PipeChat Digest #2692 - Wednesday, February 6, 2002
 
Re: CRITIQUING OURSELVES AS ARTISTS
  by "Mike Gettelman" <mike3247@earthlink.net>
RE: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
RE: Lingua Latin
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
RE: Lingua Latin
  by "Alan Freed" <parishadmin@stlukesnyc.org>
RE: Lingua Latin
  by "Alan Freed" <parishadmin@stlukesnyc.org>
Re: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>
Re: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral
  by "Del Case" <dcase@puc.edu>
RE: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
Re: Lingua Latin
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
RE: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
RE: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral
  by "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org>
Re: Lingua Latin
  by "Johnny Kash" <kash5@mediaone.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: CRITIQUING OURSELVES AS ARTISTS From: "Mike Gettelman" <mike3247@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 07:07:03 -0500   Very Clever editing indeed Jim H., Had you bothered to indicate where you snipped my post, people would know that my very next words were "As a newbee orgophile". I don't see how that can be construed as appointing myself as an expert. I take great pains to identify myself and my lowly position in the hierarchy of the organ community when I post, so perhaps you just felt the need to kick a puppy. I guess there are some in the organ community who want to see new enthusiasts spend plenty of time and money supporting the cause, but then keep their opinions and perspective to themselves because they couldn't possibly be of value to anybody.   Mike Gettelman   Jim wrote:   > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Gettelman" <mike3247@earthlink.net> > To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 12:23 PM > Subject: Re: CRITIQUING OURSELVES AS ARTISTS > > > > > > > Rodney West wrote: > > > > (SNIP) I admit to going to concerts earlier and feeling > > critical--ah, the stupidity of youth. Nowadays, I > > love hearing people do things differently. I embrace > > the freshness. I don't go into concerts wanting to > > criticize the organ or player. I go in to be touched > > and enlightened. > > > > Mike blathers: > > > Ditto, and I wish more self appointed experts would understand this. > > Jim H > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: RE: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:16:57 -0500   >Since then, I believe, Cologne Cathedral was burnt out in World War II,   Yes, portions were heavily damaged. This is because it is practically = next door to the Hauptbahnhof (principal train station), which was a legitimate military target.   Who knows, maybe the bombers did the world a world a favor. There is a saying in Germany that when Cologne Cathedral is finished, the world will end. Wouldn't want that to happen too soon :-)   When visiting Cologne a few years ago, I had no idea as to the layout of = the city and assumed that I would need to make inquiries about what buses to take etc. to reach the cathedral. I no sooner stepped out the door than THERE IT WAS in all its ornate splendor, filling one's whole field of = vision a little off to the left. Breathtaking, particularly as I wasn't = expecting it.   >the roof would probably be of recent construction and therefore engineered to take the weight of the organ.   Does the organ really hang from the roof (probably wooden)? Or from the vaulting (stone)? Big difference.        
