The Finest French Lace vs. Arbp. Bugnini's Best
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Now I'm not trying to be polemical, but a recent comment about "the finest French lace" really got me thinking (esp. since a good friend of mine, an art historian, collects vintage lace and has explained to me the finer points of that exquisite art form.)

    There is obviously an enormous difference in the aesthetic approach taken to the EF and the OF as regards vestments, sacred vessels, music, etc. If you think about it, although there may be some exceptions I'm not aware of, for the most part, let's say in 99.9% of the time, if you go to the EF, you pretty much know beforehand what you're going to see, and that also holds true for the OF. So here's the thought I had, if Pope Benedict taught us that the Mass is supposed to be a foretaste of the heavenly Jerusalem, which aesthetic approach best accomplishes the goal of raising people's minds and hearts to "seek that which is above", according to the title of a book by Cardinal Ratzinger?

    So, wanting to be completely fair and as objective as possible, I thought I would share two different videos (for educational purposes only) of solemn occasions where in each form the best possible liturgical foot is put forward.

    The first is taken from a Mass celebrated just last year in Los Angeles to celebrate the arrival and reception of its new Archbishop, Jose Gomez---a truly convivial and welcoming event. It goes without saying that for such an auspicious occasion, the planners were trying to put their best foot forward. (Procession starts at 12:00 mark.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB5Ynw8YOgs

    The second is taken from a procession of an EF ordination rite at Econe, Switzerland. (As per Fr. Krisman's suggestion, I will refrain from my usual disclaimer that I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the SSPX and do not in any way endorse any of their activities or attitudes that go beyond extra-ecclesial boundaries, and in fact, pray for their regularization on a regular basis). That being said, for liturgical education purposes only, I think this video is a good illustration of how the people in the EF are trying to put their best foot forward. (Many lovely examples of fine French lace here.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NR1n4S_5RU
    So, in closing, I'd like to ask this question: which aesthetic approach do you think helps people to experience the transcendent and the supernatural and assists them in elevating their minds and hearts to God and best helps them to participate in the sacred mysteries?
  • donr
    Posts: 949
    Actually the EF procession could have done with out the organ and just left the bells ring by themselves.

    There are many who would say heaven would be more like your first example because everyone seems more joyous and having a good time. I would not be one of them.

    Even though I do not prefer the version of the Litany that the happy clappy choir did in version one, I do like the fact that they did a Litany.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,353
    In example 1 - There seems to be one Byzantine in the procession. I wonder what he thought of the goings on.

    I don't think that Mass is a good example of the Ordinary Form at its finest. For that, I would look perhaps at the Papal Mass celebrated in Westminster Cathedral with Papa B back a couple years ago.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,112
    But dear Adam, you and I know that the procession and the music accompanying it (yeesh) is more common in the US than we would all like. It is a bad grapes and apples comparison, but in its perspective, it is appropriate to note the aesthetic proposed by each video.

    And for the record, that is NOT always the norm at the LA cathedral.
  • Neither of the above.
    You might have offered a third option: high mass at our Lady of Walsingham. Or high mass at a very high Anglican cathedral not party to any of the unfortunate developments in Anglicanism over the last fifty years.

    As for all the prissy sissified lace. It is disgusting. The Lord of Heaven and Earth would never sit enthroned in all his glory to have it besmirched by such effeminate, unvirtuous, unwholesome, and unmanly drag. No vision of heaven here!
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,329
    What bluster!
  • I just listened to bits (small bits were all I could tolerate) of the Bishop Gomez mass. No vision of heaven there, either. I can hardly believe that this is what large numbers of our people consider Catholic worship. More bluster (if that's really what you want to call it), I'm afraid. What a hurtful charade!
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • I have just viewed (again!) the film of a day at la Barroux monastery in France, which Chonak so kindly put up here last year. Now, this could be a vision of heaven! No bluster is needed about decadent trappings or happy-clappy nonsense. Its pure, clean and tasteful sanity speaks for itself.
  • I'm sorry, but I'll go for neither. I am a Sarum-influenced Catholic in the spirit of Percy Dearmer. In other words, no ruddy lacey cottas, albs and altarcloths, no skimpy little fiddlebacks, no spade-ended maniples, no ridiculously towering reredoses, no banks of endless candles taller than a man can reach without a step-stool. But no ikea-looking little tables, no bizarre-looking excuses for stained glass and sacred art, no 'tablecloths with a hole in the middle' chasubles, no ridiculously broad stoles that are long enough for priests to trip over. I say toss both French Baroque tastes and 70's Spirit of V2 tastes out the window in favour of nice, clean, simple Medieval Northern European tastes, with all the conical chasubles, ample English surplices, riddel curtains and 3:1 or 2:1 reredos to altar ratios, and just two candlesticks and a crucifix on the altar. Granted, I'm biased.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Biased is not the term I would use. Perhaps Presbyterian? LOL. There were, are, and should be regional differences in celebration and dress that fit with the traditions of the particular region. It seems that, especially since Vatican II, there is a mindset afoot that everything should be the same in every place - lowest common denominator.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Best thread ever! Thanks, Julie!
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    It's most instructive, that's for sure! My main purpose in posting these examples was to focus on the clerical vestments and demeanor which are in such complete contrast in both forms. I wasn't really paying attention to the musical background, but I have to agree that the bells alone would have been sufficient during the ordination procession.

    As for prissy, sissified lace trappings, there is tremendous irony in that from a moral and theological perspective. Speaking from a woman's point of view, I find the silk chasubles and lace very manly. To me the traditional sacerdotal vestments represent dignity, virtue, order, discipline and authority, whereas the loose fitting, free-form, polyester attire preferred by the OF represent (at least to me) the complete opposite.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    There could be a couple of viewpoints here. The French, for example, with years of tradition and great independence, probably don't give a rat's hiney what the Northern Europeans think or do. The French probably view them as Protestantized heathen, to begin with. LOL. The Italians and Spanish also seem to have their own ways of doing things.

    Is polyester suitable for the temple of God? I am not sure it is. If one takes the view that only the best and finest are suitable to offer for God's liturgy in His temple, then the polyester falls short. As our associate pastor says, "Nothing is too good for God." So now I will probably have to read about the humble heart of the poor priest in patched denim. ;-(
  • rob
    Posts: 147
    Well said, CW.

    There should, I hope, be some aesthetic middle-ground between a nostalgie de la boue and "prissiness."

    Even on a natural level some of us recognize certain events as deserving nothing more than paper plates and others which do not.

    And let's not confuse ugliness and a lack of attention to detail with "manliness."

  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,606
    I am not really a fan of lace or fiddle-backs, and frankly I am completely disgusted by the fact that as soon as Summorum took effect many vestment makers started making them again. As far as I'm concerned: if your parish has very nice fiddle-backs (e.g. my parish has a full solemn set in every colour, including black and cloth of gold) by all means, use them, but don't go out and buy new ones because they are 'more traditional'. They are not; they are actually a corruption of the chasuble, designed to save on the cost of fabric. Hardly giving our best to God.

    A friend of mine, who's an FSSP seminarian can't stand lace surplices and the like and calls them "Litengerie" - I agree.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Aren't we all glad liturgical wear developed in more tasteful centuries? Can you imagine liturgical flip-flops, tank tops, and cut off denims from our own age?
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I, too, find fiddlebacks ridiculous looking. Though I think Jackson has bravely hit the nail on the head regarding the prissy and silly excesses of lace vestments, I think some fine trimming and lighter material lends some joyful dignity to a surplice. For myself, I prefer to wear a good suit to work, unless I have a vested choir, in which case I match them.

    All of which is my own opinion, and I have no idea why anyone should give a fig what my opinion is.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • rob
    Posts: 147
    Salieri,

    I must admit that "Fiddle-backs' looked strange to me, when I first saw them.

    But, now, they seem eminently practical in a southern clime, compared to the gothic tents I'm accustomed to seeing.

    An interesting question, I think: why should a more recent form be viewed as passé, while an older be viewed as au courant?

