SPEAKING ABOUT BODY LANGUAGE OF THE PRIEST AT MASS AT SAVANNAH’S ONE AND THE SAME CATHEDRAL, BUT IN DIFFERENT CENTURIES, WHAT DO THESE TWO STYLES OF THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS AND THE DIRECTION OF PRAYER SAY TO YOU?
Exhibit #1 in Savannah’s Cathedral, 1980, way back in the 20th Century:
Exhibit #2 In Savannah's Cathedral, 2020, way forward in the 21st Century:
23 comments:
The Egyptian
said...
the first one: bunch of guys looking like "what is my part, do we look right, pious whatever," trying to put on a show.It's personal
2nd the people don't know what the facial expression of the priest is and he doesn't have to care how he looks, he has disappeared into the role of priest, the role he was ordained for, not a showman. congregation is able to participate without the distraction of the "personal"
Egyptian, perfect! I might add that i am a concelebrant at my ordination in the one way back in the last century and the main celebrant in the one way forward in the 21st century and for the first time at the high altar never used since way back in the last century about, 1966 or so.
The placement of the chairs is very 1970s. So is the way the celebrants join their hands (forget palms together, fingers straight, right thumb over left - that's so pre-Vatican II!) Note the way the outsize wine cruet is plonked on the altar.
It's as dated as flared trousers, kipper ties, and Ford Cortinas with leatherette upholstery and black vynil roofs.
The USA did not have a Ford Cortina, the closest was the Ford Falcon that morphed into the Ford Maverick. The Maverick came out in around 1969 or so.its price tag was $1,999! We had kipper looking ties but did not call them kipper. Flaired pants are called bell bottoms.
The Cortina came out at the beginning of the 1960s. By the 70s we had the Mk III which had the then fashionable coke-bottle shape. In the late 80s I had the Mk V 2 litre version which wasn't a bad car on the whole.
In the 1960s it was immortalized by John Betjeman:
'I am the young executive, no cuffs than mine are cleaner; I have a slimline briefcase and I use the firm's Cortina. In every roadside hostelry from here to Burgess Hill The maitres d'hotel all know me well and let me sign the bill.'
I can't hate the 1970s since I was in my twenties and had a good time. I was even able to avoid the liturgical fashions of the age. But the description 'the decade that taste forgot' is not inapposite.
By the way in the second photograph (which is not 'dated' in the way the first one is) you are not the 'main' celebrant, you are the 'only' celebrant. The deacon and subdeacon are in a supportive role.
Amice along with maniple went quickly and to be honest with you, I don’t particularly miss them. My albs cover my street clothes well and the tab collar in the sub tropics here is much more practical and comfortable.
Bishop Lessard - gold chasuble - was the absolute master of amice wearing. It was always perfectly placed and perfectly tucked into his collar. I am certain that he is wearing an amice in the picture Fr. McDonald posted, although you might never know it.
Not a few of the priests who wear amices today could learn a lesson from Lessard, were he here to give it. Their amices puff out, untucked, as if a white bandana had been hurriedly tied around their necks.
Anonymous is parading his ignorance once again. Flagons and decanters are common in Protestant communion plate, but not in Catholic. The Precious Blood may not be decanted or transferred from one vessel to another. If a large amount of wine is to be consecrated (which is not traditional practice) then the decanter is on the credence table; it may not be placed on the altar for consecration.
Since he is a priest, I might have expected Anonymous to know this. But then, given his track record, perhaps not.
Ignorance? Hardly. The picture is from another century when the use of flagons or decanters was not uncommon at all in Catholic churches. That their use was not common in your church is of no consequence.
The use of such containers was allowed, but was banned years after this picture was taken. See Redemptionis Sacramentum, 2004, which came into force well after Fr. McDonald was ordained.
In any case, the item in question is not an outsized cruet, but a decanter.
RS was not concerned with establishing new norms but with correcting abuses. It is a common fallacy to assume that if something is reprobated it was previously allowed. Eleventh-century reforming popes condemned simony and clerical concubinage. That doesn't mean that up until then it was OK.
I know what a decanter is; I use one for vintage port. Any more dumb-ass comments?
The dumb-ass (My, aren't we erudite and eloquent today!) comment was calling a decanter an out-sized cruet.
You see, when you intentionally misrepresent things - calling a decanter an out-sized cruet when, by your own admission, you know it is a decanter - all the eloquence and erudition in the world does no good.
