The parish where I grew up in and eventually left to go to seminary in Baltimore, Maryland was a 1950’s a-frame building. It’s pre-Vatican II look had a unity to it, a lovely altar with six tall candles sticks and smaller ones, all of which mimicked the exposed a-frame beams. Everything was simple but lovely and in good taste.
Vestments were the gothic style, even prior to the Council. These were made of silk or some other precious fabric and had the traditional ophries.
Then I went to St Mary’s Progressive Seminary in Baltimore for major theology in 1976. For the first time I saw blah vestments with no designs on them and the stole placed over the chasuble. Some priests only wore the stole with no chasuble. In small group Masses, no vestments what so ever were used.
The so-called “chalices” that were used were called “cups” and looked like terracotta planters!
I asked a seminary professor why these were used rather than beautiful accoutrements for Mass. He said Vatican II called for noble simplicity. The chasuble itself is the symbol not added symbols or artwork placed upon them. Thus these should be solid in color with cheap materials, like polyester and burlap to mimic the stark simplicity of the manger in which God was born!!!
Today, there are still those who long for the 1970’s ideology about ugly simplicity that Vatican II taught and mandated. Just like Vatican II banned Latin, ad orientem, chanting the propers, kneeling for Holy Communion and altar railings and promoted girls doing everything that boys do in a transsexual way.
One such person longing for the 1970’s and pushing it successfully in 2024 is the Archbishop of Paris who wanted the ugliest and most simple altar, ambo, cathedra and tabernacle for the restore Cathedral of Norte Dame.
This is what the National Catholic Register reports about the iconoclastic altar, ambo, and cathedra:
The resulting furnishings, including the altar, baptismal font, Tabernacle, ambo and cathedra (chair of the bishop), have been controversial. Despite this, the artist, Guillaume Bardet, has maintained that the furnishings are humble and “centered on the eternal,” following the Archbishop of Paris’s directive that these furnishings were to have “noble simplicity” and respect “the spirit of the Catholic liturgy, according to the meanings and norms established following the Second Vatican Council.”
Here are photos of the TLM I celebrated in Savannah’s Sacred Heat Church on Sunday, December 29th. Please note the beautiful chasuable I am wearing (not mine but the parish’s).
These are in random order:
25 comments:
Only in your mind did Vatican Two "ban" beautiful vestments.
Only in your mind does simplicity equal "ugly" or "iconoclastic."
And only in your mind does recognizing the dignity of baptized women have anything to do with "transexualism."
Only in your mind is the Dem Party the party of the unborn? Lol.
You are the Jimmah Carta of Catholicism, always wrong but never in doubt!
"Noble Simplicity" the keys to the car for iconoclasts, a term still not well understood. And, where does it stop? That ideology continues to creep into things like tentacles of an octopus.
It's true that VII didn't specifically "ban" beautiful vestments; but, is it really? I would argue there was an implicit ban - look at what was created and is still being created. Questionable taste/style regularly rears it head. Try to get a Russian Orthodox priest to vest/celebrate in some of these vestments/churches and it would give him yet another reason to lob "heretic" barbs.
Is brutalism "noble simplicity", iconoclastic, bad taste, a combination of all and then some? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that ain't it to me.
Beautiful chasuble Fr. AJM. Easy on the eyes.
This just popped up in my FB feed. Makes my case:
https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/how-do-notre-dame-new-furnishings-fit-into-the-church-s-vision-of-sacred-design?utm_content=320509362&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-64182915497
"Questionable taste/style regularly rears its head." Who is the arbiter of what qualifies as "questionable" style or taste? Is there some Divine source telling us what is beautiful, what is elegant, what is appropriate?
As for the Orthodox priest lobbing "heretic" barbs, if he's going to base that accusation on not liking a style of vestment, then he needs to find his way back to St. Vlad's in NY or St. Tik's in Moscow. He's needs further training.
Styles come and go. Always have, always will. To think that this doesn't apply to church decor, vestments, music, is an attempt at control that has failed and will continue to fail.
Some of the young ladies who want to “serve” could get an iron and some starch onto those altar linens pictured.
My dignity as a baptized woman does not involve usurping the roles of men. Women have a “super power” that men can never have: motherhood. People who denigrate that power have been captured by the snares of feminism, proposing that women should aspire to be just like men.
No father. You misundertand. It's not the Russian priest who pursues different styles and current trends. Both Orthodoxy and the Eastern Byzantine Churches are countercultural. What was, is, and will be.
Happy New Year.
Laura, assuming a role to which you are entitled by virtue of Baptism is not a usurpation. The notion that Baptism prepares a woman for ironing and searching is a denigrating of the Sacrament and the dignity it bestows.
Democrats and progressive “Catholicism “ always denigrating humble work, like ironing,” SHEESH, what a caricature! Thank God Kamala and her abortion loving friends were crushed in November! No Laura, wanting to iron altar cloths that desperately need them is a grace that comes from God, a wonderful baptismal grace that elevates all corporal works of mercy. Tea and crumpet Catholics who relish academic snobbery certainly denigrates baptismal dignity. I would tell FRMJK to go to McDonald’s and flip some burger to the glory of God!
Father Jealous should be humble and learn the TLM so he may better understand the Latin Rite! He also needs to confess his sin of voting for the babykillers and child mutilators because there is NO proportionate reason!
Father Jealous should be humble and learn the TLM so he may better understand the Latin Rite! He also needs to confess his sin of voting for the babykillers and child mutilators because there is NO proportionate reason!
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - Sometimes I wonder if you are REALY as dense as you make yourself out to be in your silly posts...
That a priest of God would choose blatant insults on a Holy Day no less is offensive.
The host can post whatever he chooses.
Clear disagreement is by no means indicative of silliness.
ByzRus,
Precisely. K is a Democrat operative masquerading as a Catholic priest. That diocese must be desperate to keep him around!
Byz - You very conveniently ignore/overlook the blatant insults hurled at me, then turn around and take me to task for the same. Very convenient.
K, maybe you should rethink that statement. They are not insults, just pointing out the truth.
Bravo, Laura!
I had been wondering whether Jimmy Carter would be mentioned. I had thought, hoped even, that Father McDonald might do a post on someone who, for all his undeniable shortcomings as a president and differences with Catholic teaching, seemed to be a genuinely good human being and elder statesman who tried to live a good Christian life (perhaps Father M is saving it for day of the funeral):
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/259831/christian-faith-a-hallmark-of-former-president-jimmy-carter-s-life
Instead, we get mockery from TJM (“Have you no sense of decency, sir?”), an ardent supporter of a president who stands in diametric contrast to Carter—for example, contrast Jimmy “I’ll never lie to you” Carter with Donald “I will never tell you the truth” Trump. How far we have fallen indeed!
Mark J.
Mark - Thanks to Jimmy Carter we will have flags flying at half staff on Inauguration Day. Quite the double meaning symbol. Also, at his funeral we will recall a president who lived an honorable, Christian life before, during, and after his time in the White House.
Thanks to Carter we have the Mullahs in Iran and the Department of "Education." His economic policies harmed working men and women, so much so they booted him from office in a landslide victory for Reagan, 489 electoral votes to 49 and an almost 10 margin of victory in the popular vote. You are truly the Pauline Kael of clergy and a really nasty piece of work. Under President Trump in his first term, we had no new hot wars and working men and women, including minorities, were making economic gains. I guess you can't forgive President Trump for putting in place Justices who would overturn your Party's greatest sacrament, Abortion, as a national "right."
Fr. MJK,
Without question the late former president and his wife were models of decency and Christian living.
I'm not being confrontational with my next question.
How, as a Catholic priest and pastor, do you reconcile Catholic "non-negotiables", pastoral prudence and the "lesser of two evils"? As you've publicly shared how you directed your vote, if your parishioners are confused by your actions relative to my understanding of Catholic obligations, what would you say?
I acknowledge the Church didn't mandate that Catholics vote one way or another, but did they?
Byz - "I acknowledge the Church didn't mandate that Catholics vote one way or another, but did they?" Who are "they?" And they "did" what?
As for voting, the bishops of the United States have issued and re-issued "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," a teaching document on the political responsibility of Catholics.
ByzRus,
K is not giving you a document when the truth is simple. Here is how proportionate reasons work:
An example of the "proportionate reasons" that would justify voting for a candidate who approved of some abortions would be the case when the only two candidates able to win an election were both in favor of abortion. It is morally permissible to vote for the one who supports fewer abortions than his opponent.
Obviously, Obama, Biden and Harris did not qualify for this exception.
Thanks Fr. for the beautiful photos of your tlm. Simple,yes. And beautiful also. I am thankful for clerics like yourself who continue, day in and out, to proclaim the god, the true and the beautiful.
TJM,
The above referenced doc, to me, and relative to the time I don't have for it's review, seems clear based on a quick key-word search, "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion", among others.
While both sides of the aisle favor rights to some degree, it is equally clear which side "limiting the hatmrm done by such a law".
To each their own, everyone is responsible for their own conscience and actions.
I think my question was both fair and clear.
Post a Comment