    Is it only the political/social connotation attached to each?

    Or, perhaps, I lack any sense of fashion
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    I wear the suit when like a couple of Sundays ago, I played in a concert at a Presbyterian church that has air conditioning that actually works. In my own Catholic loft I don't even wear ties. It's too hot!
    Thanked by 1rob
  • rob
    Posts: 147
    CW,

    So maybe this is a "white person's problem," the discussion of which is best reserved to the elite who have the cash to pay for new vestments, and for central air?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Who knows. I know some really well-off Asians and African Americans so maybe not restricted to whites. My loft has air conditioning but is twenty feet above the main floor and all the heat in the place rises to the loft in this hundred-year-old building. The loft vents are wide open, it just helps minimally. The good Presbyterians are in the chancel, have a 60 year newer building and nice up to date climate systems.
  • To be fair, my tastes are not Presbyterian- that would mean wanting a Geneva gown and bands as the only vestments. No, mine are very English- to the point of Dearmer's The Parson's Handbook being my favourite guide to Liturgy, rather than a Tridentine ceremonial guide like Ritual Notes. Especially since I agree with Dearmer on most points of ceremonial- minimal lace, ample surplices and chasubles, altars with a frontal in the colour of the season, short reredoses (or instead, a dorsal curtain where one is lacking) and so on. I suppose I'm an English-Use Roman Catholic in this regard, rather than a Tridentine Roman-Use.
    Basically, I'll be that guy that brings the Parson's Handbook, St. Dunstan's Plainsong Psalter, and the Walsingham Customary with him to seminary.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    I am Byzantine. We operate on the principle of "less is more, but more is better."
  • Hurrah for Percy Dearmer!
    (And, let's not forget....... riddle curtains!!!)
    Godspeed!
    Thanked by 1brndurham
  • We operate on the principle of 'less is more, but more is better'.

    Of course, Charles, compared to we westerners, you all do take much more time to do your less. And, of course, not only your (enviable) language, but your ceremonies are supremely illustrative of 'prolix'. And, of course, your prolix is better... except that you neglected to develop a rich musical patrimony to go with it. You have also neglected, for the most part, to preserve that truly ancient Byzantine chant.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Actually, the chant is still there in the Russian Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic parishes. I am not sure what the Greeks are doing. In this country, our language is English since we don't have many immigrants these days. English is a good language. We have never had instruments. Only the west has those, and I am glad they have them - organs that is.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,380
    Chant certainly is alive in some Ukrainian Catholic parishes.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Chant is alive in many eastern churches. The Melkites have their own body of Arabic chant common in the Middle East. It doesn't sound like Russian or Ukrainian chant, but it is definitely chant.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,329
    Well, adding lace to vestments only originated in the seventeenth century, so one may as well consider it an innovation of the modern era.
  • Three cheers for the lace makers and fiddle-back embroiderers!
    How many young girls and women went blind and arthritic in an effort to make something beautiful for the sacred liturgy? I, for one, truly appreciate their skilled labor as much as the wood carvers and stone masons, the schola members and polyphonists.

    So you're too northern or eastern to admire it? Fine, of course.

    Looking for an Anglican paradigm not saddled to the fallen empire with it's faddish morality? Sadly, though predictably, that ship has sailed. Full of holes from the start, it has been sinking slowly, save for a recent and very small though most welcome group, who took a lifeboat and have paddled to the Barque of Peter.

    They are not returning to imagined Anglican glory. They are humbly salvaging the best and most noble gifts of their tradition and coming back to a much broader, larger Church. It would be a shame to insult the tanned, laced hand extended in reconciliation.

    And, surely I'm not the only one who thinks Anglophiles calling anyone prissy is rather bemusing in the first place...

