tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post146491045604686288..comments2024-03-14T06:43:39.590+00:00Comments on LMS Chairman: The Traditional Mass and the Christian East: Part 1Latin Mass Societyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17951084157414901564noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-13476265849054706892013-11-17T17:12:30.045+00:002013-11-17T17:12:30.045+00:00The target of these documents is not Latinizations...The target of these documents is not Latinizations from centuries ago, but ones being proposed and implements after the Council.Joseph Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587987442560784792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-40594774558128167192013-11-17T16:53:35.020+00:002013-11-17T16:53:35.020+00:00As an eastern catholic raised with some latinizati...As an eastern catholic raised with some latinizations in the liturgy I find this article points out something Ive asserted for a long time. If one assumes that the changes in the True Mass were done with the intention of harming the church...then the schitzophrenic attitude makes sense...vat2 was and is CHANGE for the sake of CHANGE. Its method is to install incontinuity...to disrupt the traditions with novelty...to uproot and cause confusion. Restoring Eastern traditions by brutal removal of the centurys old latinizations is just as effective as removing traditions in the latin church. The weaken the west with modernism...they weaken the east with brutal restorations and false archaeologicalismsUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11985782602769781722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-91442473104558745082013-11-13T13:40:27.446+00:002013-11-13T13:40:27.446+00:00No I don't deny it for that moment, and Duffy&...No I don't deny it for that moment, and Duffy's work is interesting and groundbreaking in many respects. <br /><br />Of-course we don't actually know how the veils and screens were used in the Latin Liturgy as a whole, but I think it was similar to the ancient Eastern Rites and Orthodox practice, and the material evidence would indicate this. The doors in the screen (or veils at the entrance to the sanctuary) are also open at the Epiclesis and Consecration in the East and Orthodox Rites, though without the explicit elevation as the Latins know it in the high medieval liturgy. I would think the "framing effect" (that you speak of) East and West would have been very similar, with only the view through the "central doors" at certain moments, like at the Canon and Consecration. <br /><br />Yes the "gazing", or showing/revealing, becomes increasingly important, and I agree with you. Duffy (if I remember correctly) hints at, or says that, this emphasis on the elevation grew out of a popular late medieval Latin piety, encouraging the celebrant to "show Our Lord", calling out for "Him to be raised ever higher". But I think there is also evidence which demonstrates that this action was only visible through this central area (door). It would perhaps explain why, for example, some late medieval screens that survive in England have "improvised" squints (holes in effect) made through the wooden panels below tracery above. There would have been no need if the tracery was left "open" as now; without the veils or with the veils drawn aside. <br /><br />What I find fascinating is what is "framed" - shown - and when. It is the most sacred that is being revealed (East and West), and not hidden away.<br /><br />Thank-you very much for the raising the points you do in these articles. Much appreciated.Quo Vadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12265728517660935343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-59730088410931185762013-11-12T07:16:10.376+00:002013-11-12T07:16:10.376+00:00This is all very interesting. You don't deny, ...This is all very interesting. You don't deny, however, that the Rood Screen did not prevent the people from seeing the Elevation for example. Eamon Duffy gives abundant evidence for the importance of seeing - 'gazing' - in the medieval conception of liturgical participation. This indicates a certain contrast with the East which is all I wanted to suggest. Joseph Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587987442560784792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-55340290061454679392013-11-10T10:37:47.241+00:002013-11-10T10:37:47.241+00:00"... more to frame the action of the Mass...&..."... more to frame the action of the Mass..." An interesting article, but I would like to question your evidence for this comment regarding Rood Screens in the Latin Church, which seems to say they were more "open". Of course my comments are directed to medieval use, as by the Counter-Reformation things really had changed.<br /><br />As an archaeologist and historian with more than a passing interest in Church archaeology and liturgy, I have come across evidence that would indicate the screens had curtains attached behind them, and across the "door" openings. In Orthodoxy this was (is still in some cases) the "templon veil" often decorated with gamedia, which would pre-date the solid iconostasis<br /><br />Behind that there were also structures with altar curtains (another level of veiling the altar and its "own space"); they are shown on "architectural ciborium's", or baldachin's (here the curtains are called "tetravela"). <br /><br />Interestingly the the word baldachin itself actually refers originally to a luxurious type cloth from the east.<br /><br />These structures and curtains are regarded as the later medieval ancestor of the "riddle posts and veils" in some northern European traditions. <br /><br />It is not always clear if the curtains were originally drawn all the way around the ciborums, but some images would indicate it was the case, and the rails still exist, though how and when this was done in the liturgy is not clear in the Latin tradition. Veiling does seem to occur in the less sacred moments however, with attention then being draw by the unveiling to the more sacred, as would still be the case in a more minor sense now in what remains of the traditional Latin liturgy. <br /><br />It must also be born in mind that architecturally most "pulpitums" were far from being "open" structures too, and really served to screen the quire rather than the sanctuary per-se, especially in churches that had religious communities.<br /><br />What gets more fascinating (in this archaeologists opinion) is that with the high medieval development of the private "missa lecta" numerous side altars, or "Jesus altars", appear in-front or outside the veiled and screened areas, which were still used for the full sung liturgies.<br /><br />What is clear is that there were distinct spaces that were screened and veiled in the chancels. The "altar space" itself was veiled yet again, with the actual altar being covered itself as well. That veiling of the altar space being directly connected in contemporary material to the Holy of Holies and concepts of the "Temple", while the altar is seen as the "body" of Christ. It was after-all the most sacred object in the church (when the Sacrament was not reserved). Layers of meaning, and symbolism drawing on Judaic and Christological symbolism united together and shown in continuity.<br /><br />Veiling is fundamental to this I think, which was how something scared was/is indicated. It is the veiling that mattered (and still does) not the screening, which was perhaps just an architectural development of the same. This was no different in the secular world as well.Quo Vadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12265728517660935343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-19176981260356555172013-11-10T10:12:35.038+00:002013-11-10T10:12:35.038+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Quo Vadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12265728517660935343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-23733773651374087482013-11-09T14:05:27.359+00:002013-11-09T14:05:27.359+00:00Thanks for this. I look forward to the rest of the...Thanks for this. I look forward to the rest of the series. As an Eastern Catholic who has been critical of liturgical reforms in the West, and who maintains that the extraordinary form has many more strengths than the ordinary (see here for example: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/search/label/Catherine%20Pickstock), I'm glad to hear from the "other side" as it were and to find common ground in this struggle for "liturgical recovery" in the West. Dr. Adam DeVillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06505315831493271933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-36097670888099544422013-11-09T02:23:53.488+00:002013-11-09T02:23:53.488+00:00Another difficulty is that many Eastern Catholic C...Another difficulty is that many Eastern Catholic Churches associate the Roman liturgical overhaul with the Council and form an attachment to those changes while oblivious to their departure from Roman norms. An example is introduction of the vernacular. Melkite patriarch Maximos, of blessed memory, famously intervened at the Council and made the case for vernacular liturgy—the custom of the Church of Antioch—with the Fathers greeted with enthusiasm (all despite the fact that vernacular ceased to be Latin over a millennium prior to the Council). Many Melkites now fondly remember that occasion and may perceive a return to high volumes of Latin as a reversal of their contribution; yet the Melkites are by far the most de-Latinized of the Eastern Catholics (aside from a few feasts and the presence of marriage vows).The Rad Tradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00899289024837953345noreply@blogger.com