(back) Subject: RE: Lingua Latin From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:25:03 -0500   Dear Noel:   The Church of Sweden now has legitimate Apostolic Succession (by Anglican reckoning). Do you know when this occurred and from whom? I think it was in the late 19th century.   Paul       > -----Original Message----- > From: Noel Stoutenburg [SMTP:mjolnir@ticnet.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 12:24 AM > To: PipeChat > Subject: Re: Lingua Latin > > > Jim: > > We tend to see church events primarily in terms of history of English, = and > later > U.S. churches, because we have the commonality of language. In fact, = the > movements which can be found in English Churches can be found, to a > greater or > lesser extent in the history of other churches, as well, though the > parallels may > not be exact, and may vary to a greater or lesser extent. To cite the > example > with which I am most familiar, because of my own heritage, compare the > relationships between Church of Sweden with the Church of England with > some of > their ecclesiastical offspring. > > If one realizes that the Baptists in the U.S. originated from the Church > of > England in the colonies. While we think of the Puritans as > congregationalists, > when Roger Williams left Massachusetts Bay colony, they were part of = the > Church > of England, and a century and a half later, the Wesley Brothers > established > Methodism from the same source. Examining the Church of Sweden, one = finds > that > in some ways, the relationship between the Church of Sweden, and the > Swedish > Evangelical Covenant Church (as they were still known in my younger = days, > though > these days I think they've dropped the "Swedish" from the name of the > denomination; this is the organization with which North Park University = in > Chicago is affiliated) is very similar to the situation between the = Church > of > England and the Methodists, and the relationship between the Church of > Sweden and > the Evangelical Free Church is has similarities to the relation ship > between the > Church of England and Baptists. The simile is not perfect; the former > Augustana > Lutheran Church was an offspring of the Church of Sweden, and while it > maintained > a much closer relationship with the Church of Sweden that the other two > groups > I've mentioned did, it as not as close as the relationship between the > ECUSA and > C of E. Part of the reason for this is that part of the reason the > emigrants to > the US who formed the Augustana Church were somewhat more pietistic than > those > who stayed in Sweden. > > By the way, the situation of the Swedes in the New World is even more > convoluted > that that. The colonists of New Sweden (located in what is now > Southeastern > Pennsylvania and Delaware formed churches, built buildings (some of = which > still > stand and are still in use); however, when the asked for Pastors, and > expressed a > desire for a Bishop, (which event occurred at about the time the English > took > over New Sweden), they were directed to the Episcopal Church, as they = were > under > the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, with whom the Church of Sweden > was then > in communion. As a result, some of the oldest Episcopal Church = buildings > still > in use in the U.S. have the informal appellation "Old Swede's Church". > > ns > > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org  
(back) Subject: RE: Lingua Latin From: "Alan Freed" <parishadmin@stlukesnyc.org> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:40:47 -0500   Noel: =20   Thanks for a fascinating post. I offer a couple of comments on the American scene (New Sweden).   New Sweden was taken over not by the English, but by the Dutch, who were religious bigots. I think the primate of Sweden simply could not supply clergy to America, because the Swedes in America were becoming English-speaking, and Sweden had far too few Anglophone priests. I didn't know that the Swedish church was at that early date in communion with London; interesting; when was the communion broken, and why? The modern parallel is that in the 1920s, the Swedish primate (re-)entered communion with Canterbury, which lasted until ?1948? when the Swedes began ordaining female clergy.   There's talk of a tricentennial celebration at Old Swedes' Wilmington and/or Gloria Dei, Philadelphia, in 2003--300th anniversary of the ordination of Justus Falckner. You and your dad should be on the mailing list.   Alan   -----Original Message----- From: Noel Stoutenburg [mailto:mjolnir@ticnet.com]=20 Subject: Re: Lingua Latin   By the way, the situation of the Swedes in the New World is even more convoluted that that. The colonists of New Sweden (located in what is now Southeastern Pennsylvania and Delaware formed churches, built buildings (some of which still stand and are still in use); however, when the asked for Pastors, and expressed a desire for a Bishop, (which event occurred at about the time the English took over New Sweden), they were directed to the Episcopal Church, as they were under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, with whom the Church of Sweden was then in communion. As a result, some of the oldest Episcopal Church buildings still in use in the U.S. have the informal appellation "Old Swede's Church".   ns         "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: RE: Lingua Latin From: "Alan Freed" <parishadmin@stlukesnyc.org> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:46:01 -0500   Paul, I think that Sweden's legitimate orders date from the time of Ansgar and such (Boniface?). The Anglicans need not "reckon" about them, as theirs are a weaker case. I believe ROME (informally) recognizes Swedish orders, but not English.   Alan   -----Original Message----- From: Emmons, Paul [mailto:pemmons@wcupa.edu]=20 Subject: RE: Lingua Latin   Dear Noel:   The Church of Sweden now has legitimate Apostolic Succession (by Anglican reckoning). Do you know when this occurred and from whom? I think it was in the late 19th century.   Paul        
