First and Second Corporals

What we mean by the “First” and “Second” Corporals can be easily explained in this picture. The First Corporal is the cloth upon which the Chalice and Paten sit; the Second Corporal [sometimes called the “Sindon Veil”] is that which cover over them. Sometimes in the much later period [ 16^th and 17^th centuries], the Second Corporal in parts of Europe became a stiff board with a cloth cover [often referred to as a ‘pall’]. The rubrics one sees in later books about the Deacon lifting up the pall off a Chalice, etc., corresponds to the older rubrics in older books about the Deacon uncovering the Chalice [for example, the Second Corporal / Pall is removed at the very end of the Canon of the Mass by the Deacon, in order for the “Per Ipsum”].

However, in the way that the 7^th century Ordo Romanus Primus envisions things, the First and Second Corporal are not separate objects, but, rather, one large piece of cloth, upon which the Chalice and Paten set, and which also is large enough to fold over the Gifts.

Patarene Persecution of Ambrosian Rite

The late 11^th Century Milanese historian, Arnulf, speaks of the terrors and blasphemies unleased by the Patarenes in Milan. The Patarenes were led by a man named Erlembald, who is recognized as a “saint” in the Vatican today. After having taken control of the city, and seeking to enforce the Hildebrandian Reforms, Erlembald, who despised the Ambrosian Rite and married clergy, began to embark on additional blasphemies in service to Hildebrand in Rome:

“In Milan, Erlembald was favoring him with all his might, laboring day and night with gifts given as well as promised. In the meantime, he persecuted every assembly of [Archbishop] Godfried with fire and the sword, leaving nothing untried insofar as he was able, especially since he would in no way give way to royal power or to the will of his peers and many others, content and confident in his fidelity to Rome alone. For this reason, he also burst forth in order to blaspheme the bishops of the Ambrosian Consecration, asserting that they had been excommunicated by the Pope, and reproved each of their Offices. Whence it happened that on the Holy Saturday of Pentecost [i.e. Vigil of Pentecost] he forbade Baptism to occur within the city.

“Later, the Sacred Chrism, which one of these Bishops sent to the Metropolitan Church for the Mystery of the Lord’s Supper (as was customary when the Bishop was away), was poured out onto the ground and in front of all the people Erlembald trampled it in his shoes, producing his own in the midst of the crowd, though from what his Chrism was made or whence it came was not known. And so since the prerogative of that authentic Saturday passed down by the Fathers had been postponed, Erlembald had his own baptism celebrated on the sixth day at dawn, although Scripture forbids the boundaries which the Fathers have set to be transgressed. As a result, it happened that the Easter joy did not know its bath and many catechumens lacked the grace of baptism for a long time after. A great number of the people were involved in this error, in part because of their simple eyes, in part because they were seduced by money, and partially because of the impunity with which the wicked deed had been achieved. For from the very beginning whoever was wicked attached himself to Erlembald’s company, whoever dear and innocent stayed away from him. Therefore, the number and strength of the Paterini in the country districts, towns, and in certain cities of the Duke himself increased to such an extent that they seemed to be the lords of all their fellow citizens.”

[Book IV, Chapter 6, Arnulf of Milan’s “Book of Recent Deeds”]

After rampaging through the country side, killing and maiming, even having the Patarenes kill the Archbishop of Milan who opposed them, Erlembald, like his fellow Patarene, Ariald, was killed in fighting. Thus, the Vatican later recognize them as “martyrs” and “saints”, in the same spirit as they recognized Josaphat Kuntsevych, i.e., as a murderer masquerading as a “martyr”.

The Church of Liege makes a last stand against the Hildebrandians before being conquered:

 

“We hold to our Bishop, Archbishop, Provincial and Regional Synods from Ancient Tradition; and whatever has been defined there from the holy writings, is not referred to Rome unless it regards more serious affairs concerning which an authority is not found in the holy writings. But we reject in every way those legates heading out from the side of the Bishop of Rome and rushing here and there filling their pockets, just as the African Councils in the times of Zosimus, Celestine, and Boniface have shown. For – that we may recognize them from their fruits – not the correction of morals, nor the emendation of life, but rather the killing of men and the depredation of churches are the result of their actions. Therefore, because we cling to the Ancient Rule and are not carried away by every doctrinal breeze, behold, this is why we are called ‘excommunicates’.”

 [1103 AD, Letter of the Church of Liege against Paschal II]

St. Aethelwold's Prayer

 

The “Chronicle of Abingdon” preserves some old material, most notably, a Prayer composed by St. Aethelwold of Winchester [+984], for the protection fo Abingdom Abbey, before going to Winchester in 963. It is as follows:

“O Eternal God, before Whose Sight the Angels are present, and through Whose Command all things are governed, do Thou protect, O Lord, I beseech Thee, this place which was built in Thy Name and of Blessed Mary, and through the Virtue of Thy Name may the force of enemies nad the shadow of phantoms and the assaults of winds, the bolt of lighting, the damaging clap of thunder, the disaster of tempests and every blast of storms – may these all pass us by. Moreover, O Lord, I beseech Thee that fire not consume this house, nor a spiteful man destroy it through arrogance; but, rather, O Merciful God, protect and govern it; and may it grow fat in the manifold abundance of its fruits, so that all those dwelling in it may hymn Thee in voice and heart, and may magnify Thy Name in sweet harmony; and may Thy Blessing descend upon them and upon this place and remain there forever. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the Unity of the Holy Ghost, God, through all the ages of ages. Amen.”

How St. Germanus of Paris Miraculously Survived

 “Blessed Germanus, Bishop of Paris, a native of the territory of Autun, was born of well bred and respected parents, his father Eleutherius and also his mother Eusebia. Since she had conceived him in her womb within a short space of time after another [child], his mother, moved by womanly shame, wanted to kill the infant before birth; and since she did not harm him after taking a potion to throw out an abortion, she would lie on her belly to suffocate by her weight he whom she could not harm by poison. Mother was in battle with child, but the infant was resisting from the womb; there was a fight between woman and her insides. The matron was being struck but the infant was not being harmed; the bundle was struggling so that the mother would not be come a parricide. So it happened that protected he emerged safe and sound and rendered his mother innocent. Here was a prophecy of the future, to have performed a miracle before he even reached birth.”

[Chapter 1, the “Life” of St. Germaus of Paris (+576), written by St. Venantius (+609)]

St. Theophylact of Ochrid's Treatise On the Latin Question

 

St. Theophylact was Archbishop of Ochrid, from about 1088 until his repose in 1108.  As Archbishop of Ochrid, he occupied the position as head of an Autocephalous Church; the Bulgarian Patriarchate had previously been forcibly [and uncanonically] abolished by the Eastern Roman authorities years earlier; however, the Bulgarian Church maintained independence still with its own independent Archbishopric.  

Some writers have noted the hostility that Greek speaking civil and clerical authorities had show to the usage of Slavonic, with, possibly, even attempts to suppress Church Slavonic in favour of the Greek language: 

""The Greeks [i.e. Eastern Romans] adopted a policy of cultural assimilation in Bulgaria. John of Debar [last Bulgarian Patriarch of the First Bulgarian Empire] died in 1037 and after that the Archbishop of Ohrid was always a Greek. As an agent of the Emperor he had to implement the policy by introducing such changes as the use of Greek in the Bulgarian Church. The Greeks also destroyed Slavonic books, but there is little documentation to show the success of this policy. The survival of a number of Old Church Slavonic manuscripts, allegedly copied in the eleventh century by the Bulgarian and Macedonian scribes, suggests that the Archbishops also condoned the use of such texts. The best evidence that the Primate of Ohrid did not attempt to stifle Slavonic tradition is provided by Theophylact [+1109]. For a Greek who allegedly abhorred living in Bulgaria, it is remarkable that he wrote a biography of St. Clement of Ohride which he based on a Slavonic life of the saint. In it he also praised the work of SS. Cyril and Methodius."

[pages 265, The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 4, C.1024-c.1198, Part 2]

Cadalus of Parma's Support for Slavonic Liturgical Usage

 

Anti-Hildebrandian counter-Pope Honorius II [i.e. Cadalus of Parma] (+1072) supported the usage of Slavonic in liturgical services:

 "Incidentally, the particular ecclesiastical political climate in the eleventh century allowed the Slavonic rite to flourish in the Kvarner region. In the 1060s, the schism between the 'legitimate' [i.e. Hildebrandian--ed] 'reform'-minded Pope Alexander II and the 'Anti'-Pope Honorius II, who found support in Northern Italy, brought unexpected benefits to the Glagolites. Seeking the support of the Dalmatian Dioceses, Honorius granted the Kvarner islands Krk, Osor, and Rab the right to use Slavonic. The dioceses of lower southern Dalmatia (Zada, Split, and Trogir) remained loyal to Alexander and therefore did not enjoy this privilege. (Klaie 1965)" [page 46]

 It would interesting to further study the issue of the opposition to the Hildebrandian Reforms and their position on local customs. As the Anti-Hildebrandians [Old Western] party opposed the basics of the so-called "Reform" [as exemplified in the crazed "Dictatus Papae"], they more represented, at least in part, an anti-centralizing tendency, and a less internationalist understanding of ecclesiology.