Tawny port is barrel-aged, has no sediment, and does not require decanting. Neither do 'late-bottled' ruby ports. Vintage ports or non-vintage 'crusted' ports throw a sediment and need to be decanted.
A vessel used in religious ceremonies containing wine, water or oil, is known as a cruet. When a large number of chalices are to be consecrated, the wine cruet assumes the size and shape of a decanter, but the word 'decanter' has no liturgical connotation. Hence my tongue-in-cheek description.
Actually, there appear to be two decanter-sized cruets on the altar, and a small jar containing what? Olives perhaps? Given the number of liturgical aberrations around in 1980 it's anyone's guess.
Anyway, you've learned something (I hope). Even the dumbest are never completely unteachable.
If you have seen the American film, Home Alone, you will see a parallel between the hapless burglars in the film and Anonymous K. They keep getting beat up by the hero of the story but always return for more punishment.
It's hardly worth arguing with 'Anonymous'. When he talks of 'hereabouts' is he referring to his posts or to the blog in general? And who, apart from his anonymous accusers, who may well be the same person, have accused me of 'worse'?
The sad fact is that he (whoever he is) thinks that the only way to counter an argument is to attack the person. 'You have already been accused of ...' is an example. It gets him out of having to come up with an argument of his own.
Yes, I despise him and his ilk. Nothing personal, of course ...
John, it is easy for you, who by your own admission are erudite and eloquent, to ignore or dismiss or have no recollection that people who post on this blog - hereabouts - have accused you on a variety of occasions. "Say it ain't so, Joe!" But it is.
You, the erudite and eloquent, are the first to subject others to attacks which, I am sure, you will argue are entirely appropriate and deserved by the ill-bred and ill-educated "ilk" you prefer pounce on so that you can parade your knowledge much as a lady-of-the-evening might show off her "assets."
Nothing personal, but eloquence and erudition don't cover up arrogance and haughtiness very successfully.
Perhaps Anonymous could provide a reference, from the blog archive, of someone who has accused me of some misdemeanour and specify what exactly it consists of.
I don't count Anonymous or one of his many aliases.
23 comments:
the first one: bunch of guys looking like "what is my part, do we look right, pious whatever," trying to put on a show.It's personal
2nd the people don't know what the facial expression of the priest is and he doesn't have to care how he looks, he has disappeared into the role of priest, the role he was ordained for, not a showman. congregation is able to participate without the distraction of the "personal"
Egyptian, perfect! I might add that i am a concelebrant at my ordination in the one way back in the last century and the main celebrant in the one way forward in the 21st century and for the first time at the high altar never used since way back in the last century about, 1966 or so.
And now you know the rest of the story!
The placement of the chairs is very 1970s. So is the way the celebrants join their hands (forget palms together, fingers straight, right thumb over left - that's so pre-Vatican II!)
Note the way the outsize wine cruet is plonked on the altar.
It's as dated as flared trousers, kipper ties, and Ford Cortinas with leatherette upholstery and black vynil roofs.
The USA did not have a Ford Cortina, the closest was the Ford Falcon that morphed into the Ford Maverick. The Maverick came out in around 1969 or so.its price tag was $1,999! We had kipper looking ties but did not call them kipper. Flaired pants are called bell bottoms.
Fr AJM
The Cortina came out at the beginning of the 1960s. By the 70s we had the Mk III which had the then fashionable coke-bottle shape. In the late 80s I had the Mk V 2 litre version which wasn't a bad car on the whole.
In the 1960s it was immortalized by John Betjeman:
'I am the young executive, no cuffs than mine are cleaner;
I have a slimline briefcase and I use the firm's Cortina.
In every roadside hostelry from here to Burgess Hill
The maitres d'hotel all know me well and let me sign the bill.'
I can't hate the 1970s since I was in my twenties and had a good time. I was even able to avoid the liturgical fashions of the age. But the description 'the decade that taste forgot' is not inapposite.
By the way in the second photograph (which is not 'dated' in the way the first one is) you are not the 'main' celebrant, you are the 'only' celebrant. The deacon and subdeacon are in a supportive role.
That is not an "outsized wine cruet" on the altar. It's a decanter.
Do you look at a 250 foot yacht and see "an outsized row boat"?
Had the amice been displaced by then? I see a lot of tab style roman collars sticking out from the albs.
Amice along with maniple went quickly and to be honest with you, I don’t particularly miss them. My albs cover my street clothes well and the tab collar in the sub tropics here is much more practical and comfortable.
