The priest, but who can tell, it could be any priest, any where, is Father Dan Firmin the Vicar General of the Diocese and my altar boy when he was in the 6th grade at the Church of the Most Holy Trinity in downtown Augusta in 1991. His first assignment as a priest was with me when I became pastor of St. Joseph Church in Macon in 2004..
This Mass forms reverent Catholics, there is no doubt about it. And this Mass allows reverent Catholics to show their reverence.
The OF Mass could have this same ethos, but there is no desire in about 99% of parishes and their priests to instill it. That is sad.
51 comments:
Doesn't that Cathedral have an iron in the sacristy? Look at that chasuble it's one big wrinkle. It looks like it was rolled up in a ball and someone just unknotted it and put it on that priest. Sloppiness has no place in the liturgy. Look at the old footage of priests saying mass in jungles and on war ships during WWII and they looked better. I mean it's nice to have the old Mass and all that but that chasuble is a disgrace. Care to detail is essential.
The Assumption is our belief in the Power and Love of God.
The first Eve was driven from the Earthly Paradise because of her disobedience to God. The Blessed Virgin, the New Eve, is first among all creatures in the Celestial Paradise because of her ever-willing obedience to God.
The Holy Virgin, through the Grace and Power of God was without sin from the beginning.No greater creature was ever born into human existence and no creature ever made a greater choice than she did in consenting to be the Mother of God. She in her physical body would not suffer the corruption due to the sin of Adam. The inseparable unity of her soul and body would remain. Being the spouse of the Holy Spirit and being possessed of full and complete fidelity and co-operation with Divine grace, her body would be glorified. Being of eminent holiness, having been found worthy and given her consent to be the Mother of Christ, she would receive the full benefit of the Divine Generosity in accordance with her unique spiritual relationship to God. It was then only for God to draw her to Himself.
According to the physical laws, the closer a celestial body is to the sun, the more it is drawn and attracted to it. What human being could ever be as close to God as the Blessed Virgin? And so in accordance with God's supernatural laws, she was drawn up, body and soul, to be with Divine Sun. By the pre-eminent correspondence between her and His Divine love was she attracted to Him, and by His ineffable and unsurpassed love for her was she drawn up to Him. In the Blessed Virgin is the template given us to imitate so that if we follow her example, we will one day follow her, body and soul, into the Celestial Paradise. With her Assumption into the Eternal Paradise, the Blessed Virgin assumed her role as Queen of Heaven and Earth and as our ever-solicitous intercessor.
She is the Mystical Splendor of the Celestial and Earthly Realms, a Heavenly Channel of Divine Grace, a Holy Fountain of God's Blessing, a brilliant Conveyance of Divine Light, a Supernal Model of Holy Virtue, the Exemplar in serving the Divine Will, a Paragon of Holy Wisdom, and the Treasure of God's Creation.
But where are the actual pictures of you in Savannah yesterday?
the liberals will go wild if they see the photos of GASP! young people attending the EF!!
I do miss Masses like that.
Alas, my photographer parishioner in Macon did not get transferred with me to Richmond Hill.
Sigh!😩
And NOBODY at the Mass sent you a photo...?
No one!😢
Anon at 1150, i had the same first impression then saw where he was only in the sixth grade. Most kids that age have to be reminded to make their beds, much less the whole EF.
Too bad about the lack of photos, Father. I guess everyone was amazed at that kid. See if tpu can get him four years of football before he enters the seminary!
The inscription on the altar 'Beati qui ad cenam Agni vocati sunt' is a quotation from the Novus Ordo. The passage from which it is taken (Revelations 19:9) has 'cenam nuptiarum' (the marriage feast of the Lamb) and it's a pity the authors of the new Mass chose to omit this word.
"This Mass forms reverent Catholics, there is no doubt about it. And this Mass allows reverent Catholics to show their reverence.
"The OF Mass could have this same ethos, but there is no desire in about 99% of parishes and their priests to instill it. That is sad."
Well, there IS a desire among at least SOME priests to write to the Southern Cross so they can run down the EF.
I think the chasuble is nice--it just needs pressing. The colors, ornamentation and material if pressed) look a whole lot better than most modern double-knot polyester "full gothic" chasubles! Also, I better that Roman cut is a lot cooler than the typical full gothic polyester.
Father McDonald,
Did you wear a semi-gothic or Roman chasuble at this week's Savannah Mass?
Revelation, not Revelations.
The Roman cut (and the "fiddleback" is not the Roman cut, by the way) is cooler? Um, we have air conditioning. Just because the vestments are from the Dark Ages doesn't mean that our churches rely on only summer breezes for cooling and logs in fire pits for heat.
Anonymous,
That's silly---we can still get hot in overgarments even with air conditioning. Just last Sunday, I was conversing with the priest after Mass in the narthex (yes, it was air conditioned!) and he asked me to wait a moment to continue our conversation while he slipped into the sacristy and removed his semi-gothic chasuble (which he said was hot).
I spend a lot of time in air conditioned courtrooms wearing a suit jacket and I can tell you that air conditioning (in our hot south Georgia climate where air conditioning systems often "fight" this time our year just to keep us below 80 degrees inside) is no absolute guarantee that one will not feel hot or perspire!
Maybe you're one of those "cold-natured" folks who rarely sweats.
Although I realize there are variations in the "fiddleback" style of chasuble (as there are in the gothic as well) I generically refer to any "fiddleback" (actually more fiddlefront) chasuble (that is, one that does not hang down over the arms) as "Roman." The other style (the one that hangs down onto the arms) I refer to generically as "gothic" (The one that extends to the wrists is full gothic and the one that is more like "three-quarter sleeve" and less encumbering is "semi-gothic"). As Archie Bunker once said, "whatevah!"
We don't have air conditioning at my parish.
I like the chasuble in the picture...don't see many like that anymore. Allows you to see more of the alb, which is hard to see with most modern chasubles, and probably easier to maneuver the arms....yes, we did go through a bad era in literally trashing the old vestments. One time in the early 1990s, I was at an Anglican church in Virginia (not Episcopal---these were conservative Anglicans who disliked the liberal tendencies of the Episcopal Church even 25 years ago), and it had the traditional back altar and a priest wearing the old-fashioned chasuble. I asked after the service where it came from, and he mentioned Chicago---apparently sometime in Chicago someone found a bunch of the old vestments in a dumpster, and thankfully someone had the sense to save them! You don't think of Chicago (either the city or the diocese) when it comes to conservative traditions, and no wonder---Illinois hasn't voted Republican for president since 1988, and people are leaving the state in droves because of high taxes.
Styles and Tradition in the Chasuble of the Roman Rite
Michael Sternbeck, The St Bede Studio
In the 17th and particularly from the 18th century, authorised by no Ecclesiastical authority, the form of the chasuble almost universally used was that pendant-like form which we call the “Roman” chasuble. There were only a few voices raised in objection to setting aside the Tradition of the ample chasuble. And then, although it only occurred by degrees and over a period of time, that pendant form of chasuble, which to S. Charles represented such a break with Tradition, became regarded as THE legitimate Tradition. Pause to reflect on this, when you read expressions such as “Traditional Roman vestments” etc. We have the strange situation where the very dimensions of chasuble that Saint Charles strove to preserve, have been regarded by many latter-day “Traditionalists” as “un-traditional”!
We should also be careful about the use of the term “Roman” vestments. Roman vestments are those used for the Roman Rite: they do not refer to any particular style or shape. The pendant-style chasuble did not have its origin in Rome, but in northern Europe. Rome did not readily adopt it. Saint Charles legislated against it. From the 19th century, scholars began promoting a return to the earlier, more ample style of chasuble. We find such chasubles appearing in England and parts of Europe. Sometimes these are referred to as “Gothic” vestments, although it is not certain why. These “Gothic” vestments were similar to the proportions insisted upon by S. Charles. Strangely, Rome (which for two centuries had held out against the introduction of the pendant-like vestments) did not welcome the 19th century interest in reviving these “Gothic” or “Borromeon” chasubles and in 1863 letter warned against the use of vestments that departed from the “received form”. How short, it would seem, was the Roman memory. In December 1925, at a time when vestment-makers in Europe and beyond were creating magnificent chasubles of Borromeon proportions, the Congregation of Rites published a rescript that the more ample form of chasuble was not to be used for the Roman Rite, except by special permission of the Holy See. What a peculiar decision this was, given that earlier in the same year an Exhibition of the Liturgical Arts had been held in Rome and newly-made vestments, according to the Borromeon proportions, were shown in a special audience with Pius XI, who approved their use and blessed them. A famous photograph exists of Pius XI celebrating Mass in S’ Peter’s in a 16th century style chasuble: some years after his Congregation of Rites had attempted to prohibit their use!
The 1925 letter of the Congregation (which had been widely ignored!) was reversed by a new decision in August1957, granting Diocesan bishops leave to permit the use of the more ample form of chasuble. Eight years later (1965), Rome herself followed what was already occuring world-wide. The 18th century style of vestments used in Papal ceremonial was replaced with something very different but austere: somewhat like the ethos of the 1960’s itself. Somebody put to me once that many people were greatly upset and even scandalised when Papal Rome made this change. Consequently, and for precisely this reason, there is a very negative attitude amongst some to modern expressions in the style of vestments. And, to be frank, concerning vestments made from the 1970’s onward, there is ample scope for negativity.
Anonymous,
The abbreviated Roman chasuble was not in use during the Dark Ages; it's more a Renaissance development. It is certainly cooler than the older Gothic styles, just as short-sleeved shirts are cooler than long sleeve.
Most "fiddlebacks" I have tried on are heavy and stiff. I find them rather uncomfortable. Also, they are tied in place. With the cincture at the waist, the laces for the chasuble and the laces for the amice tied in place, the flow of air can be very constricted, not allowing the loss of body heat or the introduction of a cooling breeze. If one wears a cassock beneath the alb, the entrapment of heat in increased considerably. (The GIRM, I think, recommends/suggests an ankle length garment under the alb - pants certainly suffice.)
More modern vestments, while more voluminous, are made of lighter fabrics without stiffening materials and are not tied to the body. This, I suggest, is a more comfortable ensemble. "Short sleeves" are not always cooler...
Joseph Johnson
The priest in question should have removed his Mass vestments BEFORE proceeding to the narthex to converse with parishioners.
Liturgical fashion is simply that, but since the Church is not tied to any particular era, it is not out of place to wear (say) eighteenth century vestments, whereas it would be silly to wear Georgian costume, even if one lived in a Georgian house.
Sternbeck, as quoted by Fr K, says that there 'is ample scope for negativity' concerning vestments made since the 1970s, and one has to agree with him; the 'polyester ponchos' often devoid of any ornamentation, are formless and graceless. Noble simplicity is one thing, mindless minimalism quite another.
When Philip Eagan was consecrated Bishop of Portsmouth (UK) in 2012 there is a photograph of the bishops processing into the cathedral. A stiff on-shore breeze has blown their lordships' chasubles over their heads, a ludicrous spectacle. Now this would not have happened with any medieval vestment, nor a Borromean one, nor a Puginesque one, nor a fiddle-back.
I suspect that Portsmouth cathedral ditched their 'Roman' vestments and replaced them with cheap rubbish. Eagan's predecessor as bishop was a notorious iconoclast.
Father Kavanaugh,
It was the "faux" poverty chasubles of the late 60s and 70s that frosted me. Parishes would dump perfectly fine and beautifully made chasubles, either gothic or Roman, for burlap. And those loons never saw the irony in spending a lot of money to appear "humble." It is nice to see younger priests opting for more traditional and beautiful chasubles again.
TJM - De gustibus...
John - As the chasuble itself is a symbol, and as the color of the season is also a symbol, I and others see little or no need for "ornamentation." Symbols communicate - that's why we use them - and they do so most effectively when they are uncluttered and straightforward.
I don't know what you mean by "formless" since a full-cut gothic chasuble has the form of, well, a full-cut gothic chasuble.
A lighter, un-stiffened fabric has, I think, a great deal of "grace." It flows with the movements of the priest which, in general, should be made as though one were moving through water; that is, unhurriedly, with intention, and with no jerkiness.
Fr Kavanaugh,
I take your point, but since the category of things that in your opinion are 'not needed' is a large one and even includes the classic Roman Rite and the Latin language, I would not go so far as to trust your judgement on matters liturgical, be it regarding vesture or anything else.
I would, however, agree that some things are a matter of taste, and architecture and vestments can fall into this category.
I happen to think that Henri Matisse's chapel at Vence is a beautiful example of modern architecture, but the vestments he designed for it are in my opinion too garish, although copies were sent to Rome at the express wish of Pius XII. The monks at Pluscarden abbey (Scotland) make their own vestments; they are not over-ornate but not minimalist, and the (medieval) style suits the building in which they are used.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Nice to know you have a smattering of Latin in your vocabulary but you failed to address the point I was really making about the hypocrisy of "progressive priests" who spent lots of dough to look humble while jettisoning serviceable and beautiful vestments. Frankly, there are objective standards of beauty. For example, in the realm of sacred music as enunciated by St. Pius X in his Motu Proprio "Tra le Sollecitudini." You might want to bone up on it. I know how much you love papal pronouncements on the Sacred Liturgy and incorporate their teachings in your Masses.
John - I agree that much is a matter of taste.
TJM - I do not agree that there are "objective standards of beauty." Palladian symmetry in architecture is very appealing, but so are the free-flowing shapes used by Frank Gehry. Gregorian chant is lovely, so is Corsican chant which incorporates strong Arab/North African sounds.
"Tre" may have argued that a particular sound is always and everywhere particularly fitted to the Roman Liturgy - an idea I also do not agree with - but the argument that "this" style of music is always and everywhere "more beautiful" than any other is nonsensical. This is because humans of all times and places have not agreed on standards of beauty and it is humans that create the art - buildings, paintings, sculptures, music, fabrics, etc.
There is certainly beauty that comes from the hand of God. I am always astounded by the beauty of embryogenesis, the simple elegance of the DNA double helix, and the human capacity, based on Divine grace, to love one's enemy.
Then, we must contend with what Nicholas Stenno, Danish scientist and later Catholic bishop, described as "That Beauty Which Has Not yet been Discovered."
Father Kavanaugh,
Dead wrong, as usual. There are objective standards of beauty and to nonchalantly dismiss St.Pius X is very dangerous and arrogance of the highest order - something I've come to expect from "progressives" whose liturgies are "so beautiful" that most folks have fled with their feet.Although not a fan of Hollywood,when they want to portray religious beauty, they just don't go to Marty Haugen, they go to sacred polyphony or gregorian chant and newsflash - they don't use burlap or non-ornamented chasubles. They go for the gold. Sorry Charlie, you're way out in left field.
TJM - St. Pius X cannot define objective standards of beauty. He can have opinions, but that's what we all can have.
There are no "objective standards of beauty."
TJM - Could you tell us what the "objective standards of beauty" are?
And having done so, could you use them to determine which is objectively more beautiful, Beethoven Symphony # 3(Eroica) or Cherubini's opera Faniska?
Using the same standards, is the Leaning Tower of Pisa more beautiful than the Eiffel Tower?
Again, which is objectively more beautiful, the ancient Greek marble statue Discobolos or the ancient Greek marble statue Alexander the Great?
It is a waste of time and effort to argue with a progressivist priest...
Fr. MJK: There are no "objective standards of beauty."
Which would explain why the liturgies of progressivist priests are so often lacking in beauty and reverence.
Fr Kavanaugh
You are of course aware that the Church holds Gregorian chant to be pre-eminent (principem locum obtineat) not because of its beauty, although it undeniably beautiful, nor because of its antiquity, although it is undeniably ancient, but because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy (utpote Liturgiae romanae proprius). The word 'proprius' means more than 'suitable', for which the Latin would be 'aptus' or 'idoneus'; it carries the strong implication of ownership.
The Roman liturgy and the chant developed in tandem; they cannot be separated one from another. The chant belongs to the Liturgy in a way that other styles, even sacred polyphony, do not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with taste which is mere personal preference.
Father K,
You are comparing apples to apples, I am comparing apples to oranges: Gregorian Chant versus Marty Haugen.
St.Pius X, the father of the authentic liturgical movement, is not someone to be dismissed by a priest of the Holy Catholic Church. I get it,if he were espousing the Marty Hagen style of music for Mass, you would be demanding that everyone accept it, just like you want "stare decisis" to preserve the banal OF. Got it.
It's always problematic to talk about objective standards of beauty. Is Bach's B Minor Mass objectively more beautiful than the plainchant Mass IX (Cum jubilo)? Put them side-to-side in the concert hall and Bach would probably win hands down. But in the context of the liturgy for which it was written the thousand-year-old chant version contributes to a higher idea of beauty which Bach, for all his genius and religious fervour, cannot match.
TJM - No, you haven't "got it." You say there are "objective standards of beauty." I am asking you to use those standards to make determinations on what is more beautiful than another.
According to those standards, is Beethoven #3 more beautiful than Faniska, is the Leaning Tower more beautiful than the Eiffel, is Discobolos more beautiful than Alexander the great?
John - Gregorian chant may well have its place in the Roman liturgy. I would suggest, however, that part of the genius of the Roman Liturgy is its adaptability, or, we might say, its openness to the music, architecture, style of vesture, etc., that comes from cultures other than Roman and from times other than a particular era.
The Church often uses the term "inculturation," as you are well aware, to describe this adaptability. While you might not be open to such, the Church is.
Fr Kavanaugh
'Gregorian chant may well have its place in the Roman liturgy'. Very generous of you to concede this. However, GIRM 2002, from which I quoted, goes a lot further, as does Musicam Sacram 1967, as does Sacrosanctum Concilium 1963. All three specifically say 'first place' and 'proper to the Roman liturgy'.
Perhaps you can suggest what 'inculturation' I should be open to, given that my culture is western European, as is yours - unless you are an Irish Red Indian. ('Faniska', for God's sake? I can't see it being revived any time soon, and only the overture has ever been recorded).
Father Kavanaugh,
Maybe even you will understand this:
Mastery of composition or playing an instrument is something that can be measured objectively, unless,like you, nothing can persuade because all comes down to personal taste, no matter how ignorant, parochial, or callous the listener is (that would fit many bishops and priests). Gregorian chant and Bach or Palestrina polyphony represent supreme skill in composition and when executed properly is appealing to almost all sentient people and cultures. Marty Haugen and company don't even come close. When Paul VI was in Africa celebrating Mass he said he never heard the Credo chanted so beautifully and movingly. OF course, left-wing loon folks who favor "inculturation" would deprive them of that.
John - That phrase sounded quite different in my head when I wrote it. The internal emphasis made it clear to me that Gregorian chant does have its place in the liturgy.
'Proper to the Roman liturgy' can be time conditioned. We're not talking about divine revelation, about divine Truth, so we're not talking about the unalterable here.
I think you, and all of us, should be open to the inculturation that comes with Catholics from southern India, from Japan, from central Africa, from Micronesia, etc. "Catholic" means way, WAY bigger than Rome, and I don't think that the descriptive "Roman" can change the true nature of "Catholic."
TJM - You say "Mastery of composition or playing an instrument is something that can be measured objectively."
So, using that objective measurement, who was the more proficient composer, Bach or Beethoven?
And using that objective measurement, who is the better violinist, Hilary Hahn or Joshua Bell?
Now you,in your Palestrina/Haugen example, are comparing apples to oranges. Haugen was not attempting to compose as Palestrina composed. This false comparison is akin to saying that the Lego bridge built by a 10 year old does not exhibit the "supreme skill" in bridge building that we find in the Brooklyn Bridge.
Well, no, it doesn't. But the comparison is not apt.
Fr Kavanaugh
Inculturation as understood by the Church means that adaptations may be made to the Roman Liturgy which reflect the traditions, including the musical heritage, of other cultures - provided that such adaptations are applied prudently and maintain the integrity of the rite. It does not mean that we import the traditions of other cultures and apply them to the liturgy here. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI explicitly condemned 'multiculturalism' as it is understood in Western liberal circles.
