Low Mass the medieval way!

[The Harlequin King]

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.

[Basilios]

Rood screens werent even universal were they? It looks to me like it was an English thing.

[The Harlequin King]

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:



In France, they were called jubés. This one is in Paris, dating to the later Renaissance:



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).

[Basilios]

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:



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.

[Basilios]

Also,

[Othmar]

Though I don't like baroque, I must add this for completeness.


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.


In situ, with a missing door (and protestants looting the church)


And in the museum.

[The Harlequin King]

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.

[LouisIX]

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.

[The Harlequin King]

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.

[VeraeFidei]

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.

[The Harlequin King]

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).

[LouisIX]

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.

[Othmar]

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.

[ts aquinas]

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?

[The Harlequin King]

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.