59152Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: 1530 Italian clergy and weddings
- Sep 21, 2012On 9/21/2012 1:36 PM, Chris Laning wrote:
> George wrote:Like I said: IF!!! ;->
>> >*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.
> Um, no, though that may depend on where you are.
> Until -- if I recall correctly -- well after our period, a nuptial mass was NOT required in all countries (certainly not England). All that was necessary is that the two to be married say to each other, in the present tense (i.e. not as a future promise) "I take you for my husband/wife." While a priest's blessing was desireable (and in practice, often sought) and while witnesses were a prudent precaution in case the marriage was ever questioned, neither was required for a marriage to be legally and religiously valid. The courts of the time are full of lawsuits trying to establish exactly what words had been said between a couple to determine if they were really married or not.
> This is not to say that there were not formal church weddings; of course there were. But even so, the vows were often said in the church porch, before the couple entered the church for a formal blessing or Mass.
> Depending on the time and place of your personas, your own personal choice, and what your officiant says, you may have to do a bit more looking to find just what the requirements and ceremonies were like. The book sounds like a good recommendation.
> (Also, the Tridentine Mass as such is not present before the Council of Trent (1569): that's why it is called "Tridentine" = of Trent.)
> That said: having a period wedding and Catholic Mass (period or not) in a private part of the campground, where no one is required to participate if they don't want to, is absolutely OK at an SCA event. The prohibition is on making religious ceremonies, or implying that you are making them,*part* of the SCA event, or on holding them in the middle of everything (for instance in Court) which would force everyone to witness whether they want to or not.
> Depending on what part of the country you live in and who you know, you may or may not be able to find a Catholic priest who is amenable to doing this. I certainly have known some who would be glad to, even if you weren't a member of their parish. As George says, however, a more conservative priest would likely not agree.
> Having a pseudo-Mass with an officiant who isn't actually a priest is something that is technically possible -- since as long as modern legal forms are followed and the officiant is authorized to perform marriages, it doesn't matter to the Government what religious service goes along with it. However as George says it would likely make some people uncomfortable even if they didn't actually witness it themselves. Modern Catholics vary greatly in how they feel about non-Catholics making use of Catholic ceremonies. Some are okay with it as long as it's a sincere attempt to worship that just happens to use Catholic forms. Others are made very uncomfortable by the idea if the priest isn't a real priest. You will have to make your own decision based on what you know about SCA folks in your area.
> (Dame) Christian de Holacombe
> 0 Chris Laning
> + Davis, California
> http://paternoster-row.org -http://paternosters.blogspot.com
Thank you, good Dame.
I did of course know what was required for validity. I was stating what
I thought--incorrectly, it seems--might be required for licitness, viz.,
what the Church told you to do back then.
I had always heard that the folks who routinely married themselves and
waited for the priest to show up after the kid was born were those who
lived too far away to HAVE a local priest easily and immediately
available. Certainly not people who had a church porch to stand on.
Again, time seems greatly to have changed things!
I did carefully say that I'm guessing the Tridentine Mass wouldn't have
been way different from the versions right before Trent, NOT that
they're the same. (Frankly, I don't see that today's Novus Ordo Missae
is all that different from the Tridentine, but I've just found more than
one Net site eager to explain in detail how wrong I am.) I proposed it
as having the very strong advantage of being a celebration comparatively
easily arranged for and actually both licit and valid under current
Note that there ARE regulations on how you can get validly and licitly
married in the Church in the early 21st, and those apparently differ
significantly from the 16th. This may be utterly irrelevant to the
original poster, but having gone to the trouble of finding out, I'm
gonna dump my data here, to be attended to or ignored as the reader desires.
I just talked to my own pastor, and he says no priest he'd ever heard of
would marry a couple if neither of them were Catholic. Moreover, if only
one were Catholic, you'd need a dispensation from the bishop himself for
"disparity of faith". To be married outside of the Catholic's
territorial parish, i.e., the one where the person lives and functions
as a Catholic, you'd need permission in writing from that parish's
priest. To do it outside a church requires the bishop's permission,
which would not be lightly given. (You'd have to convince His
Excellency, or more likely his vicar general, that a) the location
wasn't reducing the sense of sacramentality and b) you had a really,
really good reason not to get married in a church.)
I suspect much of the above would be much less relevant to a celebration
in which only a recommitment was made, but I'm not going to be dogmatic
Incidentally, if the couple weren't BOTH Catholic, there would be no Mass.
Mildly relevant thoughts I had on this subject while at the gym:
* In the 20th, the liturgical color for nuptial Masses--and I believe
all other non-penitential sacraments is white. I doubt that's changed in
the last few centuries, but I stand ready to be corrected. The
appropriate liturgical color would be the main but not the only color of
whatever vestments you'd make--if any.
* A set of well-made set of vestments compatible w/ both the 16th c. and
the 21st would make a very nice thank-you gift to a priest. (He'd
presumably stuff the maniple and maybe the amice in the back of a
drawer.) My pastor says you'd be grossly ill-advised to place your arms,
monograms, whatever, on any vestment where they could be seen during
use. Names of donors listed on a label, arms concealed inside the
garment, no problem. A case, I suppose, of differences in sensibilities
between the centuries.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>