  • I grew up in England, for your information. And there is NOTHING wrong with Anglophiles. I don't see any homegrown vernacular Liturgical tradition hundreds of years old from the United States. I appreciate the labour given over the centuries for embroidering and lacemaking for vestments, but frankly, there is no one doing this nowadays, as vestment makers are mostly professionals who sell worldwide, like Gaspard, St. Bede studios, or Almy. In the words of Percy Dearmer: "With regard to all ornaments and vestments one precaution is most necessary. The parson must make it clearly understood that he will not accept a single thing for the church unless the advice has first been sought of that person who overlooks the decoration of the church. Who that person is will depend on circumstances, but he must be a competent judge; and committees are useless unless their members are modest.

    If this precaution is not taken the services of the church are certain in time to be vulgarised. Some kind friend will work an impossible stole; another will compose a ruinous frontal, and, without warning any one, present it as a pleasant surprise when it is finished; another will be attracted by some brass-work of the gilt-gingerbread order in a shop-window, and with a smile of kindly triumph will deposit it one day in the vestry. It will be too late then for the parson to protest: all these good people will be hurt (and one cannot blame them) if their presents are rejected. But if it be publicly explained beforehand that beauty of effect is a most difficult task, for which a life-long training is required—and that a church must suffer if left to the chance of a multitude of individual tastes, this catastrophe will be avoided.

    Sometimes one is tempted to think that folk consider anything good enough for a church. But this is not generally the case. It simply is that the elements of artistic knowledge have not yet entered the heads of many people,—and will not, unless the Church educate them by its example. Simplicity, unity, proportion, restraint, richness of colour, ecclesiastical propriety, these things are simply not understood by a vast number. It is not their fault; they have had no opportunity of learning: they want to help the church, and they will do so well if they are only taught; but, if not, it will not cross their minds that decoration without harmony is just as excruciating as music without harmony."

    Also, this one on the very subject:

    "It need hardly be said at the present time that there is no English precedent for the use of lace. It simply destroys all beauty of drapery in any garment upon which it is placed. Every artist will realise how much this means. Indeed, to the credit of our fellow-Christians on the Continent it must be said that they are rapidly discarding the use of lace, and with it that most indecent garment the cotta, which is fortunately not one of the vestments ordered by our Rubric. The ancient monastic orders have always retained, and still use, the full surplice.

    The parson will therefore use a gentle authority against the good ladies who unconsciously try to approximate church vestments to the feminine attire with which they are familiar. For ecclesiastical vestments are for men, and it will be a bad day for us when we forget this fact. Of all the many vestments used at different times in the Church a well-cut surplice is perhaps the most beautiful."
  • More bluster.
    Julie puts up a great post about the two forms of the Roman Rite, and we have folks dreaming of merry old England whilst trashing Catholics to the south.

    No amount of verbiage will restore English traditions now, sad to say. Again, that ship has sailed.

    Meanwhile, the Church is active in the 97% of the rest of the world, and Julie's question remains very pertinent.
  • I AM a Catholic, and a cradle Roman Catholic at that. Still, that doesn't allow me to like the excessive Baroque aesthetics that are supposed to be regarded as "Traditional Roman." I have my aesthetic preference for Mediaeval Sarum-influenced Liturgy, you have yours for 17th Century-influenced Roman liturgy.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 698
    I happen to like the lace vestments and the fiddle-backs. I also like other vestments so long as they aren't polyester ponchos. Then again, I was brought up with a culture of liking good art. Not everyone is so privileged, unfortunately. :P
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,329
    Please understand, folks, that we're talking about matters of personal taste here, and those great words of wisdom, the Forum Guidelines (peace be upon them), address that topic:
    12. Be patient about legitimate differences in personal taste.
    We do not want to be known as people engaged in pointless arguments.
    Thanked by 2Gavin CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Why don't we just celebrate Mass while naked? Half the congregation is nearly so already. ;-)
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    I happen to like the lace vestments and the fiddle-backs. I also like other vestments so long as they aren't polyester ponchos.


    LOL. I couldn't agree more with this!

    Rorate Caeli has a very timely post today regarding priceless vintage vestments consigned to a museum in France. It asks the very astute question---should these exquisite sacerdotal vestments ALL be preserved under glass as museum pieces, or couldn't at least some of them be actually used at Mass as they were intended to be?

