Just right. To me, it is neither broken nor in need of repair (and, I'm part of the slightly under 50 demographic - the age group that grew up with the reforms and should think it's wonderful). Liturgy should be elevated. Also, we have more than enough problems trying, mostly in vain and to the point of despair, to repair the NO. From my eastern vantage point, I feel bad for those living through this. I am quite happy not having these circular liturgy wars as part of my existence.
This is beyond repair: http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2020/07/its-1970-and-this-is-typical-article-on.html
Good and short listen, young people describing what drew and continues to draw them to the traditional latin mass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nanV0DEkpGQ
The "this is typical" mindset from the above Southern Orders posting and resulting "deforms" are an epic failure. Childish actions and music, an ugly aesthetic, smug "Sister Janets", pseudo-vibrancy and "participation" by doing really nothing in particular outside of hollow symbolic huggy actions have done almost irrevocable damage to the church and western Christianity. Those effected continue beating to death potential repairs that will likely never happen. This is a totally understandable coping mechanism. Again, I have nothing but sympathy for those who's Catholic experience has been so distracted in this way. I also have nothing but bewilderment for the hierarchy who insist that business as usual is the way forward as parishes continue to close, convents evaporate and seminaries struggle to hang on.
As a follow-up, I find the near wholesale rejection of the NO by younger people to be interesting with them favoring the reverent Christ-centered experience of the TLM. Though intended as the demographic to embrace the reforms, young people seem to have embraced the aforementioned over the NO which is mostly Christ-centered and partly man-centered accompanied by card store style melodrama. Increasingly, those in this video will likely become a significant part of the future of the church. The hierarchy, would do well not to ignore them or, denigrate them by saying they are participating in a "fad" as Pope Francis has done.
Young people describing what drew and continues to draw them to the traditional latin mass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nanV0DEkpGQ
"Saint Charles laid down regulations about the dimensions of vestments for the Sacred Liturgy because, it would seem, he was concerned that the form of the vestments, which had been handed down for centuries, was being cast aside in favour of something convenient and “fashionable”. The chasuble, derived from the Latin word for “a little house” had been for centuries an ample garment. In the 15th and 16th centuries, there had been significant divergence from this Tradition, however, resulting in a form of chasuble that wasn’t ample, but cut right back so that it comprised a sort of narrow pendant, front and back, on the wearer. We know this form of chasuble as the “Roman” or “fiddleback” chasuble, and some claim that this is the form of the chasuble that is truly “traditional”. But Borromeo didn’t think that: he thought it represented a break with Tradition. And he specified the minimum size to which he expected chasubles to conform. They were to be at least 51 inches (130cm) wide and, at the back, they were to reach down almost to the heels of the wearer."
'Anachronistic and, with the savagely minimalist chasuble that was denounced by St Charles Borromeo, unnecessary.'
From a contributor who is renowned for his silly comments, the above ranks high on the silliness scale. Firstly, he doesn't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'anachronism'. Let me enlighten him. It is an error assigning a thing to an earlier or (less strictly) to a later age than it belongs to, or it can mean anything out of keeping with chronology. It does not mean outmoded or old-fashioned, and even if it did, it cannot be applied to liturgical vestments. They are indeed subject to fashion, but are in a broader sense timeless. If a priest wishes to wear a conical chasuble (a style usual in the first millennium), a so-called 'fiddleback' of the baroque era, or even a late 20th century 'polyester poncho', he is correctly attired for Mass.
Now we come to the word 'unnecessary'. Is the writer suggesting that an approved liturgical vestment is not actually needed, despite what (for example) the GIRM says? I suspect not, unless of course circumstances were so extraordinary that no such vestments were available. In 16th century England missionary priests had to celebrate Mass clandestinely and at enormous risk to themselves and those who hosted them; yet their hosts were careful to provide them with Mass vestments.
For the commentator who calls himself 'Pearl Price' along with many other pseudonyms 'unnecessary' means 'something I don't particularly care for', whether it be liturgical Latin, the older liturgical forms or (in this case) certain vestment styles. It is an attitude both solipsistic and profoundly ignorant. He should also realize that Charles Borromeo could only mandate things in his own archdiocese (Milan) at the time he was archbishop there; his antiquarian interest in vesture was no doubt admirable, as was his insistence that congregations be strictly segregated according to sex. Yet they were hardly of universal and perennial import.
Fiddlebacks have become part of the tradition. If you don't like them, then don't wear them if you are a priest and don't contribute money towards buying them. Buy beautiful, high quality, vestments that are in the style you like.
I love all vestments that are quality. Many of the more "gothic" chasubles people have seen over the last fifty years are cheap and ugly, leading people to think fiddlebacks are better because those are usually beautiful. Many traditional parishes used fiddlebacks because they were plentiful after the liturgical reform - everyone was literally throwing them in the dumpster. I know of an older Catholic who literally would go dumpster diving outside of Catholic churches in the late 60's and 70's and found ridiculous amounts of expensive high quality liturgical goods.
Anachronistic: "belonging or appropriate to an earlier period, especially so as to seem conspicuously old-fashioned."
"Fiddlebacks" are anachronistic.
Often the users and their cheering sections want to be "conspicuously old-fashioned." This ridiculously minimalistic vestment is merely a calling card for that desire. "Look At Me! I Know What It Means To Be A Catholic And A Priest!"
Unnecessary - Lifting the chasuble tail.
By all means, let us ignore the non-traditional nature of the "fiddleback" and make references to other matters upon which St. Charles Borromeo wrote.
Lucky, I've thrown out hideous polyester fiddlebacks. They were cheap when they were made, just as contemporary vestments can be cheap when they are produced.
Anachronistic: "belonging or appropriate to an earlier period, especially so as to seem conspicuously old-fashioned."
To you.
"Fiddlebacks" are anachronistic.
To you.
Often the users and their cheering sections want to be "conspicuously old-fashioned." This ridiculously minimalistic vestment is merely a calling card for that desire. "Look At Me! I Know What It Means To Be A Catholic And A Priest!"
How do you know?
Unnecessary - Lifting the chasuble tail.
To you.
By all means, let us ignore the non-traditional nature of the "fiddleback" and make references to other matters upon which St. Charles Borromeo wrote.
Let us ignore the non-traditional nature of much that has crept into Roman liturgy in the last 50 years.
Lucky, I've thrown out hideous polyester fiddlebacks. They were cheap when they were made, just as contemporary vestments can be cheap when they are produced.
Yes. Aren't we lucky.
Please don't make broad-brush statements and opinions. They aren't mine and are perhaps not shared by others here.
By your definition, ALL liturgical vestments are anachronistic, based as they are on the everyday dress of the late Roman Empire.
And many features of the liturgy (even the 'rational' and pared-down Novus Ordo) cannot be understood simply in utilitarian terms. At one time the carrying of candles at the Gospel served a practical purpose.
"By your definition, ALL liturgical vestments are anachronistic, based as they are on the everyday dress of the late Roman Empire."
Nope. Wrong. Shoes aren't anachronistic just because we've been wearing them for thousands of years. Neither are houses, which we've lived in for hundreds of years, or clothing in general since it's been around since Adam and Eve, nor any other item that has a long history of use.
You offer a logical fallacy - Overgeneralization. The fiddleback chasuble some wear for Mass is anachronistic. Chasubles are still worn for Mass. Therefore, all chasubles are anachronistic.
Sorry, bucko, logical fallacies don't fly. One specific style which originated in one specific period is the matter of question.
The overwhelmingly minimalistic, so-called "fiddleback" chasuble is anachronistic.
PP (and we all know who he is) constructs a syllogism with one false premise 'The fiddleback chasuble some wear for Mass is anachronistic' and an equally false conclusion, and then has the cheek to accuse me of 'offering' it. This is the same man who thinks that the logical fallacy 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' can be used to deny cause and effect, which shows he is unaware of what is meant by a logical fallacy. My conclusion would be that no liturgical vestments can properly be described as anachronistic.
He chooses to define 'anachronistic' in a very imprecise way and so is hoist with his own petard. When Shakespeare has one of the conspirators in 'Julius Caesar' say 'The clock has stricken three' he is guilty of anachronism, since the ancient Romans had no striking clocks.
Why are the altar boys in the picture lifting the chasuble?
