Ship of Fools: Was Fortescue ever followed to the letter?

Thread: Was Fortescue ever followed to the letter? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024891

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

As a general rule, whenever I have a role in planning services, I try to stick as closely as possible to the first edition (1918) of Fortescue's 'Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described'. I think that a strict and peculiar observation of every detail contained therein is the best way of avoiding the liturgical rot that has set in the ensuing decades. It irked me to discover, therefore, that, during a recent service of vespers of the BVM in the presence of a greater prelate*, the crucifix laid out for the bishop to kiss was not covered by a white cloth, as Fortescue says that it should be. This is a minor detail; but, on the other hand, it's an easy thing to get right and I'm surprise that we didn't, given that our sacristan has similar views to my own. I guess we both just hadn't read closely enough or didn't remember.

My question, though, is this: has Fortescue ever been followed to the letter anywhere in the world? Specifically, some of his suggestions are not terribly realistic. For instance, his instructions for a Pontifical High Mass require the presence not only of 15 servers (which shouldn't pose a difficulty for any healthy parish) but also no fewer than five priests, all of whom must be canons. He then assumes that there are additional clergy in quire, although this is certainly not a requirement. The closest I've seen to this being met was at Bourne Street, but even there only the two deacons of honour were actually canons.

I know that Fortescue drew heavily on earlier liturgical guidebooks, most of which assumed that their readers were based in the city of Rome itself, but were such resources ever really commonly available even in Rome?

To take another example, all liturgical manuals assume that Terce is sung immediately before mass and Sext immediately afterward. Now, there is no reason why this should be difficult, but the fact is that I've never encountered a parish church that does this and wonder if it wasn't always, in practice, confined to religious communities.

The broader question, then, must be whether it is feasible to attempt to comply with Fortescue's instructions. I do wonder whether an excessively strict serious of requirements for the celebration of a high mass was one of the reasons why, in the Anglophone world at least, high masses seem to have been so rare in the Roman Church before the Second Vatican Council and continue to be rare amongst traditionalist groups (one acquaintance of mine acidly suggested that the Latin Mass Society might better be called 'the Low Mass Society', because of their fondness for that modern and highly simplified service!).

*Well, actually, he was a lesser prelate invested with the insignia of a greater prelate for this occasion by the permission of the (somewhat confused) ordinary.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

The practice in our sacristy seems to be to refer to Fortescue (one of the recent reprints of the latest edition) and then decide what our version of Fortescue's instructions will look like. For simple answers, we tend to do what Fortescue says, but for the plan of a special liturgy, Fortescue is read and then adapted.

This is mainly because Fortescue is writing with a different liturgical text in mind, so we adapt it to the one we're using. We'd have to do this with Dearmer, too, if we used him instead.

The result is that visitors often marvel that what they're seeing appears rather Tridentine-ish but if they close their eyes it sounds BCP 1979 Rite II with some Rite I sung bits.

I should look up the books-never-have-their-backs-to-the-Blessed-Sacrament rule in Fortescue. Can't believe I haven't done that yet.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
As a general rule, whenever I have a role in planning services, I try to stick as closely as possible to the first edition (1918) of Fortescue's 'Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described'. I think that a strict and peculiar observation of every detail contained therein is the best way of avoiding the liturgical rot that has set in the ensuing decades. It irked me to discover, therefore, that, during a recent service of vespers of the BVM in the presence of a greater prelate*, the crucifix laid out for the bishop to kiss was not covered by a white cloth, as Fortescue says that it should be.

South Coast Kevin: I think I might join your church if I had to put up with this.

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

In the U.S. among Roman Catholics, I would say not in the least. I'm too young to have experienced things as they were but I have many friends and acquaintances who have explained to me how the liturgy usually was in this city, and outside of about six places I know on the top of my head, high masses were three times a year and rarely according to the rubrics.

One friend noted that she had never seen the bishop received at the church door or going to pray before the blessed sacrament the way we do, despite the fact that that was required. Another notes English hymns at high masses.

I've been asked to come up with a liturgical customary for solemn masses at my parish (for the novus ordo) it's half Fortescue and half General Instruction of the Roman Missal. I have no idea how it will be received.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
As a general rule, whenever I have a role in planning services, I try to stick as closely as possible to the first edition (1918) of Fortescue's 'Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described'. I think that a strict and peculiar observation of every detail contained therein is the best way of avoiding the liturgical rot that has set in the ensuing decades. It irked me to discover, therefore, that, during a recent service of vespers of the BVM in the presence of a greater prelate*, the crucifix laid out for the bishop to kiss was not covered by a white cloth, as Fortescue says that it should be.

South Coast Kevin: I think I might join your church if I had to put up with this.

I suppose that serves me right for attempting to start a thread that deviates from the 'Modern Catholic' consensus of Ecclesiantics?

quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:

I've been asked to come up with a liturgical customary for solemn masses at my parish (for the novus ordo) it's half Fortescue and half General Instruction of the Roman Missal. I have no idea how it will be received.

That sounds really interesting. Let us know how it goes.

[ 23. August 2012, 17:19: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

(For those interested, the liturgical customary is Here and Here.)

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

South Coast Kevin: I think I might join your church if I had to put up with this.

Ha ha, much lol! [Big Grin]

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
The practice in our sacristy seems to be to refer to Fortescue (one of the recent reprints of the latest edition) and then decide what our version of Fortescue's instructions will look like. For simple answers, we tend to do what Fortescue says, but for the plan of a special liturgy, Fortescue is read and then adapted.

This is mainly because Fortescue is writing with a different liturgical text in mind, so we adapt it to the one we're using. We'd have to do this with Dearmer, too, if we used him instead.

The result is that visitors often marvel that what they're seeing appears rather Tridentine-ish but if they close their eyes it sounds BCP 1979 Rite II with some Rite I sung bits.

I should look up the books-never-have-their-backs-to-the-Blessed-Sacrament rule in Fortescue. Can't believe I haven't done that yet.

Referring to my own copy of Fortescue (12th ed., 1962), I find:
In the directions for Low Mass, he says that the missal is on its stand or cushion 'with its edges towards the cross.'
In the directions for High Mass, he directs that the missal is open 'to the introit of the day.'
He directs that the book (or books) for epistle and gospel are on the credence, but says nothing that I can find about how they are placed.
He sometimes seems to indicate that epistle and gospel are in the same book, and sometimes in separate volumes.
BTW, for Low Mass he says that it 'is the more correct procedure' for the server to carry the missal when entering.
Older versions of Fortescue may have had different instructions.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I suppose that serves me right for attempting to start a thread that deviates from the 'Modern Catholic' consensus of Ecclesiantics?