(back) Subject: Re: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:58:17 -0600   On 2/6/02 11:16 AM, Emmons, Paul wrote:   >> the roof would probably be of recent construction and therefore > engineered to take the weight of the organ.   Actually, a new roof would have more chance of being engineered to pass = the building code (just) using a minimum of materials and costing the least amount possible. Centuries old construction, especially in a building like = a cathedral which was typically a true labor of love, would be more likely = to be overbuilt. Contractors of that time didn't have the technical ability = to build just to spec so tended to overbuild to ensure that the structure didn't collapse.   No slur on modern builders by the way - I'm not an "older is better" = person. But modern technology and competitive economics have tended to push us towards structures which are just good enough. And the older buildings = which are still with us are mainly the best of their breed. Older structures = which a builder tried to scrimp on have tended to simply wear out or fall down.   Russ    
(back) Subject: Re: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral From: "Del Case" <dcase@puc.edu> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:22:19 +0000       "COLASACCO, ROBERT" wrote:   > The new organ, weighing 30 tons, is actually suspended from the roof on = four > steel rods. > > I gather you're not kidding?   NO! ! ! I am not kidding. You will find a six page article with photos = on pages 44-49 of the May/June 2000 issue of "Choir & Organ" which is = published in the UK and available to subscribers in this country. It includes articles = on US organs as well as in England and on the continent.   Also, please note that, somehow, is recent postings the figure of 30 tons = has become 13 tons. The article says 30.   Del W. Case Pacific Union College   > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: RE: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:50:58 -0500   >But modern technology and competitive economics have tended to push us towards structures which are just good enough   Alas, you are correct in general. The difference is dramatic, even to someone who doesn't know much about buildings, when going up into the vast tower of Riverside Church and noticing the massive and heavy way = everything was built-- whether stone or steel. It fairly shouts, "I was NOT put together by a committee!"   However, the roof beams and supports of the medieval cathedrals were perforce wooden. This makes them not only relatively fragile but very inflammable. When I was in a tour through the "attic" and up to the tower of Salisbury Cathedral, this danger was impressed on us. The tour guide said that much of her training for the job involved what to do in case of fire. Of course, if the roof goes and is not soon rebuilt (sooner than is usually possible), the whole building is done for. King Henry VIII knew this well: when he wanted to "dissolve" a monastery so that he could get = his hands on its wealth, the most efficient way to do so was simply to set = fire to the abbey roof. Institutional oblivion followed like night after day.   Modern builders would want to substitute steel for these wooden beams (a guidebook of either Washington Cathedral or St. John the Divine pointed = out that the metal roof beams constituted almost the only divergence from the medieval materials and designs). But that still doesn't qualify them to support weight for which they weren't designed. I'm going to recheck the "Choir and Organ" article because I am skeptical that the organ really = hangs from the roof rather than the vaulting.       > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Greene [SMTP:rggreene2@shaw.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 12:58 PM > To: PipeChat > Subject: Re: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral > > On 2/6/02 11:16 AM, Emmons, Paul wrote: > > >> the roof would probably be of recent construction and therefore > > engineered to take the weight of the organ. > > Actually, a new roof would have more chance of being engineered to pass > the > building code (just) using a minimum of materials and costing the least > amount possible. Centuries old construction, especially in a building = like > a > cathedral which was typically a true labor of love, would be more likely > to > be overbuilt. Contractors of that time didn't have the technical ability > to > build just to spec so tended to overbuild to ensure that the structure > didn't collapse. > > No slur on modern builders by the way - I'm not an "older is better" > person. > But modern technology and competitive economics have tended to push us > towards structures which are just good enough. And the older buildings > which > are still with us are mainly the best of their breed. Older structures > which > a builder tried to scrimp on have tended to simply wear out or fall = down. > > Russ > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org  