The debate over vestments reminds me of a visit I made to an Anglican parish near Charlottesville, Virginia decades ago (this Anglican parish was not then nor now a part of the Episcopal Church). The celebrant was wearing an ornate chasuble when he celebrated Holy Communion (of course at a back altar). I asked him after the service where he got the chasuble, and he mentioned that somehow his parish got such vestments from discarded vestments from Chicago of all places (as in the Catholic Archdiocese). Hmmm...I guess being ornate got out of place in some dioceses decades ago!
In the 1970s the priest of a (very) high Anglican church on the south coast of England would regularly go over to France and acquire ornate vestments which were being thrown out. The same priest, when it was his parish's turn to host an interdenominational service, chose to celebrate Solemn Benediction. You could hardly see across the church for smoke. What the Methodists and Baptists made of it is anyone's guess.
Some French Benedictine monasteries at the time were reported to have ceremonially burned their antique vestments and chant books. No doubt they too thought 'antique' and 'anachronistic' were coterminous.
Raising the hem of the chasuble was originally to make it easier for the priest to carry out the elevations which entered the Mass in the second millennium. When vestment styles evolved so that the priest's arms were unencumbered, the gesture became a symbolic one.
John - As you have been told before, you don't get to define words. You don't get to say "My dictionary is superior to your dictionary, therefore your definition is inadequate." As much as it serve your purposes to think you can and to assert that you can, you can't.
The ridiculously minimalistic, so-called fiddleback chasuble is anachronistic, "belonging or appropriate to an earlier period, especially so as to seem conspicuously old-fashioned."
You fall into the logical fallacy of overgeneralization, lumping all chasubles into one group, suggesting that if one STYLE (note the difference there) is anachronistic, all are anachronistic.
You can overgeneralize all you want, that doesn't change a thing. It continues to weaken your argument, as does your resorting to redefining definitions.
"The ridiculously minimalistic, so-called fiddleback chasuble is anachronistic, "belonging or appropriate to an earlier period, especially so as to seem conspicuously old-fashioned."
Wouldn't this suggest that for divine worship, priests should eschew traditional vestments in favor of modern street clothing? There would be nothing inconspicuous about someone walking around say, at the grocery store, wearing these garments. I believe you've said as much.
At least read what I write. It should be obvious that I don't regard any vestment style as anachronistic. That was the whole point of my argument. I am also well aware that the term is used out of context by ignorant people who want to say 'old-fashioned' but think it sounds better in Greek. Apply your popular and loose definition to what are recognized as anachronisms in literature, and especially in 'historical drama' and you will find that it doesn't fit the bill.
For example, 'Downton Abbey' had someone referring to a 'learning curve' supposedly in 1920. An obvious anachronism, since the expression was not in use then. It belongs to a later period. 'Belonging or appropriate to an earlier period' (your definition) doesn't hold water.
Arguing with you is like trying to reason with a toddler. You are a contumacious yet ignorant individual who has the hubris to assume that his opinions are definitive. By all means come back with some half-baked explanation. You can even adopt yet another pseudonym and high-five yourself. But rest assured that no-one is fooled.
Well, I, for one, am pleased with this thread as it may have solved an old question for me: what was the reason for sometimes segregating congregation by sex. The priest in my hometown mentioned seeing this once and wondered why they did it; it has made me wonder, as well.
So we have three topics here: the original, that has passed into memory, a concern over tastes in liturgical garments, and the malapropism that occurred while discussing the first two. Some people have clung to the malapropism in an effort to buttress a particular opinion as fact. That is unnecessary, because the selection of vestments is for the usual parish Mass a personal decision.
"...I don't regard any vestment style as anachronistic."
Well I don't regard your definitions as normative for general English speakers. Your opinions, based on your own preferences and prejudices, are equally dismissable.
Why? "Becausae your opinions are not definitive." Now where have I heard that line before....?
I'll stand by the definition I posted earlier for anachronistic.
The laughably minimalistic, so-called fiddleback chasuble is anachronistic.
I don't recall ever laughing at a chasuble, even the ultra-minimalist 'polyester poncho' with no decoration at all, which was fashionable a quarter of a century ago. But then I'm not a modernist priest with no liturgical sensibility.
'The rest of us'. Has it not occurred to you that it is not I who constitute a minority of one on this blog?
And don't bother inventing another pseudonym to make it look like you have support for your erroneous and poorly-expressed opinions. By the way, 'declaring' is a gerund and should be preceded by a personal pronoun in the genitive case.
But you are too busy correcting other people's use of language to pay much attention to your own.
Yes, the General Belgrano didn't stand a chance against HMS Conqueror. If PPK Anonymous were a less unpleasant character I might have a twinge of guilt in torpedoing him; he is, after all, a sitting duck.
"Has it not occurred to you that it is not I who constitute a minority of one on this blog?"
Has it not occured to you that those who post on this blog are not the "us" to which I was referring, or that there is a "us" that exists outside this blog?
Has it not also occured to you that being a minority, even of one, is merely an exercise in counting. Lots of folks who were part of the majority in various circumstances have been wrong...
"Lots of folks who were part of the majority in various circumstances have been wrong..."
Like the bishops at Vatican II? Not only wrong, but dead wrong in their gamble that the Council would usher in a new Springtime, instead of the desolate Winter we got!
45 comments:
Just right. To me, it is neither broken nor in need of repair (and, I'm part of the slightly under 50 demographic - the age group that grew up with the reforms and should think it's wonderful). Liturgy should be elevated. Also, we have more than enough problems trying, mostly in vain and to the point of despair, to repair the NO. From my eastern vantage point, I feel bad for those living through this. I am quite happy not having these circular liturgy wars as part of my existence.
This is beyond repair: http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2020/07/its-1970-and-this-is-typical-article-on.html
Good and short listen, young people describing what drew and continues to draw them to the traditional latin mass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nanV0DEkpGQ
The "this is typical" mindset from the above Southern Orders posting and resulting "deforms" are an epic failure. Childish actions and music, an ugly aesthetic, smug "Sister Janets", pseudo-vibrancy and "participation" by doing really nothing in particular outside of hollow symbolic huggy actions have done almost irrevocable damage to the church and western Christianity. Those effected continue beating to death potential repairs that will likely never happen. This is a totally understandable coping mechanism. Again, I have nothing but sympathy for those who's Catholic experience has been so distracted in this way. I also have nothing but bewilderment for the hierarchy who insist that business as usual is the way forward as parishes continue to close, convents evaporate and seminaries struggle to hang on.
As a follow-up, I find the near wholesale rejection of the NO by younger people to be interesting with them favoring the reverent Christ-centered experience of the TLM. Though intended as the demographic to embrace the reforms, young people seem to have embraced the aforementioned over the NO which is mostly Christ-centered and partly man-centered accompanied by card store style melodrama. Increasingly, those in this video will likely become a significant part of the future of the church. The hierarchy, would do well not to ignore them or, denigrate them by saying they are participating in a "fad" as Pope Francis has done.
Young people describing what drew and continues to draw them to the traditional latin mass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nanV0DEkpGQ
I absolutely love the Fiddle Back chasuble beautiful!!
Anachronistic and, with the savagely minimalist chasuble that was denounced by St. Charles Borromeo, unnecessary.
Boy are you a downer Pearl Price, maybe you prefer the Novus Ordo polyester rubbish.
Blame St. Charles B., not me!
"Saint Charles laid down regulations about the dimensions of vestments for the Sacred Liturgy because, it would seem, he was concerned that the form of the vestments, which had been handed down for centuries, was being cast aside in favour of something convenient and “fashionable”. The chasuble, derived from the Latin word for “a little house” had been for centuries an ample garment. In the 15th and 16th centuries, there had been significant divergence from this Tradition, however, resulting in a form of chasuble that wasn’t ample, but cut right back so that it comprised a sort of narrow pendant, front and back, on the wearer. We know this form of chasuble as the “Roman” or “fiddleback” chasuble, and some claim that this is the form of the chasuble that is truly “traditional”. But Borromeo didn’t think that: he thought it represented a break with Tradition. And he specified the minimum size to which he expected chasubles to conform. They were to be at least 51 inches (130cm) wide and, at the back, they were to reach down almost to the heels of the wearer."
Pearl Price is Father Kavanaugh
Just right and it looks like the back of Father May’s head whom I love as a young smart priest of the future church.
Pearl Price cited St. Charles Borromeo on the non-traditional nature of the inaptly named "fiddleback" chasuble.