Were you under the impression that there is an Official Ecclesiantical Point of View? Or that the variety of people who post here agree on everything?* Sheesh, even the Anglo-Catholics don't agree on everything.

* [Killing me]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Natheless, it is both Seemly and Edifying to the Faithful for ritual - however simple, complex, or just plain weird - to at least be carried out properly (i.e. with people looking as if they know what they are supposed to be doing).

We do rather minimalist liturgy at our place these days ('twas not always so), but at least it's done well.....

.....I hope.

Ian J.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

(S)pike Couchant, perhaps your bishop doesn't know as much about liturgical propriety as you do, perhaps he has been reading a different edition, or perhaps he is exercising his episcopal charism tactfully to suggest to you that there just might be other things that are more important.

I think humility might oblige you to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume it is the latter.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I suppose that serves me right for attempting to start a thread that deviates from the 'Modern Catholic' consensus of Ecclesiantics?
Were you under the impression that there is an Official Ecclesiantical Point of View? Or that the variety of people who post here agree on everything?* Sheesh, even the Anglo-Catholics don't agree on everything.

*

I'm under the impression that it's usually possible to predict the response to any post about vaguely traditional Anglo-Catholic worship from the usual suspects. It's generally somewhere between condescension and consternation.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
(S)pike Couchant, perhaps your bishop doesn't know as much about liturgical propriety as you do, perhaps he has been reading a different edition, or perhaps he is exercising his episcopal charism tactfully to suggest to you that there just might be other things that are more important.

I think humility might oblige you to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume it is the latter.

??? The bishop isn't in charge of laying things out before a service (although this particular bishop, who is quite liturgically aware did specify that he wanted to be greeted in the usual manner, giving us plenty of notice so that we could borrow the cappa magna, a garment that we sadly do not have in our usual collection).

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I can't believe the normally sensible people on this thread who can't see that this is a windup.

Or if it's not, the answer to the question 'where has the anglo-catholic sense of fun' gone, would be 'the same direction as its sense of proportion.'

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

This is mainly because Fortescue is writing with a different liturgical text in mind, so we adapt it to the one we're using. We'd have to do this with Dearmer, too, if we used him instead.

I beleive this is basically what the Canons Regular of St.John Cantius do, as well as the Oratorians at the Brompton and Birmingham Oratories. Unfortunately, I've never had a chance to see an entire mass there and likely never will, but I do wonder how their customaries compare to others.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I can't believe the normally sensible people on this thread who can't see that this is a windup.

Ya think? Did we have to read as far as this choice tidbit; or, were there earlier clues?

quote:
...the fact is that I've never encountered a parish church [in which "Terce is sung immediately before mass and Sext immediately afterward"]...

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

... My question, though, is this: has Fortescue ever been followed to the letter anywhere in the world?

Why don't you research that question and then come back and tell us the answer?
*

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

... My question, though, is this: has Fortescue ever been followed to the letter anywhere in the world?
Why don't you research that question and then come back and tell us the answer?
*

That's a difficult thing to do. Many churches claim to be following Fortescue, and do indeed follow his advice on many issues, whilst also differing on many other issues. Even S. Magnus the Martyr and S. Clement's, Philadelphia don't follow Fortescue to the letter (something that I'm sure they'd be willing to admit). All Ss, Margaret Street used to be famous for having 'choreography by Fortescue', but I suspect that was always rather liberally interpreted and has certainly been interpreted very broadly in the past thirty or forty years.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Fortescue does contain some very sensible material that OUGHT to be followed to the letter.

One of the rubrics, to take a single example, refers to a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites stating that it is strictly forbidden to genuflect on top of a ladder.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Fortescue does contain some very sensible material that OUGHT to be followed to the letter.

One of the rubrics, to take a single example, refers to a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites stating that it is strictly forbidden to genuflect on top of a ladder.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

At which point two things become (even more) obvious i.e. viz.

1. This thread is a wind-up;
2. It is a rather odiferous wind-up.

I leave Eccles denizens to work out where the odour is coming from......

Ian J.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
At which point two things become (even more) obvious i.e. viz.

1. This thread is a wind-up;
2. It is a rather odiferous wind-up.

I leave Eccles denizens to work out where the odour is coming from......

Ian J.

I assure that it is most certainly not. I find it a bit surprising, and saddening, that all manner of questions related to the most markedly evangelical forms of worship are encouraged, but that any question about traditional Anglo-Catholic liturgies is treated as a 'wind up'.

I recognize that not all parishes have solemn vespers of the BVM in the presence of a greater prelate, but surely such things full under the remit of this board, just as much as do Evangelical and MotR practices?

[ 24. August 2012, 13:48: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Ok. Let's get some perspective.

1. There is space for discussion of all traditions in Ecclesiantics. We don't persecute threads of any tradition. I've seen complaints about persecution of Evangelicals and persecution of Catholics but I think this is the first time I've seen a complaint about persecution of Anglo-Catholics.

2. (S)pike Couchant: I'm sure you're aware and were when you wrote the OP that the answer to your question is "Almost certainly not." That may be why many people feel the thread is a bit of a wind-up. If you're genuine with the denizens, they'll be genuine with you.

3. Lay off the junior hosting, people! If you think a thread is a wind-up, the best thing to do is not to post on it. In general, if you have concerns about something, PMing a host is the best way of seeking to address it.

For the moment, I am leaving this thread open. I suggest that discussion be on the topic of the use and adaptation of Fortescue and other liturgical guides for local parishes. My finger is hovering over the close button though, so you had all better behave.

seasick, sitting on his hostly faldstool

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

I think that in our shack, where Fortescue gets consulted and followed more closely than at other times is when we need to remind ourselves of what is omitted or done differently in a Solemn Requiem: censings omitted, a bit of the Ecce Agnus Dei omitted, what exactly is done at the catafalque and when, etc.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

At my Scot-Catholic shack we have an Elder named Angus Day!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Thanks, seasick, for your wise advice. Can I just ask a question: never having had occasion to consult the Blessed Fortescue, I don't know the answer. But do any of his directions have any relevance [a] to the modern Roman Rite; [b] to traditional Anglican rites such as the BCP; or [c] to any other modern Anglican, or other, rites in current use? If not, I fail to see that his book is of any concern to other than users of Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

One of the criticisms of such books as Ritual Notes, AIUI, is that it tried to apply the ceremonial of one rite (the pre-Vatican 2 Roman Rite) to the celebration of another (the BCP and its kindred Anglican liturgies. That made for an awkward fit, rather like a badly-dubbed film from a foreign language. Trying to apply the directives of Fortescue to the BCP is one step further back than that.

The virtue of the Blessed Percy's Parson's Handbook, for all its idiosyncrasies, was that it took as its starting point the Anglican rite and its rubrics, and only looked to pre-Reformation usage when the former was ambiguous or silent.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I was told by a priest who trained at St Stephen's House in the 70s, that the then principal had Fortescue removed from the library there. "You're training to be priests, not servers," he is supposed to have remarked.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The virtue of the Blessed Percy's Parson's Handbook, for all its idiosyncrasies, was that it took as its starting point the Anglican rite and its rubrics, and only looked to pre-Reformation usage when the former was ambiguous or silent.

Agreed, and I imagine that were Blessed Percy here to help us apply his Handbook to our churches and liturgies (CW, BCP79 Rite II, etc.), he'd take a red pen and cross out some major bits and rewrite others and would be only too glad to work with freestanding altars. He'd basically make a new edition of his book to go with current liturgies and wouldn't want us to force the old editions on those liturgies without major revision.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
One of the [Fortsecue] rubrics, to take a single example, refers to a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites stating that it is strictly forbidden to genuflect on top of a ladder.

I don't think it unreasonable to do a Snopes check here.

sebby, can you kindly provide us with the cite?

There are certainly enough copies of Fortescue—in all his editions—proximate to the eyeballs viewing this thread to be able to appreciate an edition-page-footnote reference.

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I was told by a priest who trained at St Stephen's House in the 70s, that the then principal had Fortescue removed from the library there. "You're training to be priests, not servers," he is supposed to have remarked.

Yup. That sounds like the know-nothing '70s. What is old and what is new? Bosh! "Michno ought to be good enough for you lot."

quote:
Angloid asks:
...I fail to see that [Fortescue's] book is of any concern to other than users of Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

What Oblatus tells is the answer to your question. His answer can be extended to other ceremonies, for example, the blessing of the font at baptisms and the Paschal Vigil, the blessing of the Paschal fire, translation of the MBS on Maundy Thursday, etc, etc.

[ 24. August 2012, 16:48: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
One of the criticisms of such books as Ritual Notes, AIUI, is that it tried to apply the ceremonial of one rite (the pre-Vatican 2 Roman Rite) to the celebration of another (the BCP and its kindred Anglican liturgies. That made for an awkward fit, rather like a badly-dubbed film from a foreign language.

Good description.

I still place my vote with the exercise of episcopal charism (see above).

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
One of the [Fortsecue] rubrics, to take a single example, refers to a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites stating that it is strictly forbidden to genuflect on top of a ladder.
I don't think it unreasonable to do a Snopes check here.

sebby, can you kindly provide us with the cite?

There are certainly enough copies of Fortescue—in all his editions—proximate to the eyeballs viewing this thread to be able to appreciate an edition-page-footnote reference.

In the 2nd and revised edition, 1919, on page 243, footnote 1 reads as follows:
"Ritus serv., p14, § 6. It is impossible to genuflect on the top of a ladder. If a ladder is used, he must first come down, then genuflect on the ground."

Genuflecting on ladders is, of course, never seen in any of the churches in which I serve. [Big Grin]

[ 24. August 2012, 17:05: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I got to know and love catholic worship after Vatican II at the sort of churches which would have used Fortescue in the past and were then applying GIRM to Series 3, to its great improvement.

As a result of that mindset, we were already using the 3 year lectionary and avoiding the awful 2 year themes.

If you are going for an old fashioned 3 sacred ministers/altar against the wall show, you might as well have a look at Fortescue first before making any decision.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Thanks, seasick, for your wise advice. Can I just ask a question: never having had occasion to consult the Blessed Fortescue, I don't know the answer. But do any of his directions have any relevance [a] to the modern Roman Rite; [b] to traditional Anglican rites such as the BCP; or [c] to any other modern Anglican, or other, rites in current use? If not, I fail to see that his book is of any concern to other than users of Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

In my opinion, it would have no direct relevance to any rite other than the Tridentine. I think there may be slight differences of detail between his directions and the rubrics which apply to celebrations of the Extraordinary Form today, but I have no idea what they might be. If you happened to be in an Anglican parish, for example, that celebrated High Mass according to CW Order 1 say then I think there probably isn't a liturgical guide which addresses that. I can see in that situation that reference to works like Fortescue or the Parson's Handbook or whatever may give a starting point from which to adapt.

Many of the liturgies in the Methodist Worship Book owe a great debt to those of the (modern) Roman Rite. For that reason when planning, I often consult Elliott and the Roman Missal itself but only to give me a broader picture of where everything's coming from. In that light we decide what we're actually going to do.

So I suppose I say I think they are relevant for some parishes - depending what kind of worship they're trying to offer - but you won't see me worrying about white cloths on crucifixes any time soon.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Thanks, seasick, for your wise advice. Can I just ask a question: never having had occasion to consult the Blessed Fortescue, I don't know the answer. But do any of his directions have any relevance [a] to the modern Roman Rite; [b] to traditional Anglican rites such as the BCP; or [c] to any other modern Anglican, or other, rites in current use? If not, I fail to see that his book is of any concern to other than users of Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

No, there is no reference to anything other than the Tridentine Rite.

But for me, that doesn't stop it being useful, illustrative and informative. The Tridentine Rite is the historic norm for the Latin Rite Church for the last four and a half centuries. I am an Anglican who believes that the Church of England is a (separated) part of the Latin Rite Church, so obviously its normative liturgy will have significant importance in my understanding of the liturgies that my church employs.

If said church were to provide a comprehensive manual for the liturgy, I would wholeheartedly use that. As it doesn't, I don't think it's unreasonable to look to the Tridentine Rite for guidance.

Which brings me on to...

quote:
One of the criticisms of such books as Ritual Notes, AIUI, is that it tried to apply the ceremonial of one rite (the pre-Vatican 2 Roman Rite) to the celebration of another (the BCP and its kindred Anglican liturgies. That made for an awkward fit, rather like a badly-dubbed film from a foreign language. Trying to apply the directives of Fortescue to the BCP is one step further back than that.

This is less problematic, of course, when using a liturgy like Common Worship Order One, which generally follows a similar structure to the Roman orders.

But in any case, the key thing is that we shouldn't apply the ceremonial according to Fortescue to a foreign liturgy where it creates liturgical dissonance. Instead, we can use the Tridentine ceremonial to inform the development of our own liturgy. In that way it is possible to do justice both to liturgical aesthetics and to our liturgical heritage.

Of course, the key thing is that this use is sensitive. If you're going to do the dubbing, as your analogy has it, it needs to be done well.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
instructions for a Pontifical High Mass require the presence not only of 15 servers (which shouldn't pose a difficulty for any healthy parish) but also no fewer than five priests, all of whom must be canons. He then assumes that there are additional clergy in quire,

I wouldn't regard any parish as 'healthy' if it was so obsessed with ceremonial and, probably, not at all interested in social justice issues.

