I ll start by saying I am not a Catholic. I have to politely disagree with Michael Gerard Curtememoire that reenacting a 16th century wedding is, somewhereMessage 1 of 13 , Oct 20, 2012View SourceI'll start by saying I am not a Catholic.
I have to politely disagree with Michael Gerard Curtememoire that reenacting a 16th century wedding is, "somewhere between blasphemy and atrociously bad taste." Unless you were purposely making a mockery of the Catholic Church with I do not believe that is what the couple are intending to do. The purpose of our organization is the research and reenactment of medieval life and Catholic weddings are a part of that medieval life. The ceremony is not an actual wedding. The couple are getting married several weeks later. It is merely a reenactment. I for one would love to witness it. Not from a religious point of view but from a historical one. The 16th century catholic church (especially Italian!) gave the royalty a run for their money when it came to sumptuous and lavish clothing and decor. That said if the couple wanted to omit part of the traditional ceremony (for the sake of time or so as not to offend any Catholics in attendance), I'm sure that would be fine. You might want to have a handout or something with the outline of your ceremony vs. what a traditional ceremony would have. So that those in attendance can learn what to expect if it were an actual 16th century Catholic ceremony.
Good Luck with your ceremony!
PS: The Council of Trent was December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563 so it would be irrelevant for the couple who are reenacting a 1530's wedding.
--- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "George A.Trosper" <gtrosper@...> wrote:
> Felicitations on your marriage! And congratulations on making it public
> to the Society.
> *IF* the regs were the same in the 16th as in the 20th c.--which is a
> moderately big IF; persona-wise, you and I are both pre-Council of
> Trent, the very last big one before Vatican II--then, absent very
> special circumstances, you were *required* to have a "nuptial" Mass for
> your marriage.
> Now, that is pretty well right out for having IN an SCA event, because
> it pushes people into attending a religious ceremony. So let's begin by
> supposing that you want to have a Mass nearby DURING the event. First,
> realize that even w/o singing, incense, and wedding vows, and even a
> very short homily (sermon equivalent), a Mass takes at least a half hour
> to do w/o rushing, so yours would be likely about an hour, like the
> ordinary Sunday Mass at my parish. And except for the wedding ceremony
> itself and the homily, it's totally in Latin.
> Then let me point out that as an actual 21st-c. Catholic, I'd be
> extremely uncomfortable if you did that w/ a fake priest and acolytes.
> Even assuming they could handle the language smoothly, it would feel
> like a mockery to me. And I'm sure at least some of the 21st-c.
> Catholics in attendance, if there are any, or who heard about it, would
> find a fake Mass somewhere between blasphemy and atrociously bad taste.
> On the other hand, IF you're actual Catholics and can find a priest
> who's friendly to the old (16th-20th c.) Tridentine Mass in Latin, which
> would be very much like a period Mass for y'all, and is not horrified by
> the idea of SCA garb, there would be other problems. I'd worry about
> 20th-c. time-&-place Church & state regs on marriages, including whether
> your legal names would have to be used in the ceremony. (I suppose I'd
> be just barely okay w/ "George Alfred Trosper, known in the Society for
> Creative Anachronism as Michael Gerard Curtememoire, do you take this
> woman ...")
> On the third or gripping hand, real marriage recommitment ceremonies are
> often held during real 21st-c. Masses for couples' 25- or 50-year
> anniversaries, so I don't see why y'all couldn't do the same a week or
> six after your real wedding, having no problems w/ either Church or
> state. And the neatest thing would be that the priest could probably
> find 21st-c. vestments that would be authentic for the 16th-c., if not
> in his own parish then by asking around the diocese. (You'd want to
> provide him pictures for that task.)
> But assuming you're in fact NOT 21st-c. Catholics, no faithful priest
> could celebrate a nuptial Mass for you as tho you were.
> On the last assumption: You should look thru Dean & Lowe for a suitable
> ceremony to publicly *confirm* your marriage, it being assumed to have
> been previously performed at a Mass celebrated somewhere else, about
> which y'all could enthuse at length to anyone interested. I'm
> practically certain your officiant for it in the 16th would have been a
> priest or deacon (PLEASE let me know if your research finds out I'm
> wrong!), so you'd have to hold that ceremony where no one at the SCA
> event would be pushed into attending.
> THAT fake religious ceremony wouldn't trigger my "It's a mockery!"
> response. I think that's because it would be intended as a real
> confirmation of a marriage, whereas a fake Mass would involve a fake
> Consecration and distribution of fake Holy Communion ... and just be
> gut-feeling WRONG, I'm not entirely sure why. But the confirmation thing
> would be okay by me. For one thing, in Catholic theology the actual
> ministers of the sacrament in any Christian marriage (Catholic or not)
> are the couple, to each other; the officiant is just a required witness.
> And y'all would be a real bride and groom.
> Finally, getting to your original question: IF I'm right above about who
> your officiant would be, then the clothes you'd want to make him would
> be early-16th-c. Mass vestments for a priest or deacon, presumably (for
> the priest) omitting the chasuble, since it wouldn't be a Mass. (That's
> the 20th-c. style for many non-Mass sacraments and other sacred ceremonies.)
> --Michael Gerard Curtememoire, mka George A. Trosper
> On 7/13/2012 11:48 AM, trephinelabro wrote:
> > Ylaire,
> > There is an edited book published in 1998 entitled "Marriage in Italy, 1300-1650." The editors are Trevor Dean and K. Lowe, ISBN 0-521-55402-0. It's an academic-type book written by historians and published by Cambridge U Press. The major sections of the book are 1) Ceremonies and Festivities, 2) Interventions by Church and State, 3) Patterns of Intermarriages, and 4) Consequences and Endings. If you can ILL the book it might answer some of your questions, plus I think it is really interesting as cultural/historical studies of the rite of marriage.
> > HTH,
> > Trephine la Broderesse
> > (back to lurking!)
> > --- Ylaire Sainte Claire <ylairesainteclaire@> wrote:
> >> I am getting married at an SCA event. I have italian outfits planned for the groom and I from 1520-1540. I am wondering what I should make for my officiant.
> >> Also, I am interested in speaking with anyone who is especially knowledgeable about weddings, court, and pomp.
> >> Ylaire Sainte Claire
> >> 304.951.5694
First, I apologize for taking over-long to get back to this. Second, I thank KaraM for her clear and helpful disagreement--not merely labeled polite butMessage 1 of 13 , Nov 1, 2012View SourceFirst, I apologize for taking over-long to get back to this.
Second, I thank KaraM for her clear and helpful disagreement--not merely
labeled polite but actually being so. However, I must point out that my
extreme discomfort was never over the theoretical event being a wedding
or non-wedding, but over its being a non-MASS.
Third, I've been well aware of the date for Trent. My point (I hope more
clearly this time than before) was that I couldn't imagine any priest
who'd say a real PRE-Tridentine Mass, assuming that such a thing could
even be valid and/or licit in 2012 Gregorian. So I offered Tridentine as
the best near-authentic compromise in our compromise-laden SCA society.
Fourth, and most emphatically not least, I want to belatedly
congratulate Ylaire Ste. Claire and husband for developing a really good
event idea, and offer my best wishes, too, for their marriage!
And finally: Perhaps selfishly, I'm hoping this message will stimulate a
post-event, post-honeymoon report.
It might be worth checking into, though. I do know of an instance where a priest was able to get a dispensation to do a Latin Mass at a Civil War event, itMessage 1 of 13 , Nov 1, 2012View SourceIt might be worth checking into, though. I do know of an instance where a
priest was able to get a dispensation to do a Latin Mass at a Civil War
event, it might be possible to get permission for a pre-Tridentine Mass, if
one could find a interested priest and present the idea appropriately to
the higher ups.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Greetings! I ve heard of earlier-style masses done in Spain, for historic reasons . According to wikipedia these are not rare occurrances. See the last twoMessage 1 of 13 , Nov 1, 2012View SourceGreetings!
I've heard of earlier-style masses done in Spain, for "historic reasons".
According to wikipedia these are not rare occurrances. See the last two
In the Spanish version of the article that part is a bit clearer. It does
also mention that Pope John Paul II held such a mass in Rome in 1992.
Honestly, I think that if done in good faith as a historic recreation, not
a replacement or a mockery it might well find even official support. But
then, I'm only "culturally" catholic ;)
Marianne / Leonor
2012/11/1 Katherine Throckmorton <katherine.throckmorton@...>
> It might be worth checking into, though. I do know of an instance where a[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> priest was able to get a dispensation to do a Latin Mass at a Civil War
> event, it might be possible to get permission for a pre-Tridentine Mass, if
> one could find a interested priest and present the idea appropriately to
> the higher ups.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> This is the Authentic SCA eGroupYahoo! Groups Links