Take it up with him, and with tradition.
'Anachronistic and, with the savagely minimalist chasuble that was denounced by St Charles Borromeo, unnecessary.'
From a contributor who is renowned for his silly comments, the above ranks high on the silliness scale. Firstly, he doesn't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'anachronism'. Let me enlighten him. It is an error assigning a thing to an earlier or (less strictly) to a later age than it belongs to, or it can mean anything out of keeping with chronology. It does not mean outmoded or old-fashioned, and even if it did, it cannot be applied to liturgical vestments. They are indeed subject to fashion, but are in a broader sense timeless. If a priest wishes to wear a conical chasuble (a style usual in the first millennium), a so-called 'fiddleback' of the baroque era, or even a late 20th century 'polyester poncho', he is correctly attired for Mass.
Now we come to the word 'unnecessary'. Is the writer suggesting that an approved liturgical vestment is not actually needed, despite what (for example) the GIRM says? I suspect not, unless of course circumstances were so extraordinary that no such vestments were available. In 16th century England missionary priests had to celebrate Mass clandestinely and at enormous risk to themselves and those who hosted them; yet their hosts were careful to provide them with Mass vestments.
For the commentator who calls himself 'Pearl Price' along with many other pseudonyms 'unnecessary' means 'something I don't particularly care for', whether it be liturgical Latin, the older liturgical forms or (in this case) certain vestment styles. It is an attitude both solipsistic and profoundly ignorant. He should also realize that Charles Borromeo could only mandate things in his own archdiocese (Milan) at the time he was archbishop there; his antiquarian interest in vesture was no doubt admirable, as was his insistence that congregations be strictly segregated according to sex. Yet they were hardly of universal and perennial import.
Fiddlebacks have become part of the tradition. If you don't like them, then don't wear them if you are a priest and don't contribute money towards buying them. Buy beautiful, high quality, vestments that are in the style you like.
I love all vestments that are quality. Many of the more "gothic" chasubles people have seen over the last fifty years are cheap and ugly, leading people to think fiddlebacks are better because those are usually beautiful. Many traditional parishes used fiddlebacks because they were plentiful after the liturgical reform - everyone was literally throwing them in the dumpster. I know of an older Catholic who literally would go dumpster diving outside of Catholic churches in the late 60's and 70's and found ridiculous amounts of expensive high quality liturgical goods.
Anachronistic: "belonging or appropriate to an earlier period, especially so as to seem conspicuously old-fashioned."
"Fiddlebacks" are anachronistic.
Often the users and their cheering sections want to be "conspicuously old-fashioned." This ridiculously minimalistic vestment is merely a calling card for that desire. "Look At Me! I Know What It Means To Be A Catholic And A Priest!"
Unnecessary - Lifting the chasuble tail.
By all means, let us ignore the non-traditional nature of the "fiddleback" and make references to other matters upon which St. Charles Borromeo wrote.
Lucky, I've thrown out hideous polyester fiddlebacks. They were cheap when they were made, just as contemporary vestments can be cheap when they are produced.
Anachronistic: "belonging or appropriate to an earlier period, especially so as to seem conspicuously old-fashioned."
To you.
"Fiddlebacks" are anachronistic.
To you.
Often the users and their cheering sections want to be "conspicuously old-fashioned." This ridiculously minimalistic vestment is merely a calling card for that desire. "Look At Me! I Know What It Means To Be A Catholic And A Priest!"
How do you know?
Unnecessary - Lifting the chasuble tail.
To you.
By all means, let us ignore the non-traditional nature of the "fiddleback" and make references to other matters upon which St. Charles Borromeo wrote.
Let us ignore the non-traditional nature of much that has crept into Roman liturgy in the last 50 years.
Lucky, I've thrown out hideous polyester fiddlebacks. They were cheap when they were made, just as contemporary vestments can be cheap when they are produced.
Yes. Aren't we lucky.
Please don't make broad-brush statements and opinions. They aren't mine and are perhaps not shared by others here.
PP
By your definition, ALL liturgical vestments are anachronistic, based as they are on the everyday dress of the late Roman Empire.
And many features of the liturgy (even the 'rational' and pared-down Novus Ordo) cannot be understood simply in utilitarian terms. At one time the carrying of candles at the Gospel served a practical purpose.
Sounds like PP spends too much time posting here and should start running his parish
"By your definition, ALL liturgical vestments are anachronistic, based as they are on the everyday dress of the late Roman Empire."
Nope. Wrong. Shoes aren't anachronistic just because we've been wearing them for thousands of years. Neither are houses, which we've lived in for hundreds of years, or clothing in general since it's been around since Adam and Eve, nor any other item that has a long history of use.
You offer a logical fallacy - Overgeneralization. The fiddleback chasuble some wear for Mass is anachronistic. Chasubles are still worn for Mass. Therefore, all chasubles are anachronistic.
Sorry, bucko, logical fallacies don't fly. One specific style which originated in one specific period is the matter of question.
The overwhelmingly minimalistic, so-called "fiddleback" chasuble is anachronistic.
The attached is so appropriate for the response from PP, 3:49 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSLlZh9yelk
John Nolan - I understood you just fine.
ByzRC
PP (and we all know who he is) constructs a syllogism with one false premise 'The fiddleback chasuble some wear for Mass is anachronistic' and an equally false conclusion, and then has the cheek to accuse me of 'offering' it. This is the same man who thinks that the logical fallacy 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' can be used to deny cause and effect, which shows he is unaware of what is meant by a logical fallacy. My conclusion would be that no liturgical vestments can properly be described as anachronistic.
He chooses to define 'anachronistic' in a very imprecise way and so is hoist with his own petard. When Shakespeare has one of the conspirators in 'Julius Caesar' say 'The clock has stricken three' he is guilty of anachronism, since the ancient Romans had no striking clocks.
Pearl Price Kavanaugh,
How is your day going?
Why are the altar boys in the picture lifting the chasuble?
The debate over vestments reminds me of a visit I made to an Anglican parish near Charlottesville, Virginia decades ago (this Anglican parish was not then nor now a part of the Episcopal Church). The celebrant was wearing an ornate chasuble when he celebrated Holy Communion (of course at a back altar). I asked him after the service where he got the chasuble, and he mentioned that somehow his parish got such vestments from discarded vestments from Chicago of all places (as in the Catholic Archdiocese). Hmmm...I guess being ornate got out of place in some dioceses decades ago!
In the 1970s the priest of a (very) high Anglican church on the south coast of England would regularly go over to France and acquire ornate vestments which were being thrown out. The same priest, when it was his parish's turn to host an interdenominational service, chose to celebrate Solemn Benediction. You could hardly see across the church for smoke. What the Methodists and Baptists made of it is anyone's guess.
Some French Benedictine monasteries at the time were reported to have ceremonially burned their antique vestments and chant books. No doubt they too thought 'antique' and 'anachronistic' were coterminous.
Raising the hem of the chasuble was originally to make it easier for the priest to carry out the elevations which entered the Mass in the second millennium. When vestment styles evolved so that the priest's arms were unencumbered, the gesture became a symbolic one.
John - As you have been told before, you don't get to define words. You don't get to say "My dictionary is superior to your dictionary, therefore your definition is inadequate." As much as it serve your purposes to think you can and to assert that you can, you can't.
The ridiculously minimalistic, so-called fiddleback chasuble is anachronistic, "belonging or appropriate to an earlier period, especially so as to seem conspicuously old-fashioned."
You fall into the logical fallacy of overgeneralization, lumping all chasubles into one group, suggesting that if one STYLE (note the difference there) is anachronistic, all are anachronistic.
You can overgeneralize all you want, that doesn't change a thing. It continues to weaken your argument, as does your resorting to redefining definitions.
Pearl Price Kavanaugh,
Hang it up, you lost the debate, but like a spoiled child, you must have the last word!
John Nolan -
YOU'VE BEEN TOLD!
"The ridiculously minimalistic, so-called fiddleback chasuble is anachronistic, "belonging or appropriate to an earlier period, especially so as to seem conspicuously old-fashioned."
Wouldn't this suggest that for divine worship, priests should eschew traditional vestments in favor of modern street clothing? There would be nothing inconspicuous about someone walking around say, at the grocery store, wearing these garments. I believe you've said as much.
