. V. The Suppliant Canon to our Lord Jesus
Christ // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1876. Vol. V. P. 102–117.
29. Shann G. V. The Offi ce of the Acathistos Hymn to
the Mother of God // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1875. Vol. IV. P. 117.
30. Shann G. V. Offi ce of the divine Metalepsis, or
devotions for the Holy Communion // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1876. Vol.
IV. P. 192–216.
31. The Great canon of S. Andrew of Creete, surnamed the
Jerusalemite (translated by L.K.L) // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1875. Vol.
IV. P. 35–50.
32. Shann G. V. The Suppliant Canon to our Lord Jesus
Christ // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1877. Vol. V. P. 95.
33. Shann G. V. Four-and-twenty Stanzas to the Holy
Cross // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1878. Vol. V. P. 102–117.
34. Shann G. V. The Order of the office for the Holy
and Great Sunday of Easter / Translated from the Slavonic by the late Rev.
Basil Popoff, and revised by G.V. Shann // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1878.
Vol. III. P. 97–119.
35. Office of the Holly Great Martyr Alban, Protomartyr of
Britain of Britain. Modelled on ancient pattern by J. T. S., M. D. // OCR / J.
J. Overbeck, ed. L.,1876. Vol. III. P. 83–95.
36. Overbeck J. J. The Western Orthodox Catholic
Church // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. L., 1871. Vol. III. P. 49.
Sources
Overbeck J. J. “The Indisputable Advantages of the Orthodox
Catholic Church over Other Christian Confessions” // Christian Reading.
1883. Nos. 3–4.
Overbeck J. J. “The Orthodox Catholic Church. A Protest
against the Papal Church and a Return to the Foundation of Catholic National
Churches,” by J. J. Overbeck, Doctor of Theology and Philosophy // Christian
Reading. 1868. No. 12.
Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library. Fond 172.
Box 467. Archival unit 2. Overbeck J. J. Liturgia Missae
Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis. Lithograph with marginal notes by
Arseny, Metropolitan of Kiev.
RGIA. Fond 796. Inventory 150. File 638. On the
Establishment of a Special Commission for the Examination of Petitions Received
from Persons of the Anglican Church.
RGIA. Fond 797. Inventory 205. File 396. Journals of the
Commission attached to the Synod for the Examination of Dr. Overbeck’s Proposal
concerning the Creation of an Orthodox English Church.
Office of the Holy Great Martyr Alban, Protomartyr of Britain. Modelled on ancient pattern by J.
T. S., M.D. // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1876. Vol. III, pp.
83–95.
Shann G. V. “Four-and-Twenty Stanzas to the Holy Cross” // OCR
/ J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1878. Vol. V, pp. 102–117.
Shann G. V. “The Order of the Office for the Holy and Great
Sunday of Easter.” Translated from the Slavonic by the late Rev. Basil Popoff,
and revised by G. V. Shann // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1878.
Vol. III, pp. 97–119.
Shann G. V. “The Suppliant Canon to Our Lord Jesus Christ” //
OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1877. Vol. V, pp. 95–102.
Shann G. V. “Divine and Sacred Horology” // OCR / J.
J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1879. Vol. VIII, pp. 162–191.
Shann G. V. “Office of the Divine Metalepsis, or Devotions
for Holy Communion” // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1876. Vol. IV,
pp. 192–216.
Shann G. V. “The First Tone of the Octoechos” // The
Orthodox Catholic Review (OCR) / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1877.
Vol. VI, pp. 109–144.
Shann G. V. “The Suppliant Canon to Our Lord Jesus Christ” //
OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed. London, 1876. Vol. V, pp. 102–117.
“The Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, Surnamed the
Jerusalemite,” translated by L. K. L. // OCR / J. J. Overbeck, ed.
London, 1875. Vol. IV, pp. 35–50.
Bibliography
Kopylova E. A. “The Overbeck Case” in the Life of the Saint
Petersburg Department of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment // Bulletin
of V. N. Tatishchev Volga University. Series “Humanities and Education.”
Issue 4 (14), vol. II. Tolyatti, 2013, pp. 167–178.
Abramtcev D. Dr. J. J. Overbeck and His Scheme for the
Re-establishment of the Orthodox Church in the West. University of
Pittsburgh, 1959.
Huber P. Jenseits von Ost und West. Berlin, 2006.
Kahle W. Westliche Orthodoxie: Leben und Ziele Julian
Joseph Overbecks. Cologne, 1968.
Russian source: St. Tikhon’s University Review, Series II:
History. Russian Church History. 2017, Vol. 78., pp. 83–94.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.