Yes. Facebook Live broadcasts and then saves the video. Youtube livestreaming is more accessible, however, but they work the same way as far as the broadcasting and saving go.

Too bad some of our sanctuary folk have brought in very un-Anglican and un-Sarum lace. The Anglican surplice reaches to about four inches above the floor, has a round yoke, pointed sleeves, and not a trace of lace. Actually, I await the day when our acolytes and all will be properly vested in appareled albs and amices.

So, speculating about a counter-factual world, let's imagine that after Mary Tudor Elizabeth had decided to throw her lot in with Rome and that the Church in England had continued to developed liturgically while in communion with the Catholic Church. Is there any reason to think that things like lace would not have become part of English Catholic usage? Or that rood screens would not have vanished, as they did on the Continent? In other words, is lace really "un-Anglican" in its essence, or is it simply not a part of Anglican usage by an accident of history? Likewise, are rood screens essentially Anglican, or did they remain simply because of how medieval churches were adapted for use with Cranmer's BCP (i.e. with the old sanctuary being used as a separate space for the Lord's Supper). In other words, I guess I'm somewhat persuaded that a lot of what is seen as "Anglican" and "Sarum" is really a late-19th century invention by Percy Dearmer.

As to the actual video, there are lots of nice and beautiful things in it. I do wonder, however, with everything else being sung, why the Canon was not sung. Once you start proclaiming it aloud, logic would seem to suggest that it should be sung, particularly when everything else is sung. If music gives things a certain prominence, then it is hard to see how the canon should have less prominence than the Old Testament reading.

The Walsingham Houston reredos (below left) was also inspired by the Walsingham UK Slipper Chapel reredos (below right).

In another Forum conversation, the topic of the chanted Lessons came up. My Labor Day Monday afternoon project was setting the O.T. Reading and the Gospel of the tones that have been typically used at OLW. The O.T. is from the old Liber Usualis (Prophecy" tone, which has a different ending than the one in the current Graduale Romanum. The Gospel is Option B in the current G.R., except for the concluding V & R.

(I can't seem to get the files to attach here, so here is the link to them on my FaceBook page)

https://www.facebook.com/smcollinsus/posts/10154606327826869

About Deacon Fritz' observations -

I rather agree about the canon. This is a glaring oversight. Too, there are several other things, such as orate fratres and ecce Agnus Dei, with their replies, which we should be singing. Also, I would be happier if our priests would learn the Sarum tones for collects and such. One will notice, though, that our Our Father is sung to the correct melody of the Pater Noster, not that embarrassing and pointless substitute that is sung everywhere else.

About the deacon's wondering about what might have been had Mary.... Well, one cannot assume that the congenitally conservative English would have followed suit with every developing continental fad. This may or may not have happened. There are several prominent saints of the renaissance and baroque eras (their names do not come to me right now) who thought lace decadent and un-Roman. Also, Fortescue was adamantly opposed to this glaring display of tastelessness, wholly inappropriate for liturgical garb. There seems to be something about it that attracts a certain sort of Catholic, the fish-nettier the better, the gaudier and more effeminate the better. It is, actually, an embarrassment. It's not anything that I can imagine our Great High Priest and Rex Universorum arrayed in - in heaven or on earth.

And, about what is Anglicanesque being a Percy Dearmer (may he be blessed!) invention and XIXth century romanticism, it would be unjust so lightly to dismiss what is actually a glorious embroidery of Sarum riches, lingering Catholic thought and practice in post-Henrician times, the Laudian strain and the Caroline divines, developing liturgical thought and cross-pollination of recent times, oriental influences, even tinges of Celtic heritage, Oxford movement sobriety, a tenaciously preserved and cultivated sacred musical patrimony, the uniquely bonded entity that is an Anglican choir, our people's love of their choirs and music, a very Catholic spirituality that has a distinctively English flavour, forged in antiquity, kept alive amidst enmity, preserved against all odds, the joy of all its heirs. When all is said and done, there is an unmistakable Anglican ethos on display in our worship and spirituality - a particular notion and appreciation for the profound majesty and holiness of God, and a characteristic way of expressing that understanding, which, in itself, is a gift from above. The only thing approaching it in the rest of the Catholic world might be the worship of high Benedictines (very high ones!). To my thinking, the more ordinary parish liturgy is monastic in character and performance, the more truly Catholic and spiritually mature it is.

And, about the rood screen. As is well known, I think, this screen separated the nave from the choir in monastic establishments and became more universal in British lands. It serves, it seems to me, the same purpose as does the iconastasis in the oriental churches. It makes no sense to me that, just because we are in the XXIst century (what, pray, makes us different - other than our lack of due deference to the holy!), the holy of holies should not be set off in this way. For us, it is not a hindrance, an alienating barrier, but a statement in beautiful architectural language of what is in our minds, namely, that the sanctuary is an incredibly holy place and we are genuinely blessed, not the least bit offended, to perceive it as such and to express it with all artful means at our disposal. To be offended by such a sacral endowment is really rather definitely mean-minded. If anyone is out of step it is that modernist who is incapable of appreciating these things and adamantly refuses to 'get it' - rather than feeling blessed by them. So, deacon, with my heartfelt respect, this is not mere tradition for tradition's sake - nice though that sometimes is. Our rood screen and our holy of holies are a blessing and joy to us. As we desire and appreciate the screen we love and perceive all the more deeply the holiness that lies beyond it.

My point about the rood screen was not to criticize it as such, but simply to point out that in the wake of the Council of Trent they disappeared on the Continent (so this is not really the result of a modernist impulse--unless one thinks Trent is modernist) and wondering if the same would not have happened in England as well. Funny enough, it might be that the protestant reformers ended up saving rood screens that Tridentine reformers would have razed.

The priest would be standing there with the Host for an awfully long time, during a sung 3-fold Domine, non sum dignus.

If sung properly, it would add minimal time. Not to mention, as with most dialogs, once you learn them in a few weeks, it's all rote. And of course, the mass shouldn't be as short as possible! He's standing there quite a while during the canon, but that's not a bad thing.....

The roman rite is meant to be sung...

...unless one thinks Trent modernist...

An interesting suggestion, Deacon Fritz. In this matter one can posit confidently that Trent was modernising - assuming that there is something essentially modern about such an affront (the more you think about it) to the divine presence, an act, certainly, from an ontological view, of relative lese majeste towards the All Holy. Modernising, too, were the prevalent attitudes expressed about music (if one wishes to consider these somehow 'modern', as in an advancement of civilisation - which they weren't). Too bad they couldn't, in their modernising, have listened to the scads of bishops and priests who spoke eloquently for vernacular liturgy. We likely would have had exquisite hieratic 'Cranmerian' French, German, Italian, English, etc., instead of the shamelessly pedestrian disasters we got in the late XXth century.

I respect your feelings, Cooze, and do so whilst continuing to observe that the mass is a continuum of communal song whose object is God, not a series of private devotions. We have, of course, been over this territory numerous times on our forum and will likely visit it again. Still, respect be unto your feelings. Perhaps, if I were of your persuasion, I would sing it the once with everyone else and then silently add the two missing ejaculations. Pax.