PP (Fr Kavanaugh)
At least read what I write. It should be obvious that I don't regard any vestment style as anachronistic. That was the whole point of my argument. I am also well aware that the term is used out of context by ignorant people who want to say 'old-fashioned' but think it sounds better in Greek. Apply your popular and loose definition to what are recognized as anachronisms in literature, and especially in 'historical drama' and you will find that it doesn't fit the bill.
For example, 'Downton Abbey' had someone referring to a 'learning curve' supposedly in 1920. An obvious anachronism, since the expression was not in use then. It belongs to a later period. 'Belonging or appropriate to an earlier period' (your definition) doesn't hold water.
Arguing with you is like trying to reason with a toddler. You are a contumacious yet ignorant individual who has the hubris to assume that his opinions are definitive. By all means come back with some half-baked explanation. You can even adopt yet another pseudonym and high-five yourself. But rest assured that no-one is fooled.
John Nolan,
Your tour de force will have PP K licking his wounds for awhile
Well, I, for one, am pleased with this thread as it may have solved an old question for me: what was the reason for sometimes segregating congregation by sex. The priest in my hometown mentioned seeing this once and wondered why they did it; it has made me wonder, as well.
So we have three topics here: the original, that has passed into memory, a concern over tastes in liturgical garments, and the malapropism that occurred while discussing the first two. Some people have clung to the malapropism in an effort to buttress a particular opinion as fact. That is unnecessary, because the selection of vestments is for the usual parish Mass a personal decision.
Cutumacious?? I have to look that one up....I'm just not that well read.....
OK.. Contumacious....got it.....my bad
"...I don't regard any vestment style as anachronistic."
Well I don't regard your definitions as normative for general English speakers. Your opinions, based on your own preferences and prejudices, are equally dismissable.
Why? "Becausae your opinions are not definitive." Now where have I heard that line before....?
I'll stand by the definition I posted earlier for anachronistic.
The laughably minimalistic, so-called fiddleback chasuble is anachronistic.
https://tenor.com/view/banging-head-ouch-frustrated-gif-13835737
Anonymous PP K,
Go tend to your flock. You lost the battle of the wits
'Laughably minimalistic'
I don't recall ever laughing at a chasuble, even the ultra-minimalist 'polyester poncho' with no decoration at all, which was fashionable a quarter of a century ago. But then I'm not a modernist priest with no liturgical sensibility.
"Laughably"
Now, John, you know enough about words and their meanings to know that "laughably" doesn't necessarily imply or require laughter.
How silly of you to suggest such.
Or, are you again attempting to force your narrow, time-bound definitions of words on the rest of us?
Anonymous TJM
You declaring "You lost the battle" makes me think of Napoleon saying, as he crossed the Neman River, "Minsk tomorrow, Moscow in a month!"
'The rest of us'. Has it not occurred to you that it is not I who constitute a minority of one on this blog?
And don't bother inventing another pseudonym to make it look like you have support for your erroneous and poorly-expressed opinions. By the way, 'declaring' is a gerund and should be preceded by a personal pronoun in the genitive case.
But you are too busy correcting other people's use of language to pay much attention to your own.
Agree with John Nolan. Additionally, I abhor people making unsolicited statements on my behalf.
We are Legion.
Do I hear "Tubular Bells"?
Pearl Price Kavanaugh torpedoed again by John Nolan
Pearl Price is Donald Trump - either Snr or Jnr- I haven’t worked that bit out yet!
Pierre
Yes, the General Belgrano didn't stand a chance against HMS Conqueror. If PPK Anonymous were a less unpleasant character I might have a twinge of guilt in torpedoing him; he is, after all, a sitting duck.
Conspiracy Theorist,
Pearl Price is a Margaret Sanger clone
"Has it not occurred to you that it is not I who constitute a minority of one on this blog?"
Has it not occured to you that those who post on this blog are not the "us" to which I was referring, or that there is a "us" that exists outside this blog?
Has it not also occured to you that being a minority, even of one, is merely an exercise in counting. Lots of folks who were part of the majority in various circumstances have been wrong...
Anonymous K at 10:11 AM,
"Lots of folks who were part of the majority in various circumstances have been wrong..."
Like the bishops at Vatican II? Not only wrong, but dead wrong in their gamble that the Council would usher in a new Springtime, instead of the desolate Winter we got!
Post a Comment