I found this video of a reconstruction of a Medieval Low Mass as it would have been said/chanted in the diocese of Linkoping* 18th Sunday after Trinity. Two things to note: 1. Along with the celebant and a server, their is also a cantor and 2. incense is used.
If I had my way Low Mass would be like this today as far as possible.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIODLdz6vEc[/yt]
Brief commentary given on the above Mass found here:
http://www.liturgy.dk/default.asp?Action=Menu&Item=285 (http://www.liturgy.dk/default.asp?Action=Menu&Item=285)
I think this is the city that was mentioned by Knud Ottosen in the second link (1st video of that series).
Here is a direct link to the video posted above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIODLdz6vEc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIODLdz6vEc)
Starts at about the 4:40 mark
I'm guessing those letters mean 12th century.
It's interesting. Is this guy a real priest, or is this like a historical recreation a la Civil War battles? I'm leaning towards the latter, due to the costumes, camera work, etc.
The person serving the Mass looks like a girl.
Apparently the celebant is Fr. Anders Piltz (OP).
... Why on earth did the rood screen dissappear? Can we bring it back please? Nothing speaks more loudly of the distinction between the priest and laity than that screen. Beautiful video.
Very cool. If the celebrant is truly a priest then I assume the Mass is truly as it was in the 12th century. I'm not an expert on the liturgy, but the only major difference I've noticed so far apart from accidental things like vestments is that the Credo was done before the homily. I haven't gotten to the Canon yet, however.
Very cool video. Thank you for sharing.
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 07, 2013, 05:27:58 PM
... Why on earth did the rood screen dissappear? Can we bring it back please? Nothing speaks more loudly of the distinction between the priest and laity than that screen. Beautiful video.
Even if it's not absolutely necessary, it's reintroduction would certainly assist the Church in purging the "universal priesthood" nonsense which is a major threat of our time.
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 07, 2013, 05:27:58 PM
... Why on earth did the rood screen dissappear? Can we bring it back please? Nothing speaks more loudly of the distinction between the priest and laity than that screen. Beautiful video.
Council of Trent. To appease protestants.
Quote from: VeraeFidei on October 07, 2013, 05:46:20 PM
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 07, 2013, 05:27:58 PM
... Why on earth did the rood screen dissappear? Can we bring it back please? Nothing speaks more loudly of the distinction between the priest and laity than that screen. Beautiful video.
Council of Trent. To appease protestants.
Haha. I really hope you're not asserting that Trent sought to appease Protestants.
Quote from: LouisIX on October 07, 2013, 06:32:11 PM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on October 07, 2013, 05:46:20 PM
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 07, 2013, 05:27:58 PM
... Why on earth did the rood screen dissappear? Can we bring it back please? Nothing speaks more loudly of the distinction between the priest and laity than that screen. Beautiful video.
Council of Trent. To appease protestants.
Haha. I really hope you're not asserting that Trent sought to appease Protestants.
I think I was overly terse in how I wrote the above, but it seems difficult to get around the notion that losing rood screens had something to do with protestantism. I would love to be proven wrong!
Quote from: LouisIX on October 07, 2013, 06:32:11 PM
Haha. I really hope you're not asserting that Trent sought to appease Protestants.
As a whole, no. But the abolition of rood screens was an appeasement in the manner of Vatican II-style wreckovations. Getting rid of the screens was supposed to answer the Protestant objection that the Church was visually obscuring the liturgy from the people.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on October 07, 2013, 07:21:43 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 07, 2013, 06:32:11 PM
Haha. I really hope you're not asserting that Trent sought to appease Protestants.
As a whole, no. But the abolition of rood screens was an appeasement in the manner of Vatican II-style wreckovations. Getting rid of the screens was supposed to answer the Protestant objection that the Church was visually obscuring the liturgy from the people.
HK your post makes it sound like that Trent mandated the removal of roods screens. So to clarify for everyone else I'll remark that it didn't.
Trent, however, did mandate for the safe passage of Protestants to the council to discuss and debate various points of doctrine.
(The Protestants never went), but that is for another thread topic.
I too favor the return of the rood screen.
Quote from: Machaut1377 on October 07, 2013, 11:42:39 PM
HK your post makes it sound like that Trent mandated the removal of roods screens. So to clarify for everyone else I'll remark that it didn't.
The council itself didn't. But the same can be said for much of Vatican II. So, let's call the removal of rood screens part of "the spirit of Trent".