Bishop Lessard - gold chasuble - was the absolute master of amice wearing. It was always perfectly placed and perfectly tucked into his collar. I am certain that he is wearing an amice in the picture Fr. McDonald posted, although you might never know it.
Not a few of the priests who wear amices today could learn a lesson from Lessard, were he here to give it. Their amices puff out, untucked, as if a white bandana had been hurriedly tied around their necks.
Anonymous is parading his ignorance once again. Flagons and decanters are common in Protestant communion plate, but not in Catholic. The Precious Blood may not be decanted or transferred from one vessel to another. If a large amount of wine is to be consecrated (which is not traditional practice) then the decanter is on the credence table; it may not be placed on the altar for consecration.
Since he is a priest, I might have expected Anonymous to know this. But then, given his track record, perhaps not.
Ignorance? Hardly. The picture is from another century when the use of flagons or decanters was not uncommon at all in Catholic churches. That their use was not common in your church is of no consequence.
The use of such containers was allowed, but was banned years after this picture was taken. See Redemptionis Sacramentum, 2004, which came into force well after Fr. McDonald was ordained.
In any case, the item in question is not an outsized cruet, but a decanter.
RS was not concerned with establishing new norms but with correcting abuses. It is a common fallacy to assume that if something is reprobated it was previously allowed. Eleventh-century reforming popes condemned simony and clerical concubinage. That doesn't mean that up until then it was OK.
I know what a decanter is; I use one for vintage port. Any more dumb-ass comments?
The dumb-ass (My, aren't we erudite and eloquent today!) comment was calling a decanter an out-sized cruet.
You see, when you intentionally misrepresent things - calling a decanter an out-sized cruet when, by your own admission, you know it is a decanter - all the eloquence and erudition in the world does no good.
Tawny or ruby?
Tawny port is barrel-aged, has no sediment, and does not require decanting. Neither do 'late-bottled' ruby ports. Vintage ports or non-vintage 'crusted' ports throw a sediment and need to be decanted.
A vessel used in religious ceremonies containing wine, water or oil, is known as a cruet. When a large number of chalices are to be consecrated, the wine cruet assumes the size and shape of a decanter, but the word 'decanter' has no liturgical connotation. Hence my tongue-in-cheek description.
Actually, there appear to be two decanter-sized cruets on the altar, and a small jar containing what? Olives perhaps? Given the number of liturgical aberrations around in 1980 it's anyone's guess.
Anyway, you've learned something (I hope). Even the dumbest are never completely unteachable.
John Nolan,
If you have seen the American film, Home Alone, you will see a parallel between the hapless burglars in the film and Anonymous K. They keep getting beat up by the hero of the story but always return for more punishment.
If the worst I can be accused of is wilfully misrepresenting a decanter, I don't think I've much to worry about.
It is not a decanter or cruet but a pitcher from the rectory kitchen behind the altar and downstairs!
"If the worst I can be accused of is wilfully misrepresenting a decanter..."
Well, you have already been accused of worse hereabouts.
Or are you willfully misrepresenting that, too?
Anonymous K,
As Gene used to say "K lies all the time."
It's hardly worth arguing with 'Anonymous'. When he talks of 'hereabouts' is he referring to his posts or to the blog in general? And who, apart from his anonymous accusers, who may well be the same person, have accused me of 'worse'?
The sad fact is that he (whoever he is) thinks that the only way to counter an argument is to attack the person. 'You have already been accused of ...' is an example. It gets him out of having to come up with an argument of his own.
Yes, I despise him and his ilk. Nothing personal, of course ...
John, it is easy for you, who by your own admission are erudite and eloquent, to ignore or dismiss or have no recollection that people who post on this blog - hereabouts - have accused you on a variety of occasions. "Say it ain't so, Joe!" But it is.
You, the erudite and eloquent, are the first to subject others to attacks which, I am sure, you will argue are entirely appropriate and deserved by the ill-bred and ill-educated "ilk" you prefer pounce on so that you can parade your knowledge much as a lady-of-the-evening might show off her "assets."
Nothing personal, but eloquence and erudition don't cover up arrogance and haughtiness very successfully.
Perhaps Anonymous could provide a reference, from the blog archive, of someone who has accused me of some misdemeanour and specify what exactly it consists of.
I don't count Anonymous or one of his many aliases.
Post a Comment