(back) Subject: Re: Lingua Latin From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:55:27 +1300   One of the problems with the Roman Catholic and Anglican relationships is that the Pope declared in the late 19th-century, intending to make a definitive pronouncement, that "anyone who believes Anglican orders [i.e. ordinations] are anything else but utterly null and void is anathema." Now "anathema" is a technical word and means "cursed to all eternity." A consequent problem is that is the Pope was wrong, the infallibility thing the RCChurch believes in was also wrong; if the Pope was right, there can = be no serious discussion of any kind as no Anglican will accept the Pope's dictate as he has no authority whatever over Anglicans. That is a very serious problem indeed. If the RCChurch had not made that foolish stance = of papal infallibility in the 1870s, none of this would have arisen. The intention of the Pope was to make the Church of England people scared, frightening them into the Roman Church. It failed, of course, and more = RC's became Anglicans than Anglicans became RC's. There is a lot more on all of this, including the total misunderstanding = of Scripture on the very idea of papal infallibility, but this List is = probably not the place for that. Regards, Ross Wards (Rev.Dr., in New Zealand) -----Original Message----- From: Alan Freed <parishadmin@stlukesnyc.org> To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> Date: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:50 AM Subject: RE: Lingua Latin     Paul, I think that Sweden's legitimate orders date from the time of Ansgar and such (Boniface?). The Anglicans need not "reckon" about them, as theirs are a weaker case. I believe ROME (informally) recognizes Swedish orders, but not English.   Alan   -----Original Message----- From: Emmons, Paul [mailto:pemmons@wcupa.edu] Subject: RE: Lingua Latin   Dear Noel:   The Church of Sweden now has legitimate Apostolic Succession (by Anglican reckoning). Do you know when this occurred and from whom? I think it was in the late 19th century.   Paul         "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org        
(back) Subject: Re: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:04:05 +1300   Following all this, which I have thoroughly enjoyed as I am keen on all aspects of church architecture, a wooden structured roof is actually safer than a steel one, as any fireman will tell you. Steel beams will warp in a fire and pull the roof down with them. Wood will very often merely char, keeping its shape and thus the roof in position. I had a VERY senior = fireman in my last parish and he told me all about this: firemen would much rather enter a burning building with a wood-framed roof than a steel-framed one. = In the church I designed (and helped build) we had wooden trusses for = precisely these reasons. Well, also, to be completely honest, exposed timber looks better than exposed steel as well. Certainly it is true that stone vaults were introduced not as a decorative element in the building, but as a safeguard against sparks from candles drifting upwards and burning the wooden roof structures. That stone vaults became utterly magnificent is also a fact. Above the utterly beautiful fanvaulting of the ceiling at King's College, Cambridge, there is a magnificent intricate carved oak roof. Often, too, = in simple stonework, the higher in the building you go, the better the = quality of the work. It seems likely that the masons believed that the higher in = the building you were the closer to God, so naturally God deserved the best = from both mason and carpenter. Regards, Ross -----Original Message----- From: Emmons, Paul <pemmons@wcupa.edu> To: 'PipeChat' <pipechat@pipechat.org> Date: Thursday, February 07, 2002 7:54 AM Subject: RE: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral     >>But modern technology and competitive economics have tended to push us >towards structures which are just good enough > >Alas, you are correct in general. The difference is dramatic, even to >someone who doesn't know much about buildings, when going up into the = vast >tower of Riverside Church and noticing the massive and heavy way = everything >was built-- whether stone or steel. It fairly shouts, "I was NOT put >together by a committee!" > >However, the roof beams and supports of the medieval cathedrals were >perforce wooden. This makes them not only relatively fragile but very >inflammable. When I was in a tour through the "attic" and up to the = tower >of Salisbury Cathedral, this danger was impressed on us. The tour guide >said that much of her training for the job involved what to do in case of >fire. Of course, if the roof goes and is not soon rebuilt (sooner than = is >usually possible), the whole building is done for. King Henry VIII knew >this well: when he wanted to "dissolve" a monastery so that he could get his >hands on its wealth, the most efficient way to do so was simply to set = fire >to the abbey roof. Institutional oblivion followed like night after day. > >Modern builders would want to substitute steel for these wooden beams (a >guidebook of either Washington Cathedral or St. John the Divine pointed = out >that the metal roof beams constituted almost the only divergence from the >medieval materials and designs). But that still