Yet inculturation became an ideological shibboleth and a guiding principle to a certain type of post-V2 'liturgist'. They were not in the least interested in preserving the integrity of the Roman liturgy, in fact the more varied and fragmented it was, the better. They even imposed an informal vernacular liturgy in the modern Western style on Japan, choosing to ignore the fact that it is alien to Japanese culture which is highly formal and ritualistic.
Western classical music, which of course includes Gregorian chant and could not have come into being without it, has a world-wide resonance. The connection between Gregorian chant and the Roman liturgy implicit in the word 'proprius' is a historical fact and is not alterable even for those who (erroneously) see the liturgy as something purely functional and man-made, subject to alteration at will. You might as well try to alter the outcome of the Battle of Hastings.
There may be objective standards of beauty with variations for personal preferences among archetypes. Some functional differences may be accomplished in an artistic manner but that does not change their respective function: a beautiful hammer is not an ugly screwdriver. Musical modes are linked to specific emotions and thoughts regardless of cultures. The human brain percieves patterns quickly and can see when they are broken. All cultures use the patterns even if they use different modes, tones, and scales.
"Musical modes are linked to specific emotions and thoughts regardless of cultures."
This is an interesting thought, but is there evidence to support it?
Anon 1:47, I will see what academic references I can find and post them. My exposure to it has been through my own musical training and the study of folk sources as varied as Mali, Bulgar, Tannu Tuva, and Carnatic. Although the scales, pitches, and micro tones make the music seem exotic exciting similarities can be found that universally convey 'happy' or 'sad' themes. What is most interesting is when near matches in specific melodies appear identified with complex emotions such as bitter-sweet contemplative thoughts revealing the emotional state that is commonly felt by humans in similar circumstances.
As much as I love this sort of thing, perhaps because I love it, I am among the first to complain about the use of music that mixes entertainment rather than inspiration with worship.
John Nolan:
"Western classical music, which of course includes Gregorian chant and could not have come into being without it, has a world-wide resonance."
I was once in a conversation with a person who was born and raised in China and had immigrated to the U.S. This person's music of choice (though having grown up in a culture which was quite alien to ours) was Western classical music.
There are disciplines, such as science, mathematics and engineering, which by their nature are universal, with principles and methods the same world-wide, although they may differ in application. I see music as being the same.
I do find it interesting that there are places in the world which have incorporated inculturation into the liturgy, that also at the same time have imported the worst excesses of Western entertainment into their local cultures.
George
From the website of the Bach Collegium Japan.
'The music of JS Bach is part of the joint patrimony of mankind. Ever since the foundation of Bach Collegium Japan we have continued to convey Bach's music from Japan out to the wider world'.
Where does this leave those who claim that no one form of music can be better than another? In a swamp of cultural relativism, made worse by a feeling that somehow their own culture on which they have turned their backs might, just might, in certain aspects have an inherent superiority.
When it comes to music, the achievement of Western culture is vastly superior to any other on a number of counts, most of which are easily demonstrable using standard critical tools.
And it happened because Gregorian chant, in itself a perfection of text-driven monodic melody which far transcends folk music, after many centuries of oral tradition was actually notated. This led to polyphony and the rest is history.
rcg says: "As much as I love this sort of thing, perhaps because I love it, I am among the first to complain about the use of music that mixes entertainment rather than inspiration with worship."
It seems to me that your assumption here is that what YOU consider to be entertaining and what YOU consider to be worshipful/inspirational should be the universal norm, that everyone is going to agree with your categories.
I think that that might pose a bit of a problem.
Anon at 3:21, that would be a problem if I was presuming to determine the entertainment factor. Most of the musical ministers will freely self identify that they are trying to insert 'music people like' into Mass and give very little thought to the lyrics beyond a catch phrase or two.
rcg:
Certainly there are some worthwhile elements and qualities in music of other idioms and cultures. The popular music within our own culture has within it some nice and inspired melodies. Still, by so many different objective measures, Western Classical music stands far above any other form.In this I agree with John Nolan.
George, there was a perfect storm that caused the development of a superior result. I do not think that other forms are incapable of similar functionality but the efforts need to be constructed from the ground up for that purpose and not laminated on to the Liturgical music like a decoration or even worse in an attempt to 'reach' a certain segment of people. Nothing segregates more effectively than inclusion.
Post a Comment