I wouldn't regard any diocese as healthy if it made 5 people canons, all from the same church.

This diocese has a lot of women canons and also lay canons. does Fortescue allow for them? Assuming he doesn't, does he have any relevance whatsoever to the missional priorities of the 21st century Church in a post-Christian landscape?

BTW I would love the OPer to invite Bishop Pete, from these boards to the ceremonies described and for me to do a MW report.

Or, better, to invite one of those bishops who always dresses in rochet and chimere.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
instructions for a Pontifical High Mass require the presence not only of 15 servers (which shouldn't pose a difficulty for any healthy parish) but also no fewer than five priests, all of whom must be canons. He then assumes that there are additional clergy in quire,
I wouldn't regard any parish as 'healthy' if it was so obsessed with ceremonial and, probably, not at all interested in social justice issues.

"So obsessed" as to do what? In what way does a Pontifical High Mass, if that's the sort of thing, indicate they're not at all interested in social justice issues?

As to your point about canons, it's remarkable how, sometimes, priests from other churches come together - especially for, say, a Deanery Service.

My parish doesn't use Fortescue, despite our slightly old-fashioned leanings, but to suggest that those that do are necessarily obsessed by ceremonial, ignoring the realities of day to day life, and the needs of their parish is, well, bollocks.

Thurible

Posted by Sarum Sleuth (# 162) on :

One of the criticisms of the Parson's Handbook made by Dom Anslem Hughes was that it had fallen into the hands of cathedral clergy for whom it was not intended. He was strangely silent on Fortescue falling into the hands of Anglican clergy, who were hardly it's target audience.

SS

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
In the 2nd and revised edition, 1919, on page 243, footnote 1 reads as follows:
"Ritus serv., p14, § 6. It is impossible to genuflect on the top of a ladder. If a ladder is used, he must first come down, then genuflect on the ground."

Thanks for my new sig. [Smile]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

As a member of the Alcuin Club, I was sent an excellent guide to ceremonial, Celebrating the Eucharist by Benjamin Gordon-Taylor and Simon Jones, (SPCK 2005). As a back pew liturgist, I have no opportunity to use its sensible suggestions, but I'm happy to recommend it to those who have some say in the arrangements of public worship.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
instructions for a Pontifical High Mass require the presence not only of 15 servers (which shouldn't pose a difficulty for any healthy parish) but also no fewer than five priests, all of whom must be canons. He then assumes that there are additional clergy in quire,
I wouldn't regard any parish as 'healthy' if it was so obsessed with ceremonial and, probably, not at all interested in social justice issues.
"So obsessed" as to do what? In what way does a Pontifical High Mass, if that's the sort of thing, indicate they're not at all interested in social justice issues?

...

My parish doesn't use Fortescue, despite our
slightly old-fashioned leanings, but to suggest that those that do are necessarily obsessed by ceremonial, ignoring the realities of day to day life, and the needs of their parish is, well, bollocks.

Hear bloody hear!

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

As to your point about canons, it's remarkable how, sometimes, priests from other churches come together - especially for, say, a Deanery Service.

Well, yes, but I think it would still be difficult to find five canons. It's not hard to find five (or more) priests for, say, a patronal festival, but the vast majority of priests are not canons. Even the Precentor of Norwich can't be assist at every major liturgical function in the Anglophone world, try as he might.

[ 24. August 2012, 22:06: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
In the 2nd and revised edition, 1919, on page 243, footnote 1 reads as follows:
"Ritus serv., p14, § 6. It is impossible to genuflect on the top of a ladder. If a ladder is used, he must first come down, then genuflect on the ground."
Thanks for my new sig.

There has to be a story here. I'm imagining a poor workman with more piety than sense working in some old Roman church, trying to get it fixed up in time for services, when the priest comes back from visiting the sick, with the MBS in hand—and, scene 2, we've cut to the same workman, this time being visited by the same priest as he recovers in a full body cast.

Or something like that.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
In the 2nd and revised edition, 1919, on page 243, footnote 1 reads as follows:
"Ritus serv., p14, § 6. It is impossible to genuflect on the top of a ladder. If a ladder is used, he must first come down, then genuflect on the ground."
Thanks for my new sig.
There has to be a story here. I'm imagining a poor workman with more piety than sense working in some old Roman church, trying to get it fixed up in time for services, when the priest comes back from visiting the sick, with the MBS in hand—and, scene 2, we've cut to the same workman, this time being visited by the same priest as he recovers in a full body cast.

Or something like that.

I believe it has something to do with the custom in some Continental churches of exposing the sacrament in a location high above the altar, thus requiring it to be placed there by a man on a ladder. In such circumstances, the normal mode of reverencing the Sanctissimum is not only impractical but also highly dangerous.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I believe it has something to do with the custom in some Continental churches of exposing the sacrament in a location high above the altar, thus requiring it to be placed there by a man on a ladder. In such circumstances, the normal mode of reverencing the Sanctissimum is not only impractical but also highly dangerous.

A ladder is mentioned in the latest Fortescue/O'Connell (1996), but alas, no wonderful footnote about not genuflecting up there.

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I believe it has something to do with the custom in some Continental churches of exposing the sacrament in a location high above the altar, thus requiring it to be placed there by a man on a ladder. In such circumstances, the normal mode of reverencing the Sanctissimum is not only impractical but also highly dangerous.

We do that at my parish during 40 hours devotion and vespers/benediction during advent and lent. The niche above the altar where the crucifix usually goes becomes the place of exposition. Two years ago during vespers one of the evenings during 40 hours, the officiant nearly did fall off the ladder while getting the monstrance down. Luckily, the MC caught him. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
A ladder is mentioned in the latest Fortescue/O'Connell (1996), but alas, no wonderful footnote about not genuflecting up there.

Just to keep the record accurate, there have been two more editions since the 1996, viz., in 2003 and 2009, the latter of which contains additional material. These editions are now Fortescue-O'Connell-Reid.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It's very sad that when there are plenty of members of the ship who do not accept the need for any liturgical approach whatever and mock the attempts, there is all this sniping about which guide to follow at all. It only supports that view.

Since a Methodist minister here very sensibly admits to consulting Roman guidelines, can we just accept there is nothing inherently frivolous, naughty or exotic in doing so?

Some Anglicans who press for Roman standards may indeed be all too frivolous, etc. But one of the most noted Anglican priests concerned with social justice (who leo admires much) was a stickler for current Roman guidelines and dismissed the work of the Alcuin Club as irrelevant.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Surely there is a fair distance between looking at guidelines and fussing about details that no-one who hasn't memorised those guidelines will notice?