doesn't qualify them to >support weight for which they weren't designed. I'm going to recheck the >"Choir and Organ" article because I am skeptical that the organ really hangs >from the roof rather than the vaulting. > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Russ Greene [SMTP:rggreene2@shaw.ca] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 12:58 PM >> To: PipeChat >> Subject: Re: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral >> >> On 2/6/02 11:16 AM, Emmons, Paul wrote: >> >> >> the roof would probably be of recent construction and therefore >> > engineered to take the weight of the organ. >> >> Actually, a new roof would have more chance of being engineered to pass >> the >> building code (just) using a minimum of materials and costing the least >> amount possible. Centuries old construction, especially in a building like >> a >> cathedral which was typically a true labor of love, would be more = likely >> to >> be overbuilt. Contractors of that time didn't have the technical ability >> to >> build just to spec so tended to overbuild to ensure that the structure >> didn't collapse. >> >> No slur on modern builders by the way - I'm not an "older is better" >> person. >> But modern technology and competitive economics have tended to push us >> towards structures which are just good enough. And the older buildings >> which >> are still with us are mainly the best of their breed. Older structures >> which >> a builder tried to scrimp on have tended to simply wear out or fall = down. >> >> Russ >> >> >> "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >> PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >> HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >> List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >> Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > >"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >      
(back) Subject: RE: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:17:22 -0500   Earlier today I wrote:   >I'm going to recheck the "Choir and Organ" article because I am skeptical that the organ really hangs >from the roof rather than the vaulting.   Okay, I just checked.   The headline was very unpropitious, because it spoke of the organ's = hanging from the roof. Would I have to eat my words and join Robert Colasco in cowering timorously next time I'm in the building?   Ah, no. In the actual text (page 45), Herr Klais writes: "The crucial = step between winning the competition and realising the project came by way of = an idea to suspend the organ freely from the vault..." [Whew!]   So I can see how our confusion might arise, but it looks as though the wording of the headline was sloppy (as headlines sometimes are).   We should all sleep a little better tonight. :-)          
(back) Subject: RE: Sainte-Chapelle and Cologne Cathedral From: "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:26:11 -0500   We should all sleep a little better tonight. :-) --- But NOT under that roof.      
(back) Subject: Re: Lingua Latin From: "Johnny Kash" <kash5@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:18:17 -0500   How nice of you to bash Roman Catholicism on the Pipe Organ Chat list. You really have nothing better to do!?   J.K. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:55 PM Subject: Re: Lingua Latin     > One of the problems with the Roman Catholic and Anglican relationships = is > that the Pope declared in the late 19th-century, intending to make a > definitive pronouncement, that "anyone who believes Anglican orders = [i.e. > ordinations] are anything else but utterly null and void is anathema." = Now > "anathema" is a technical word and means "cursed to all eternity." A > consequent problem is that is the Pope was wrong, the infallibility = thing > the RCChurch believes in was also wrong; if the Pope was right, there = can be > no serious discussion of any kind as no Anglican will accept the Pope's > dictate as he has no authority whatever over Anglicans. That is a very > serious problem indeed. If the RCChurch had not made that foolish stance of > papal infallibility in the 1870s, none of this would have arisen. > The intention of the Pope was to make the Church of England people = scared, > frightening them into the Roman Church. It failed, of course, and more RC's > became Anglicans than Anglicans became RC's. > There is a lot more on all of this, including the total misunderstanding of > Scripture on the very idea of papal infallibility, but this List is probably > not the place for that. > Regards, > Ross Wards (Rev.Dr., in New Zealand) > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Freed <parishadmin@stlukesnyc.org> > To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> > Date: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:50 AM > Subject: RE: Lingua Latin > > > Paul, I think that Sweden's legitimate orders date from the time of > Ansgar and such (Boniface?). The Anglicans need not "reckon" about > them, as theirs are a weaker case. I believe ROME (informally) > recognizes Swedish orders, but not English. > > Alan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Emmons, Paul [mailto:pemmons@wcupa.edu] > Subject: RE: Lingua Latin > > Dear Noel: > > The Church of Sweden now has legitimate Apostolic Succession (by > Anglican > reckoning). Do you know when this occurred and from whom? I think it > was > in the late 19th century. > > Paul > > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > >