Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

59148Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: 1530 Italian clergy and weddings

Expand Messages
  • George A.Trosper
    Sep 21, 2012
      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
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic