The Latin Rite, especially for popes and bishops, has exquisite looking vestments that rival the ornate vestments of the Eastern/Byzantine Rite of the Church.
Why, O, why does Pope Francis still use the 1970's ideology of vestments that says the vestment is the sign of the vestment, not attached symbols. This particular vestment is the one His Holiness used on the day of his installation. It is blah, blah, blah, although nice, but blah nonetheless.
Compare it to the Eastern Rite deacon who proclaimed the Easter Gospel in Greek at the Easter Sunday papal Mass. The deacon's vesture is ornate, but simple compared to what he could have worn:
Why, O, why does Pope Francis still use the 1970's ideology of vestments that says the vestment is the sign of the vestment, not attached symbols. This particular vestment is the one His Holiness used on the day of his installation. It is blah, blah, blah, although nice, but blah nonetheless.
Compare it to the Eastern Rite deacon who proclaimed the Easter Gospel in Greek at the Easter Sunday papal Mass. The deacon's vesture is ornate, but simple compared to what he could have worn:
31 comments:
Vestments are symbols and symbols communicate. The best symbols do this with clarity and simplicity. They are generally bold and instantly recognized. That's one of the reasons corporations go to great length to guard their logos - they don't want anything else or anyone else to be associated with their symbol.
Think of the McDonald's Golden Arches - no words, no decorations, no frills - simply two golden arches. Seeing these on a lonely stretch of interstate communicates the message that corporation wants you to get - food and/or a bathroom is nigh.
Think of the Target bull's eye, the Nike swoosh, the Mercedes three-pointed star. They are simple, they are direct - they communicate instantly the brand.
The chasuble is, itself, a symbol, the emblem of the priest or bishop celebrating the Eucharist. The color of the chasuble is a second symbol, indicating the season of the year or the feast of the day.
The garment and the color communicate meaning. When they begin to be added to or obscured by additions - embroidery or jeweled galloons, images of flowers or images of saints - the communicative power can be diminished. The same diminution happens when the chasuble is minimalized in the erroneously named "Roman" or "Fiddleback" form which St. Charles Borromeo called a break from tradition. In some of these the garment is so reduced that its power to communicate is similarly diminished.
The images of the deacon's ordination in your next post are an example of additions confusing symbols. Is that chasuble gold or is it violet? I perceive that gold is the dominant color...
Simplicity doesn't mean cheap. Fine fabrics can and should be used. Simplicity doesn't mean "blah" or banal. There is much that is exquisite in ikebana - a style of Japanese flower arranging. It is minimal, spare, and incredibly beautiful. The simplicity of the Trappist monastery chapel at Conyers is another example of simple beauty.
Brocade or gold thread or sewn on appliques are not needed for the chasuble to speak.
I'm sorry but he has been wearing the same vestments and miter since he was elected and it isn't going to change ever! Even for Christmas or Easter he wears boring and mundane vestments. I sure miss Guido Marini when he chose the vestments for Pope Benedict the XVI, he brought out some stunners from the Vatican vault.
I guess some folks think “bland is beautiful.”
"The images of the deacon's ordination in your next post are an example of additions confusing symbols. Is that chasuble gold or is it violet? I perceive that gold is the dominant color..."
- It is violet.
"Think of the Target bull's eye, the Nike swoosh, the Mercedes three-pointed star. They are simple, they are direct - they communicate instantly the brand."
- Are you suggesting that Christ's eternal Church is being marketed/branded? If so, the last 50+ years, to me and others, has not gone well.
"The garment and the color communicate meaning. When they begin to be added to or obscured by additions - embroidery or jeweled galloons, images of flowers or images of saints - the communicative power can be diminished."
- Perhaps, to some.
"Brocade or gold thread or sewn on appliques are not needed for the chasuble to speak."
- Opinion. As an Easterner, I do not subscribe to this opinion.
"Are you suggesting that Christ's eternal Church is being marketed/branded?"
No, I SAID in the preceding paragraph that symbols communicate, and that the symbols that do this best are clear and unadorned. The bull's eye, swoosh, and star were offered as examples of this.
When I see his chasuble and miter, I cannot help but wonder if he is wearing double-knit, sansabelt trousers underneath.
About as beautiful as the sound of the Percy Faith orchestra as you wait in line at Furr's cafeteria for a measured helping of blue jello.
(don't forget the Ford Granada parked in the lot)
ByzRC,
You realize you are communicating with a double-knit dinosaur who is stuck in the same 1970s time warp as the pope, don't you?
Symbols that are bland, dull and plain communicate this is not important.
But, aren't we trying to create a sensory experience - the anticipation of the new and heavenly Jerusalem? Shouldn't we try to do this to the best of our ability? To me, and in the Christian west, adornment has been unjustly vilified over the last 50+ years. Again, to me, outside of a monastic experience, the stripping away of the sensory experience has done incalculable damage.
While I appreciate what you are "driving" at, divine worship is much more significant than getting off the highway for food or, gas, no? Shouldn't it be treated as such as, again, we are not in a monastic situation? I'm not suggesting, by the way, that we re-embrace rococo/baroque or, some other period-specific style. Additionally, I do not care for lace and wouldn't wear it if I was in a position to make such a choice. Tasteful, beautiful adornment that reinforces via symbols our beliefs can't be so bad that we need to be so whitewashed. Just my thoughts.
Where is it revealed that the New Jerusalem is all brocade, jeweller balloons, and embroidery? Is anything said about gesture in heaven other than we will be dressed in white robes?
Heaven is not "decorated" according to anyone's preferred style of fabric or architecture or music or, for that matter, language.
Simple vestments can be, and often are, the best.
I thought I would share a fascinating story over at Father Z's blog site about Father Z having to battle Satan during the Leonine prayers, he said he felt he was actually being chocked by the Enemy and struggled to finish Mass as he was conducting Exorcism prayers at the time. Father Z feels what is happening with the virus and what is going on in the Church is connected. Father Z asked his readers to share his post. Take note Bishop Pete of Boise.
It's almost not even fair to compare East and West....but the present papal vestments leave much to be desired.
Regarding vestments one should beware of elevating a stylistic preference into a general principle. 'Simple vestments can be, and often are, the best' comes close to doing this.
Twenty-five years ago there was a fashion for chasubles so simple that they consisted only of a piece of coloured cloth with a hole for the head; no embroidery, not even a simple motif. It would be difficult to make an artistic judgement on such garments, since they displayed no artistry whatsoever. However, if one makes simplicity into a guiding principle they represent the ideal.
The Church may regard her musical tradition as 'a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art' (SC 112). This does not mean she disparages other art forms, and vestment design and embellishment over the centuries is one of these. Many of mankind's greatest artistic achievements have been sponsored by the Church and crafted for her greater glory.
As for the 'Borromean' chasuble, Fr Anthony Symondson SJ (a renowned expert on church art) regards it as an unsatisfactory compromise and the most uncomfortable vestment he has ever worn.
Pope Francis seems to be inordinately attached to that white vestment with muddy brown braiding and matching mitre. Fair enough, it's his choice.
John Nolan,
Whatever has become of Father Symondson? He was always one of my favorite contributors over at The New Liturgical Movement.
In these conversations, I can't help but recall the vestments that God Himself designed in the Old Testament. And I wonder what has purportedly changed besides some people's lust for ostentatious simplicity.
I am shocked that no one has made a comment on the top post about what that thing is on the altar or if anyone even noticed it. It is in the last photo of that post. Are you all blind?????????????????? or just befuddled?
"The Best" of simple vestments.
A simple vestment needn't be "a piece of coloured cloth with a hole for the head." It might be raw silk that drapes very elegantly when styled into a chasuble.
It might be a finely dyed violet worsted wool with a complementing, unadorned galloon marking the hems.
Or it might be a very light, unlined worsted wool with a subtle pattern woven into the fabric, including a slight, upstanding collar, such as the set I wear regularly.
Byz - I was not comparing the Eucharist with Fast Food. I was speaking to the lengths corporations go to to protect their logos. They do this because they know that the simple golden arches, swoosh, bull's eye, or three pointed star have, with no additions or embellishments, great power to communicate meaning.
God also designed boats in the Old Testament. Is that design, therefore, something that all shipwrights today should strive for? Or has something purportedly changed...?
If one needed to build a boat to transport two of every animal, following the instructions set out by God would be the logical place to start. Likewise, if one needs to offer suitable worship to God, following his instructions seems logical.
Weaving a recurring pattern into a fabric (traditionally silk, but other threads, including man-made ones, can be used) produces what is called damask (from Damascus). It was used in Byzantium in the first millennium and later spread to the West. St Peter's in Rome has a number which are used by concelebrating bishops who are not at the altar, which have the arms of Paul VI woven into them, but no other decoration. They look vaguely 'eastern' which was no doubt deliberate.
When Vincent Nichols was installed as Archbishop of Westminster in 2009 a new set of vestments in gold damask was commissioned. They too were unembroidered and were criticized in some quarters since the pattern (based on 6th-century Byzantine motifs) could only be discerned close-up, and the television lights made the gold somewhat overpowering.
Some late medieval chasubles display realistic and detailed scenes, especially of the Crucifixion. It no doubt served as an aid to devotion for the faithful during Mass, like the stained glass and wall paintings which was the 'biblia pauperum'. Let's just say it's 'of its time'.
John, I've seen some photographs recently that show Deacon wearing a stole, or at least what appears to be a stole, that is about a foot and a half wide. Can you comment on that style in that form?
The broad stole is used on certain penitential occasions in the Roman Rite before 1960 in conjunction with the folded chasuble.
Interesting. "The broad stole really intends to approximate, not a stole, nor its own vestment separate from the folded chasuble, but rather the folded chasuble when it had been folded once more as we have just shown above. This is the origin of what we have come know as the "broad stole" or stola latior."
And the broad stole originally was a chasuble folded yet again and worn as a sash over the left shoulder by the deacon. It actually predates the way the diaconal stole is worn today, and does not replace it, so the term 'stola latior' is something of a misnomer.
And I would say, having seen it used in person during the old rites of Holy Week, it makes a lot of symbolic sense that the pictures don’t necessarily convey.
Inasmuch as there was no Noah's Ark, and if there were it would have had to carry somewhere between 17 million to 35 million animals (8.7 million the total number of species - 2 pair of unclean animals and up to 7 pairs of clean animals) and the Biblical size is far too small for that job, the instructions for the boat, and, I would suggestions for vesture in the temple, should not be considered blueprints for what we build or wear today.
See that’s the difference between us — I actually believe this stuff.
You believe that a boat 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high could carry somewhere between 17 and 35 million animals? Ooo-K.
Marc,
You realize you are dealing with a “liberal” don’t you? His political party also believes that abortion is “healthcare” and an “essential service.”
It’s as believable as God becoming man and being crucified only to rise from the dead two days later.
The historicity of the Incarnation and the Passion, Death, and Resurrection is essential to Christian faith and dogma.
The historical existence of Noah's Ark or of a chatty serpent in Eden is neither essential nor dogmatic.
That something is essential to the Christian faith doesn’t make it more believable.
Something that Fr Kavanaugh said about blueprints got me thinking. He is of course quite correct in his assertion that the past is not a blueprint for the present. A blueprint is the first stage in a design process which envisages a future completion.
The clergy who wore chasubles in the first millennium (when they were an ecclesiastical vestment not reserved to priests) could not have predicted that the tradition would have survived in the form of the folded chasuble worn by deacons and subdeacons in Advent and Lent up to 1960.
Where the 20th century liturgical reformers went terribly wrong is that first of all they trawled through what is known of early Christian practice in order to find 'blueprints' for a liturgy which they themselves designed; secondly they were highly selective in what they adopted and what they discarded, since liturgy had to be adapted to what they regarded as the needs of'modern man'; and thirdly their assumptions were based on what we now know to be defective scholarship.
We are still living with the results. However, time moves on, and the assumptions of the early 20th century have been challenged in reputable academic circles for some time. Tradition admits of quite a wide diversity within a common framework, and it is this diversity which needs to be recovered.
Adding a plethora of options to an artificially uniform rite, and throwing in spontaneous 'creativity', well-meaning but misguided 'inculturation', and a babel of tongues makes for a diversity which is fissiparous and in no way unitive.
N.B. Like all my comments on this blog, this is an opinion piece. It is not a prediction as in 'tomorrow will see sunny intervals and scattered showers'. Nor is it a statement of fact as in 'the Normans won the Battle of Hastings'. So, to all you trolls out there, by all means refute it by advancing your own opinions/arguments - otherwise hold your peace.
Post a Comment