I have just discovered this video, though it has been around for a while. The liturgy in question was celebrated in St Thomas Anglican Church in Toronto, Canada.
Some of the comments are quite waspish:
Good effort, but trying to do UoS in a modern church building is like trying to play golf on a tennis court.
On the other hand, you can play tennis on a golf course, and celebrate the Sarum liturgy in a cathedral or a village church, or even my chapel. I find that church in Canada most suitable.
Naturally, the use of female servers is criticised by some. That is perhaps the most significant anachronism. This is however something that makes me think that this was not a museum reconstruction but “extraordinary rite” worship in a real parish setting.
For all the faults in anything that is human and imperfect, this is a laudable effort at reviving the Sarum liturgy in practical terms.
Now, if anyone could point us to a full video of this ceremony…
The Blue Flower 
Well, at least, they’re trying. The amount of people they’ve mobilised is impressive. And is Fortescue and O’Connell the fin mot in matter of Rubrics, especially rubrics for Sarum? There is always something impressive in the way the priest extends his arms cross-like after the consecration in Sarum. Thank you, Father.
Now, on a truly antiquarian note, would you or anyone frequenting this blog, have in their possession photos depicting a priest celebrating the BCP communion in surplice, scarf,etc, at the north side and so forth? This is really intriguing- what a BCP communion service looked like acc. to the 1662 rubrics.
Indeed, the work by Fortescue and O’Connell in its various editions concerned The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite. It is not a reference for the Use of Sarum. Most of the Sarum rubrics in the Order of Mass and the First Sunday of Advent are clear, but there are some ambiguities I had to clear up by comparison with the Dominican Rite which is very similar. Both rites are French variants of the Roman rite of long before the Franciscan influence. The stretching of the arms in the form of a cross at the Unde et memores is a characteristic of all the Latin rites and uses except the Roman rite.
See my more recent posting for information about north-end celebrations.
If that’s a modern church….! In my diocese the favourite architecture for new ecclesiastical buildings is UFOs style.
And I would exchange any day my local parish’s sunday mass for the liturgy depicted above.
When your bishops acts like this;
http://fidesetforma.blogspot.com/2012/12/santita-i-clown-sono-nella-chiesa-e-non.html
total bankruptcy is not far away.
What I mean by “modern” is from the end of the 18th century to the 1960’s.
“Total bankruptcy is not far away.”
I was listening to a talk given by a radical progressive, found it one-sided and simplistic but not essentially wrong. The traditionalists seem to think in the same way but from an opposite perspective. The people in the parishes don’t care one way or the other as long as the priest is there on the occasions when they need him. Only the Roman Curia clergy seem to think that everything will go on forever.
The Court of Louis XVI in 1788?
“The people in the parishes don’t care one way or the other as long as the priest is there on the occasions when they need him.”
That’s the real problem, and it’s a cultural one. People in the pews wouldn’t care less! We live in an historical period where there is growing awareness for the quality and the provenance of the food for our tables. Why the same doesn’t apply to the food for our souls? Why people horrifies when an adolescent stuffs himself at McDonalds, still feels perfectly comfortable at a clown mass?
Also, a bishop putting on toghether a roman chasuble and clowns makeup speaks loudly about the “reform of the reform” candid souls’ hopes and the confusion of who’s in charge (and I don’t know what would be the worst option: if he acted this way in good faith or deliberately).
Now, now…I was informed by Dr Tighe (on the old Anglo-Catholic blog) that clown masses DO NOT happen in the Roman Catholic Church…they only happen in the Protestant Episcopal Church! Hence, this service must be from a CofE parish!
My understanding is that such things as clown masses are not PERMITTED in the Roman Catholic Church. That does not mean that they (and other ‘edgy’ or plain irreverent ceremonies) do not occur. I’ve heard of some. However, it does appear that reprimands do come quickly if they do occur. However, I have never heard of a bishop being involved in such a thing. The point of the above, however, is that much is done that is simply not fitting under the guise of liturgy, and that “reform of the reform” is necessary to restore order am]nd sanctity to the recent chaos both in Rome and in the Canterbury Anglican churches.
Lot of things were not permitted but have become the norm in liturgical matter: standing/in hands reception; female altar servers; lay distributors of communion; exclusive use of vernacular language and total dismissal of Gregorian chant, etc. etc. Of course the written norms do not permit them, but if the hierarchies in charge are simply content with the letter of the law, they are Pharisaical at least. My very humble opinion is that RC Bishops and even the Pope are actually satisfied with the current state of art in liturgy, minus some formal adjustments (hence the r. chasuble, or the occasional crucifix at the center of the altar). What is really disturbing, as I say above, is that laity doesn’t care and drinks without questions whatever is superimposed (or quietly leaves),.
However, it does appear that reprimands do come quickly if they do occur.
You will forgive me if I’m sceptical about that, living in a diocese where a priest continues undisturbed to distribute a self-service communion where the faithful take the host by themselves from a vessel on the altar, dip it in the chalice and then communicate. Maybe situations like that, and the fact that our bishop is more engaged in working-union-like activities, is one of the reason why out of 2.000.000 inhabitants we have only 12 seminarians.