QuoteTrent, however, did mandate for the safe passage of Protestants to the council to discuss and debate various points of doctrine.
(The Protestants never went), but that is for another thread topic.
I was going to mention that too, haha.
I've never seen a purificated paton being used for the final blessing. interesting
Quote from: The Harlequin King on October 07, 2013, 07:21:43 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 07, 2013, 06:32:11 PM
Haha. I really hope you're not asserting that Trent sought to appease Protestants.
As a whole, no. But the abolition of rood screens was an appeasement in the manner of Vatican II-style wreckovations. Getting rid of the screens was supposed to answer the Protestant objection that the Church was visually obscuring the liturgy from the people.
Again, an example of something which may actually have been prudential for a given time. Small changes in decorum, even of the liturgy, are for the solemnity of the Sacrament itself.
Quote from: LouisIX on October 08, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
Again, an example of something which may actually have been prudential for a given time. Small changes in decorum, even of the liturgy, are for the solemnity of the Sacrament itself.
The same argument could be made for getting rid of the silent Canon and other quiet prayers, which verbally veiled the liturgy just as the rood screen visually veiled it.
But I do agree that there are times when prudential changes can be made to the liturgy. It's just a matter of what those things are, and why.
Rood screens werent even universal were they? It looks to me like it was an English thing.
Quote from: Basilios on October 09, 2013, 12:23:21 AM
Rood screens werent even universal were they? It looks to me like it was an English thing.
There is the "rood screen" as a distinctly English phenomenon, but there's also the general choir screens which were found in many countries during the Middle Ages.
In this photo, you can see the choir screen in the Sistine Chapel:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kandle.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Fsistine_chapel.jpg&hash=35f765c1d8c1a88f93bb33f5ad099378cb13c178)
In France, they were called jubés. This one is in Paris, dating to the later Renaissance:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fa0%2FJube_Saint-Etienne-du-Mont.jpg%2F640px-Jube_Saint-Etienne-du-Mont.jpg&hash=981fb2dd7d00361ca6e95a5ffe6fbcde2f35eea5)
The Spanish kind is called a trascoro. This picture below is, I believe, from the cathedral of Palencia. It shows the completely walled-in choir in the midst of the cathedral that was common for larger churches in those times (as you still see today in places like Westminster Abbey).
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi17.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb54%2Fprimulas%2Fprimulas2%2Fprimulas3%2FTrascoroW.jpg&hash=229f7a577b753d9e2bc9974c01dd8c6c8336d438)
Aha. Very cool. Thanks HK. I would like for the rood screen to come back. It's a shame it went (for whatever reason, legitimate or not) in my opinion.
It's something that the Latin Rite lost which most definitely was traditional. The ancient Jews had the veil that separated the Holy of Holies from the holy place. It's clear that God wants us to have this imagery. The ikonostasis is still there for the Byzantine/Alexandrian Churches. It's only us that dropped it. Though I guess in some ways the altar rails (which have disappeared of course now) were a moderated form of rood screen (one could argue, even if it is very poor in comparison). I've seen some beautifully decorated altar rails which seem to suggest that at least in theory the rood screen didn't disappear but merely transformed.
As much as I love the Byzatine liturgy (specifically the Slavic) and all that; to me there is nothing more beautiful than a properly decorated church with a rood screen too - in the English style I mean. The colourful Churches that seem to glow in the same way that Byzantine Churches do. I'm sure it's because Europe has such a long history of a strong Catholicism that people started thinking that grey or neutral colours were the proper colours of the Church - when in fact the Churches simply hadn't been repainted. So when they were first built they were magnificent and colourful but over the years have become dull. Next thing you know everybody is copying that and keeping with the dullness. Add to that the 1962 revolution and you have even more dullness.
If you look around Suffolk (where I live) there are some medieval Churches which have been restored and others that are left as they are. The difference is stunning, and telling. The ones that are left as they are certainly are dull and have lost their colour, but if you look carefully you can see traces of colourful paint. The restored ones often don't get repainted but almost whitewashed, though some are repainted and it's beautiful.
This is a picture my sister took in her Church in Nottingham run by the Dominicans (traditional Mass everyday I believe). I think this is from her church anyway, it's in the same album. This is close to what I mean in terms of colour. It's a bit dark but you get the point:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3bA8ZXHl.jpg&hash=1dc5a5fd6ef005a6a67aea653dff6720692094a4)
This is from the same Church in Leicester (Holy Cross Priory). The walls are a bit bare but this is fantastic. English to the core it seems; and beautiful. The statue of Our Lady of Walshingham should be painted too but that's a niggly bit; the whole thing though does look grand. It's brand new, but it's nostalgic in a good way. Pious and uplifting.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlQsfMCbl.jpg&hash=74220d4290c61e245f3109c3205f3c6994a7f609)
Also,
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.li%2Fi%2Fozvvn.jpg&hash=463b656623afae66c7789c212ec9649d5141cd0f)
Though I don't like baroque, I must add this for completeness.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vam.ac.uk%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fimage%2F0019%2F224173%2F2009cp9348_s-hertogenbosch_choir_screen_610x344.jpg&hash=e0571bd6ea27039a65e6a4b38dc281ee6c8e9a9b)
Baroque rood screen, very early 17th century. It was built for the gothic cathedral of Saint John, Den Bosch (NL), but was removed once the Catholics regained the Church. It is now part of the collection of the Victoria & Albert Museum.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vam.ac.uk%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fimage%2F0020%2F224822%2Fbibliotheque_royale_brussels_choirscreen_antwerp_290x290.jpg&hash=726228799e5173d977e2fbe07859822da54bb8e4)
In situ, with a missing door (and protestants looting the church)
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flondonist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fnew1%2F15451_vam_choir.jpg&hash=87088f1b03531293ae8888d8790a32ead15b238f)
And in the museum.
Quote from: Othmar on October 09, 2013, 08:58:09 AM
Baroque rood screen, very early 17th century. It was built for the gothic cathedral of Saint John, Den Bosch (NL), but was removed once the Catholics regained the Church. It is now part of the collection of the Victoria & Albert Museum.
You mean it was built by Protestants and vandalized by Catholics? That's ironic.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on October 08, 2013, 08:22:35 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 08, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
Again, an example of something which may actually have been prudential for a given time. Small changes in decorum, even of the liturgy, are for the solemnity of the Sacrament itself.
The same argument could be made for getting rid of the silent Canon and other quiet prayers, which verbally veiled the liturgy just as the rood screen visually veiled it.
But I do agree that there are times when prudential changes can be made to the liturgy. It's just a matter of what those things are, and why.
Yeah, but the counter-arguments would be many, including the distinction between changes in the decorum of the place where the Mass is said and changes made to the actual liturgy or Canon itself.
Quote from: LouisIX on October 09, 2013, 02:46:50 PM
Yeah, but the counter-arguments would be many, including the distinction between changes in the decorum of the place where the Mass is said and changes made to the actual liturgy or Canon itself.
Changing the words of the Canon: sure. To be more specific, adding Saint Joseph's name may or may not fall here, but everyone here can agree that substituting Eucharistic Prayer II (or any other) in place of the Canon is bull.
But making the Canon audible vs. inaudible: no. That, like rood screen vs. simple rail, would be a matter of presentation (a very crude word, but I can't think of a more suitable one right now), since the substance of the prayer is entirely the same. Facing
ad Orientem or
ad populum is in the same vein. One
could make an argument that it was more prudent for the new Mass to have the priest face the people, because of x reasons (such as: the laity felt alienated by the priest always having his back toward them, or it seemed absurd to have the priest talking to the wall. I'm not endorsing these reasons; just saying they could be proposed. These objections stem from exactly the same arguments as those which 16th century Protestants made against the rood screens.) It's not a change to the liturgy itself, though, because the priest isn't praying to God any less, regardless of which way he's facing.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on October 09, 2013, 05:46:52 PM
It's not a change to the liturgy itself, though, because the priest isn't praying to God any less, regardless of which way he's facing.
I disagree. Prayer is a mental and verbal act, but it is still closely intertwined with posture. That is why certain prayers are meant to be said standing and others kneeling. Those postures are intimately tied to the nature of the prayer itself.
Versus populumas currently practiced and as promoted in the last half-century is atheistic. It denies the existence of a transcendent God.
Quote from: VeraeFidei on October 09, 2013, 07:33:46 PM
Quote from: The Harlequin King on October 09, 2013, 05:46:52 PM
It's not a change to the liturgy itself, though, because the priest isn't praying to God any less, regardless of which way he's facing.
I disagree. Prayer is a mental and verbal act, but it is still closely intertwined with posture. That is why certain prayers are meant to be said standing and others kneeling. Those postures are intimately tied to the nature of the prayer itself.