I'm all for appropriate, reverent ceremony and ritual, but I'm not sure why it needs to precisely follow one or other particular historical record of one particular form of practice. The tradition from which the Anglican church arose was already distinct from that practice in Rome at the time of the reformation, and the liturgies have evolved differently in the intervening time.

I think, ultimately, the test of whether to try and push for a particular rule is two-fold.
1. Is there a theological or practical justification for the rule?
2. Will more people be uplifted by its following than are annoyed by you being fussy about it?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
There has to be a story here. I'm imagining a poor workman with more piety than sense working in some old Roman church, trying to get it fixed up in time for services, when the priest comes back from visiting the sick, with the MBS in hand—and, scene 2, we've cut to the same workman, this time being visited by the same priest as he recovers in a full body cast.

Surely the opportunity for a miracle in the hagiography of a minor saint.

Arethosemyfeet, I like your two tests, particularly the second.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Leaving aside with relief the perennial questions of Anglican ceremonial, the OP does raise an interesting aspect of Roman Catholic practice:

quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
In the U.S. among Roman Catholics, I would say not in the least. .... in this city, and outside of about six places I know on the top of my head, high masses were three times a year and rarely according to the rubrics.

You often heard it complained that the new mass lacks dignity and mystery and is performed sloppily and so on.

But this supports what I have long suspected – the old mass was performed sloppily in any case. (Eammon Duffy in Faith of Our Fathers says that in his Irish home town, a priest could say low mass in twenty minutes.)

Once mass is in the vernacular the sloppiness becomes more apparent.

Does that support any RC experience?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Dunno about Mass in the vernacular breeding sloppiness - though it may well be that familiarity sometimes breeds, if not contempt, then carelessness.

We had a 1662 BCP Mass last Sunday afternoon, and people commented on how much they enjoyed it. Part of that might have been the extra care the priest and servers (perhaps subconsciously) put into it, simply because it's not what we usually do.

Ian J.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

But this supports what I have long suspected – the old mass was performed sloppily in any case. (Eammon Duffy in Faith of Our Fathers says that in his Irish home town, a priest could say low mass in twenty minutes.)

The funny thing is that 20 minutes wouldn't be much too short for a low mass in the Novus Ordo (where a low mass should really never take more than 30 minutes), but it would seem rushed in the Tridentine form because of all the mandatory extra prayers (many of them silent). I've seen an Anglican Eucharist done in 15 minutes. It wasn't rushed, but they did use a horrible CW Eucharistic Prayer (H?) that's over before it begins (and also has the Sanctus in the wrong place).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
a horrible CW Eucharistic Prayer (H?) that's over before it begins (and also has the Sanctus in the wrong place).

I thought you liked the old customs. One of the very earliest eucharistic prayers that has come down from antiquity as the sanctus at the end of the Eucharistic prayer rather than the middle.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One of the very earliest eucharistic prayers that has come down from antiquity as the sanctus at the end of the Eucharistic prayer rather than the middle.

Is that so? Could you unpack the claim a bit, please?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The detailed work on this appears in Bryan Spinks’ ‘The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer.

It seems that the sanctus, as we now know it, doesn’t appear in the very earliest extant Eucharistic prayers. For example, it doesn’t appear in Hippolytus.

Something resembling the sanctus forms a doxology at the end of the Great thanksgiving in Sarapion – very Jewish is in structure and itsd ‘sanctus’ is very like the Jewish berakot

According to C. Ratcliffe and W. E. Pitt, Addai and Mari had it at the end of the anaphora (and this prayer didn’t have the dominical words – and some, e.g. the now discredited Gregory Dix, argue that the sanctus is a later interpolation – it didn’t have the sanctus either, originally)

We have had this debate before – see here.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Gregory Dix my be discredited by leo, but he's now an optional lesser festival in the C of E calendar. I commemorated him at the office of course.

We had Prayer H for our children's masses. Not a great success, with all those responses.

And the sanctus doesn't conclude any surviving eucharistic prayer in use, which would suggest it was found to be not a good idea in experience.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And the sanctus doesn't conclude any surviving eucharistic prayer in use

Yes it does - CW EP H - we use it often.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Can we end the sanctus at the end of the EP tangent, please and return to the use and adaptation of liturgical guides?

Much obliged.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems that the sanctus, as we now know it, doesn’t appear in the very earliest extant Eucharistic prayers. For example, it doesn’t appear in Hippolytus.

Except that it's not Hippolytus, is it?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
You often heard it complained that the new mass lacks dignity and mystery and is performed sloppily and so on.

But this supports what I have long suspected – the old mass was performed sloppily in any case. (Eammon Duffy in Faith of Our Fathers says that in his Irish home town, a priest could say low mass in twenty minutes.)

Once mass is in the vernacular the sloppiness becomes more apparent.

Does that support any RC experience?

I would agree that the slopppiness becomes more apparent in the vernacular. I might further argue that it is, in a sense, therefore worse when this happens today, because more people can be scandalized by it.

However, I think that a far more significant observation is that the sloppiness of yesteryear (a phenomenon in the US, at least, which was and to a degree, still is, largely associated with "move things along" Irish clergy, sorry...) was more a product of just that, sloppiness. It was an assumption by priests, especially at Low Mass, that it really did not matter to the people if the priest sped through, since their comprehension and level of devotion was limited. OTOH, most of the complaints I hear today are about abuses.

By abuses, I mean willful disregard for the rubrics, Roman liturgical books and documents, notices from the Holy See, and liturgical history. Beginning in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there was a mentality, frequently conveyed in seminaries, that the missal of Paul VI "liberated" the liturgy from its own past. No small numnber of clergy, implicitly or explicitly, were taught that they could do X, Y and Z, even if the rubrics or other liturgical norms did not permit it, in the name of the needs of the community. Some of this led to careless practices and ad-libbed prayers, while others carried it to absurd and even offensive theatrics. Sometimes even when parishioners who were scandalized complained to pastors, they were completely ignored or, worse, told to buzz off. Only within the last 10-15 years has there begun to be a slow move away from this "anything goes" mentality.

I can certainly list many popular practices that do not square with current Roman liturgical norms, but such a list is not the purpose of my post here, or this thread. But suffice to say that while I see priests speeding through Low Mass in Latin as a very serious infraction, I also suspect that this probably pales in comparison with Clown, Dance or Puppet Masses, improperly disposed of Precious Blood, enactments of the gospel readings, people gathered around altars, ad-libbed prayers where such are not permitted, and omissions of chants, music and prayers in favor of pop songs.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
It was an assumption by priests, especially at Low Mass, that it really did not matter to the people if the priest sped through, since their comprehension and level of devotion was limited.

I really don't this was the case, except maybe for those priests who were natural snobs, and you can find natural snobs everywhere from the Ship to your local comic-book store.

In a weird sort of way it had to do with trust in the efficacy of the sacrament. As long as things were done sufficiently correctly and with sufficient devotion then that was good enough for everybody even if it meant you got it done in 20 minutes.

I don't think it was a disregard of the people by the priests. As long as the priest did what had to be done and as long as the people did what they ought to have been doing (either following along in their missals or with devotions and meditations in their prayer books or in reciting the rosary) what had to be done was being done. The sacrifice of the mass is an objective reality (to Catholics, anyway) and so I don't think the question of comprehension and level of devotion among the people really entered into the equation. I don't think questions of "performance" ever really came in to the celebration of low masses because I think that aspect wasn't on most peoples' radar.

On the surface it might appear to be like the disregard for rubrics that came after Vatican II but I think that had to with an almost opposite attitude, that "the mass is the mass is the mass" wasn't enough so you had to make things "relevant", or you had get people involved, etc. in addition to bending the rubrics. This is why we ended up with some priests who not only chat their way through the mass, but would do things like if they felt the response of "and also with you" wasn't loud enough then they would make people repeat it once more, with feeling.

I don't think this attitude is really the fault of the Ordinary Form. It was a perfect storm of things that came together in the late 60s and afterwards and the Ordinary Form was a doorway it came through.

I've got other thoughts on this but they'll have to wait until after the weekend.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

In the late 1970's, a clergyman I know was impressed when a priest celebrated a Low Mass, using one of the Anglican Missals (a close approximation of the Tridentine rite in English), in only twenty minutes. A normal time for a low mass was between twenty-five and thirty minutes, more if there were many communions.

When communicants were numerous and extra priests were available, some Roman Catholic parishes minimized the time required for the Mass by beginning the administration of communion as early as the Epistle.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
One of the [Fortsecue] rubrics, to take a single example, refers to a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites stating that it is strictly forbidden to genuflect on top of a ladder.
I don't think it unreasonable to do a Snopes check here.

sebby, can you kindly provide us with the cite?

There are certainly enough copies of Fortescue—in all his editions—proximate to the eyeballs viewing this thread to be able to appreciate an edition-page-footnote reference.
In the 2nd and revised edition, 1919, on page 243, footnote 1 reads as follows:
"Ritus serv., p14, § 6. It is impossible to genuflect on the top of a ladder. If a ladder is used, he must first come down, then genuflect on the ground."

Genuflecting on ladders is, of course, never seen in any of the churches in which I serve.

A reply within 13 minutes. And, by a host. It's enough to make a liturgy geek's chest swell with pride. I apologize for my Snopes crack.

For those sports fans following along at home, the context is that of "Benediction and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament" (Chap. XXII). The relevant quote is

quote:
If a stand or small ladder is necessary, it is brought forward by a server (the M.C.) and put in position. The priest then mounts and places the monstrance on the corporal which lies on the throne.

In some churches he may have to go behind the altar and mount some steps there. When he has done this he genuflects again,¹ and comes back to his place.

The helpful footnote had disappeared by the Fortescue-O'Connell 10th edition of 1958.

[ 26. August 2012, 01:40: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
A reply within 13 minutes. And, by a host.

And a Methodist, no less! [Big Grin]

eta:

[ 26. August 2012, 02:38: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:

When communicants were numerous and extra priests were available, some Roman Catholic parishes minimized the time required for the Mass by beginning the administration of communion as early as the Epistle.

And to that effect, I have seen churches with more than one altar rail- The other a few feet past the first- So that two rails could be used by communicants at once. Even at my parish, the practice during easter, Christmas, and days when many people are expected is to have three or four priests all giving communion at the same time, criss-crossing past each other.

As to the shortness of masses, I found an old bulletin from a large church near where I used to live. It listed low masses a half hour from each other from 6 AM to 9, a high mass at 9, and two more low masses at 9:45 and 10:15. Even assuming it was non-communicating missa cantata and not a full high mass, 45 minutes sounds like breakneck speed, and I suppose something had to be ommited.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

In pre Vatican 2 days a weekday Mass could easily be celebrated in 20 minutes.
sincwe the priest (and the server) said everything in Latin and mainly in a monotone there was no problem with this.There wouldn't be any homily during the week and often there would be few communicants.At the early Masses Communion was often given out before the Mass as into the 60s communicants would come fasting from midnight or after the mid fifities for 3 hours before the reception of Communion.

However I don't remember anything being omitted,particularly as it was held to be very important to follow the rubrics to the letter (minus unintentional mistakes)

There also was not any lack of reverence.It was just the way things were done.I wish that people would stop oblique or direct castigation of Irish Roman Catholics who at least in the performance of the sacred liturgy were no worse and no better than anyone else.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

I think that whatever bits of the liturgy are not chanted should be said at the normal speech rhythm. This will, of course, vary from person to person, but there are few things that do more to destroy the pace of the liturgy than an officiant who speaks too slowly and with lots of 'meaningful' pauses. The intercessions are a particular and repeated offender in this regard. In fact, the intercessions are almost always too long and read too slowly. There is no reason why a low mass with neither hymns nor a homily should EVER last longer than 30 minutes. Overlong intercessions are, in my experience, the most likely reason for it to run over.

There are, however, times when going slowly can be very effective. Some priests (especially, it would seem, very young priests) say the words institution as though there were a full stop between each one: 'TAKE. EAT. THIS. IS. MY. BODY.' When accompanied by genuine reverence, this can be very edifying, even awe-inspiring, although I can see how it would degenerate into cheap theatrics if the genuine reverence weren't there.

[ 26. August 2012, 14:07: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Some priests (especially, it would seem, very young priests) say the words institution as though there were a full stop between each one: 'TAKE. EAT. THIS. IS. MY. BODY.' When accompanied by genuine reverence, this can be very edifying, even awe-inspiring, although I can see how it would degenerate into cheap theatrics if the genuine reverence weren't there.

Though if they were following Fortescue to the letter, these words would be inaudible.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems that the sanctus, as we now know it, doesn’t appear in the very earliest extant Eucharistic prayers. For example, it doesn’t appear in Hippolytus.
Except that it's not Hippolytus, is it?

I had a detailed reply about this all ready last night but deleted it for fear of appearing to be habitually sniping at leo, which really isn't my intention. It's just that we disagree so much on liturgics.

However, yes, I was amused by the irony of leo describing Gregory Dix as discredited and then in the very next breath citing one of the erroneous theories on which his "discredited" work was based.

The Shape of the Liturgy was and remains a great work and incredibly valuable today. However, as with any such work, it reflected the thought and assumptions of its day, many of which have been superseded by more recent discoveries and thought.

Dix' chapter on the eucharistic prayers includes a section on the early Roman tradition, focusing on a particular eucharistic prayer, which he attributes to St Hippolytus of Rome, following the general thought of his day. The problem is that citing this prayer is based on two assumptions: a) that the document in which the prayer was found in recent centuries was a document penned by St Hippolytus that was known about but not extant until its comparatively recent discovery, and b) that such a document ever existed in the first place. More recent scholarship has raised serious doubt about "b", and even if "be" were disproved, there is further question about whether the document is in keeping with what is known about the Roman liturgical tradition.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
...even if "be" were...

Um...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I wish that people would stop oblique or direct castigation of Irish Roman Catholics who at least in the performance of the sacred liturgy were no worse and no better than anyone else.

I hope you notice my appreciation of the RC mass I attended recently over on the One Up for the Catholics thread. I can't make a link work.

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems that the sanctus, as we now know it, doesn’t appear in the very earliest extant Eucharistic prayers. For example, it doesn’t appear in Hippolytus.
Except that it's not Hippolytus, is it?
Dix' chapter on the eucharistic prayers includes a section on the early Roman tradition, focusing on a particular eucharistic prayer, which he attributes to St Hippolytus of Rome, following the general thought of his day. The problem is that citing this prayer is based on two assumptions: a) that the document in which the prayer was found in recent centuries was a document penned by St Hippolytus that was known about but not extant until its comparatively recent discovery, and b) that such a document ever existed in the first place. More recent scholarship has raised serious doubt about "b", and even if "be" were disproved, there is further question about whether the document is in keeping with what is known about the Roman liturgical tradition.

I meant to say something as well but I didn't want to start a tangent. From what I have read and been taught recently, the Apostolic tradition is a composite work from differing sources, with parts from the second century and parts from the 4th century. And likely, it presents Alexandrian practice and not Roman.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Well Paul Bradshaw and his collaborators argue that it's sixth century West Syrian. Whatever, it isn't the ancient Roman prayer that we were all told it was.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
We do that at my parish during 40 hours devotion and vespers/benediction during advent and lent. The niche above the altar where the crucifix usually goes becomes the place of exposition. Two years ago during vespers one of the evenings during 40 hours, the officiant nearly did fall off the ladder while getting the monstrance down. Luckily, the MC caught him.

Catching falling rectors was NOT covered in my MC training. I am sorely vexed about the glaring deficiencies in our ceremonial! Should I bow before or after catching her, or is that merely the time for the liturgical invocation, "Holy Moly!"

(To which, of course, the congregation responds, "And also with you.")

I should mention that one of the criteria in becoming MC at my shack seems to be the ability not to freak out if the purificators are AWOL or the Intercessor disappeared after the Gospel hymn, but to proceed in an orderly fashion with hands folded to get whatever it is that is needed for the worship to continue. It's also our jobs to keep the other servers calm when that kind of thing happens, learn from the day, and move on with no recriminations or bitter pearl-clutching blamefests afterwards.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Can someone explain to a Baptist what Fortescue is? I gather it contains instructions for things like how a book should be orientated when placed on a credence (whatever that is) and the volume of a priest's voice. Is it a book of incredibly detailed instructions on how to follow a printed liturgy, then? Clothing, timings, hardware, actions, music, lighting, etc?

Who was Fortescue? What was his objective? What does it mean today if someone follows Fortescue? What are the alternatives? Percy's Parson's book has been mentioned. Is developing your own local style a respected option? Arethosemyfeet mentioned theological rationale, which seems a good thing to me, so does Fortescue explain why the edges of a books pages should be towards the altar (or whatever it was), or does he just give instructions?

(I'm aware that (S)pike couchant is a wind-up but I hadn't heard of Fortescue and I'm genuinely interested.)

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I'm tempted to divert to this thread and define a fortescue [n] as a blunt instrument wielded by an imperious head server/MC/sacristan to ensure compliance with his (or more rarely her) whims.

But I understand 'Fortescue' in this context as meaning the Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described (have I got the title right?) by a certain Mr or Fr Fortescue which dates from the early years of the 20th century, later updated several times. And as you rightly infer, it is a meticulous guide to celebrating the liturgy of the (old, now 'Extraordinary' Roman Rite.) A tiny minority of Anglicans seem to have taken it as their handbook too, rather than simply using it as a general guide to liturgical principles. More commonly, Anglo-catholics of a Roman inclination have used their own Ritual Notes, which I suppose is a version of Fortescue adapted to the Prayer Book liturgy (as itself adapted/enriched from RC sources.) More purist 'Prayer Book Catholics' have turned to Percy Dearmer's [aka St or the Blessed Percy] Parson's Handbook.

Since the emergence of revised rites in both the Anglican and RC traditions, it has made more sense for the former to seek guidance from Catholic sources (for example Aidan Kavanagh), as the two traditions have converged to a large extent. But clearly the details are not identical. Nor are the theological presuppositions.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Can someone explain to a Baptist what Fortescue is?

I can try!

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I gather it contains instructions for things like how a book should be orientated when placed on a credence (whatever that is) and the volume of a priest's voice. Is it a book of incredibly detailed instructions on how to follow a printed liturgy, then? Clothing, timings, hardware, actions, music, lighting, etc?
[/QB]

Pretty much. Although Fortescue doesn't concern himself with church furnishings in much detail. His main focus is on ritual action.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Who was Fortescue?

I'm so glad you asked! I think that most people who know about his life would agree that Adrian Fortescue (1874 – 1923) was one of the most interesting men of his or any other age. The scion of a notable Recusant family, he studied in Rome and Austria where he distinguished himself as a brilliant scholar, receiving three doctoral degrees and reputedly learning 11 languages. His early career makes him sound a bit like Indiana Jones, including incidents where he shot an attacker in Anatolia and fended off another assailant with his bare hands in what is now Israel. The publication of his letter has revealed that he had a trenchant wit, with his favourite subjects being his fellow Catholics. One comic passage of his is too good not to reprint here:

quote:
[Some nuns] have given me a picture of a gentleman whom I recognise as that illustrious prelate the present incumbent of the Roman bishoprick: I am informed that if I look at it in the proper spirit it will give the pontifical blessing – a striking sight which I am naturally anxious to enjoy. Hitherto I have not succeeded in convincing it of my spiritual propriety. I have told it all the things that I think it would like to hear – that I am dead nuts on encyclicals, that ubi Petrus ibi the whole shew, that Roma locuta est (she never stops) nulla salus est (I hope I haven’t got this mixed); I have even said polite things about its fel. Rec. predecessors of the X and XV centuries; alas, in vain! It hasn’t once burst into: Sit nome Domini benedittumme [n.b. the deliberately mispelt Latin, which is probably an attempt to mimic the Pope's heavy Italian accent]

Fortescue is, however, almost certainly best known today for his work 'Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described'

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

What was his objective?

I believe it was to make money, actually (for his parish, not himself, let me hasten to add!), but he also made a wealth of liturgical knowledge available to those without access to a small library of liturgical texts (all of them written in Latin).

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

What does it mean today if someone follows Fortescue?

Generally speaking, that he or she adheres to the ceremonial norms of the Roman Rite as they existed at some point before the Second Vatican Council (the exact point varies depending on which edition is used).

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

What are the alternatives? Percy's Parson's book has been mentioned.

For Anglicans, the most common alternatives would be 'Ritual Notes', which is very similar to Fortescue but simplified and aimed a specifically Anglican audience, and (as you mentioned) Percy Dearmer's 'Parson's Handbook', which is a somewhat idiosyncratic attempt to reconstruct English liturgy as it might have existed in the early years of the reign of Edward VI. Of the three, Dearmer has by far the strongest views and is the most entertaining to read. Personally, however, I find liturgy a la Dearmer to be rather dull: it's not the ceremonial of the Use of Sarum, but a highly simplified version thereof. Dearmer was obsessively keen to show that he was within the letter of the rubrics of the BCP, which can lend his ceremonial a rather staid quality when compared to Fortescue or Ritual Notes. This is not of particularly great relevance, however, as I don't think there is currently any parish in the world that follows all of Dearmer's advice, at least for regular services (his former parish of St Mary the Virgin, Primrose Hill, unsurprisingly comes the closest). Some of Dearmer's general principles were, however, very influential in English cathedrals amongst other places.

Besides these three, there are a plethora of other liturgical guides, but of these on GIRM (the guide to the modern Roman Rite) enjoys any great popularity.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Is developing your own local style a respected option?

That depends on what you mean by 'respected'. In theory, this is frowned upon. In practice, it is universally the case.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Arethosemyfeet mentioned theological rationale, which seems a good thing to me, so does Fortescue explain why the edges of a books pages should be towards the altar (or whatever it was), or does he just give instructions?

Fortescue is rigorously footnoted, but these citations usually refer to precedent and authoritative guides, rather than giving theological explanations. In actual fact, there really isn't a lot of apparent doctrinal reason for a lot of what is done in the liturgy, although some people will invent doctrinal explanations for everything.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

(I'm aware that (S)pike couchant is a wind-up but I hadn't heard of Fortescue and I'm genuinely interested.)

Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered, if I'm just a 'wind-up', but I thought your question was worth answering.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

I should perhaps mention that a preference for Fortescue is often associated with a baroque aesthetic ('Those were the days when that divine baroque./ Transformed our English altars and our ways' as Betjeman put it), for Martin Travers over Ninian Comper, as it were. Fortescue himself, however, designed his own vestments in a decidedly gothic style and outfitted his serving team in what appear to be surplices in the full English shape more associated with Percy Dearmer (yes, that is great man himself in the middle).

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Ven Bede indeed I read on another thread your description of an RC Mass which you attended recently in a 'back streets church' I thought it probably referred to a London suburb.I hadn't realised that it was an Irish church,but thanks very much for your encouraging words.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Well it was indeed in a London suburb, but Father clearly hailed from the Emerald Isle.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I should perhaps mention that a preference for Fortescue is often associated with a baroque aesthetic ('Those were the days when that divine baroque./ Transformed our English altars and our ways' as Betjeman put it), for Martin Travers over Ninian Comper, as it were. Fortescue himself, however, designed his own vestments in a decidedly gothic style and outfitted his serving team in what appear to be surplices in the full English shape more associated with Percy Dearmer (yes, that is great man himself in the middle).

I don't think I know what a baroque aesthetic is in this context. Telemann and Scarlatti come unhelpfully to mind. Travers and Comper don't mean a thing, either. Can Fortescue's style be summarised? Presumably it's more than a sort of historical re-enactment thing.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I should perhaps mention that a preference for Fortescue is often associated with a baroque aesthetic ('Those were the days when that divine baroque./ Transformed our English altars and our ways' as Betjeman put it), for Martin Travers over Ninian Comper, as it were. Fortescue himself, however, designed his own vestments in a decidedly gothic style and outfitted his serving team in what appear to be surplices in the full English shape more associated with Percy Dearmer (yes, that is great man himself in the middle).
I don't think I know what a baroque aesthetic is in this context. Telemann and Scarlatti come unhelpfully to mind. Travers and Comper don't mean a thing, either. Can Fortescue's style be summarised? Presumably it's more than a sort of historical re-enactment thing.

Okay, right. Travers and Comper were competing architects and designers of liturgical furnishings in the early part of the last century. They had very different styles:

Travers immitated the style of Baroque churches from Continental Europe whilst Comper took his inspiration from English and French churches of the High Middle Ages. There were sometimes practical reasons for choosing the Baroque over the Gothic: Travers' fees were, I believe, much smaller.

Sacred vestments also come in Gothic or Baroque styles. The main difference here is in the shape of the chasuble, which has changed considerably over time.

Despite what some people will try to tell you, there is absolutely no theological reason to prefer one style over the other. It is simply a matter of personal taste. Either style can be either lovely or horrible depending on its design and craftsmanship, and most Anglo-Catholic parishes will have vestments in both styles.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Why would anybody care about the shape of the chasuble, though? Does it signify something? Does it enable something?

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

In some cases, the style of vestments has been chosen to suit a particular church building. The "Gothic" shape, not surprisingly, seems at home in Gothic and Gothic Revival churches; the "Baroque" shape is appropriate not only in Baroque buildings, but also in those which which follow other variants of classical architecture, such as Renaissance and Georgian.

Among Anglicans in the period between the World Wars, the choice of style also depended on whether one's ideal was the pre-reformation church in northern Europe or the Roman Catholic Church as it emerged from the counter-reformation. The Baroque style appealed to "advanced" Anglo-Catholics precisely because it shocked people with Protestant sensibilities.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Why would anybody care about the shape of the chasuble, though? Does it signify something? Does it enable something?

Here's a brief, illustrated history of the fashions of the chasuble. The shape of the chasuble signified something about the perceptions where true tradition was to be found, in rather amusingly contradictory ways, as you can read at the link. The overarching (shape-independent...) spiritual tradition concerning the chasuble sees it as a symbol of charity. Hence the stole, symbol of priestly authority, should be worn beneath the chasuble - so that charity always covers authority. In the traditional vesting prayers the chasuble is associated with the "yoke of Christ".

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Hosting

Given that the OP has been responded to (to the extent it could be); and given that this thread keeps sprouting tangents despite hostly admonitions, it's being closed.

If there's further discussion to be had on the topic of chasubles, please take it to The Tatler.

Thank you.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0