Versus populumas currently practiced and as promoted in the last half-century is atheistic. It denies the existence of a transcendent God.
Sure. I'll "re-orient" what I said this way, then: by itself, the direction the priest faces doesn't change his intent in praying. The most obvious example would be the popes, pre-Vatican II, celebrating Mass facing the people at Saint Peter's Basilica. The intent to do so is not to face the people, but because the basilica happens to be built architecturally westward. So in this case, the whole matter of facing the people is a matter of circumstance.
In other words, a priest can have a solid reason for praying facing the people, or a bad reason. Just as a priest could (arguably) have a good reason for tearing a rood screen down (helping the people engage in the liturgy with their eyes), and a bad reason for doing so (iconoclasm).
Quote from: The Harlequin King on October 09, 2013, 05:46:52 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 09, 2013, 02:46:50 PM
Yeah, but the counter-arguments would be many, including the distinction between changes in the decorum of the place where the Mass is said and changes made to the actual liturgy or Canon itself.
Changing the words of the Canon: sure. To be more specific, adding Saint Joseph's name may or may not fall here, but everyone here can agree that substituting Eucharistic Prayer II (or any other) in place of the Canon is bull.
But making the Canon audible vs. inaudible: no. That, like rood screen vs. simple rail, would be a matter of presentation (a very crude word, but I can't think of a more suitable one right now), since the substance of the prayer is entirely the same. Facing ad Orientem or ad populum is in the same vein. One could make an argument that it was more prudent for the new Mass to have the priest face the people, because of x reasons (such as: the laity felt alienated by the priest always having his back toward them, or it seemed absurd to have the priest talking to the wall. I'm not endorsing these reasons; just saying they could be proposed. These objections stem from exactly the same arguments as those which 16th century Protestants made against the rood screens.) It's not a change to the liturgy itself, though, because the priest isn't praying to God any less, regardless of which way he's facing.
But all of these are changes to the actual rubrics of the Mass itself. It affects the rite even if it is said in an open field. To my understanding, the rood screen was never universal and it certainly isn't stated as necessary in the rubrics of the Mass. It appears that there is a clear distinction between what the priest does in the Mass and what surrounds the priest while he does it. A rood screen is not determinate on the form of the Blessed Sacrament.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on October 09, 2013, 02:32:09 PM
Quote from: Othmar on October 09, 2013, 08:58:09 AM
Baroque rood screen, very early 17th century. It was built for the gothic cathedral of Saint John, Den Bosch (NL), but was removed once the Catholics regained the Church. It is now part of the collection of the Victoria & Albert Museum.
You mean it was built by Protestants and vandalized by Catholics? That's ironic.
Ah, no, built by Catholics, but it was preserved by protestants, after they retook the city. It was built to replace a rood screen destroyed in a wave of calvinist iconoclasm. One of the sculptors was a protestant, however. I believe that Dutch protestants did build "choir screens", without any imagery, in other churches. I know of at least one example: the New Church in Amsterdam. It was built 72 years after the protestants took the church. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amsterdam_Nieuwe_Kerk_Koorhek.jpg
In a similar vein, I once went to a lecture about how German (and Scandinavian) Lutherans preserved their medieval church interiors quite well, either by reuse or disuse, while Catholics in the contrareformation didn't.
Wait, at 45:30, after the consecration of the Blood he extends his arms out. The only Rite I know of that does this is the Premonstratensian Rite (Norbertines.) I did not see other identifiers of it being that particular Rite, though I don't know if those other differences were before or later this particular time, but I wonder if this was a local custom or a more universal practice?
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 13, 2013, 01:25:45 AM
Wait, at 45:30, after the consecration of the Blood he extends his arms out. The only Rite I know of that does this is the Premonstratensian Rite (Norbertines.) I did not see other identifiers of it being that particular Rite, though I don't know if those other differences were before or later this particular time, but I wonder if this was a local custom or a more universal practice?
I don't know how prevalent the cross-arm position was for the west as a whole, but it was also a part of the Sarum Use.
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 13, 2013, 01:25:45 AM
Wait, at 45:30, after the consecration of the Blood he extends his arms out. The only Rite I know of that does this is the Premonstratensian Rite (Norbertines.) I did not see other identifiers of it being that particular Rite, though I don't know if those other differences were before or later this particular time, but I wonder if this was a local custom or a more universal practice?
Dominicans do it too :-)
I have a friend who is a Norbertine. I may ask him about it next time I see him.
Was the tabernacle always veiled in the Roman Rite or did that come about after rood screens/veils fell into disuse?
Quote from: LouisIX on October 13, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
I have a friend who is a Norbertine. I may ask him about it next time I see him.
I have a freind who is training to be a Norbertine in California and I'll ask him too, if he will ever write me back in a reasonable amount of time.
Quote from: ImperialGuardsman on October 20, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 13, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
I have a friend who is a Norbertine. I may ask him about it next time I see him.
I have a freind who is training to be a Norbertine in California and I'll ask him too, if he will ever write me back in a reasonable amount of time.
St. Michael's Abbey?
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 20, 2013, 12:41:02 PM
Quote from: ImperialGuardsman on October 20, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 13, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
I have a friend who is a Norbertine. I may ask him about it next time I see him.
I have a freind who is training to be a Norbertine in California and I'll ask him too, if he will ever write me back in a reasonable amount of time.
St. Michael's Abbey?
Yep, that's the one.
Quote from: ImperialGuardsman on October 20, 2013, 07:27:30 PM
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 20, 2013, 12:41:02 PM
Quote from: ImperialGuardsman on October 20, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 13, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
I have a friend who is a Norbertine. I may ask him about it next time I see him.
I have a freind who is training to be a Norbertine in California and I'll ask him too, if he will ever write me back in a reasonable amount of time.
St. Michael's Abbey?
Yep, that's the one.
Was trying to get in myself. Good men and solid Thomist teacher, Fr. Sebastian, they have.
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 20, 2013, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: ImperialGuardsman on October 20, 2013, 07:27:30 PM
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 20, 2013, 12:41:02 PM
Quote from: ImperialGuardsman on October 20, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 13, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
I have a friend who is a Norbertine. I may ask him about it next time I see him.
I have a freind who is training to be a Norbertine in California and I'll ask him too, if he will ever write me back in a reasonable amount of time.
St. Michael's Abbey?
Yep, that's the one.
Was trying to get in myself. Good men and solid Thomist teacher, Fr. Sebastian, they have.
I hope you get in, if you are still trying. They seem very orthodox indeed, and noted how my friend's theology training (at my college) was clearly poor, to say the least.
I told my friend (before he left) that he needs to perfect his "Pius XII glide" when he walks. I'm sure he will.
Quote from: Basilios on October 13, 2013, 03:14:06 AM
Quote from: ts aquinas on October 13, 2013, 01:25:45 AM
Wait, at 45:30, after the consecration of the Blood he extends his arms out. The only Rite I know of that does this is the Premonstratensian Rite (Norbertines.) I did not see other identifiers of it being that particular Rite, though I don't know if those other differences were before or later this particular time, but I wonder if this was a local custom or a more universal practice?
Dominicans do it too :-)
I have also seen a picture of one of the Carmelites from Wyoming praying cruciform at the altar while offering Mass in the Carmelite Rite of 1938. It's not clear if it's after the consecration though. I suppose I could ask Bishop Pivarunas next time I see him. He is a walking encyclopedia, and ministers to the traditional Carmelites in Mexico.
Quote from: ImperialGuardsman on October 21, 2013, 09:45:41 AM
I hope you get in, if you are still trying. They seem very orthodox indeed, and noted how my friend's theology training (at my college) was clearly poor, to say the least.
I told my friend (before he left) that he needs to perfect his "Pius XII glide" when he walks. I'm sure he will.
Won't be possible for me. They have a preparatory school there and thus require every aspirant to have at least a two year degree. By the time I finish, I'll be just past the age to enter. Doesn't matter to me since I'm glad I didn't enter. They offer their Premonstratensian Rite in private, the TLM when they go out into the diocese and a Latin NO for their principle Sunday Mass to the public... no thanks. The abbey is divided at the moment between the old Vat II types and the youngbloods that want all things traditional. Plus, last time I heard they lost their guy that was heading up all the fund raisers for their new abbey. Not the best situation liturgically or physically there but great education.
Quote from: Basilios on October 13, 2013, 03:14:06 AMDominicans do it too :-)
Cruciform at
Unde et memores?
Isn't he praying the Dominican Rite in the video ?
This is interesting. Less elaborate than the 1962 Missal, but still interesting. :) I would love to see the rubrics. I also see some people making the Byzantine sign of the cross. Was this custom back then?
Is this Mass still licit today? .
Wow... 0_0 :)