    This takes us to a broader question. Allowing for "legitimate differences in personal taste" as Chonak reminds us, why is it that as a general rule that since the Council, we saw virtually 99.999% of these vestments and corresponding sacred vessels (i.e., ornate chalices and ciboria) put away or discarded and replaced with what could be called, for the most part, "polyester ponchoes" as TCJ described so aptly.

    What was the reason that the Church made such a radical and almost universal shift away from its artistic heritage in favor of minimalist and almost disposable-looking ornaments for the liturgy?

    Finally, to ask the question one last way: why is it that in at least 99% of the celebrations of the OF we have the minimalist aesthetic praxis of the last forty years, while in 99.99% of the celebrations of the EF we see the very best, most exquisite, most gorgeous vestments, linens, vessels, artwork, music, etc. that the patrimony of the Church has to offer?

    It's almost as if there is an unspoken yet very real and almost ironclad law that the OF package exclusively contains the one expression, and the EF package exclusively contains the other expression, and the twain shall never meet, or that's at least what the experience of almost 45 years has taught us.

    Now I know Msgr. Schuler was an exception to this rule, and that's why when my husband had the joy of meeting him 27 years ago, he came very close to accepting a position offered to him by Msgr. Schuler even though he had been raised in the Society of St. Pius X. He recognized in Msgr. Schuler's work the most perfect expression of the hermenuetic of continuity, but the question remains, why, except for St. Agnes and a handful of other exceptions, the paradigm described above is almost universally the case?
    Thanked by 1kevinf
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    I trace the whole problem back to "noble simplicity." People put the emphasis on 'simplicity' without considering nobility. Simplicity of itself does not make it noble. Most things passed off as "noble simplicity" have been "jarring sparseness."

    For what it is worth, I prefer not to have lace for my own purposes (cotta when playing the organ) because it can potentially get damaged in my line of work. I prefer either a 3/4 sleeve cotta or a gothic surplice with slits for my arms.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • kenstb
    Posts: 362
    This is an interesting thread. For my part, I don't have a preference for one type of vestment over another. Perhaps the choice of vestment is somewhat akin to the choice of music. It won't ever please everyone, but if it moves someone toward a deeper experience of the mass, then it is a good thing.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW JulieColl
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 755
    I like nice vestments. I probably have very uneducated tastes.
    The guys with lace had too much lace for my taste. but who am I to judge?

    I personally bemoan the exclusion of women from ministries in the church formerly dominated by them - the creation of beautiful and aesthetically pleasing vestments and altar furnishings of various sorts.

    Is there, or would anyone be interested in setting up, a group to do for the vestments what CMAA has done for Liturgical music? Education, upskilling, etc?
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Hartley, when I hear the phrase "noble simplicity," I think of the Abbey of Fontgambault and the traditional monastic style. Plain and simple shouldn't be translated as cheap and ugly.

    But I have to come back to this: what is it that keeps the two forms of the Roman rite so distinct and separate from each other? Since they are both---and I'm not disputing this at all----authentic and orthodox expressions of the Catholic faith and of the same rite---why can't you just freely "mix and match" the exterior elements of both?

    You might be able theoretically to "dress up" the OF with elements from the EF, but "dressing down" the EF by combining it with the vestments, sacred furnishing, vessels, architecture or typical music of the OF would create enormous cognitive dissonance. Why is that?
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    I trace the whole problem back to "noble simplicity." People put the emphasis on 'simplicity' without considering nobility.


    By the way, Chant is the perfect expression of 'noble simplicity' in music. So why do so many church musicians insist on 'noble complexity' as first preference?
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    And plainchant isn't limited. One can, for example, accompany it on a soft 8' flute on an organ to support the singing. I've already demonstrated that this works nicely at my parish church by chanting the Our Father (AELC Chant Tone) every week using the 8'+4' preset on the Hammond B3 (replacing the Hammond is one of my projects for this church.)

    The whole congregation sings it quite enthusiastically every week. They also sing it at quite a good tempo and not the stereotypical drawl that so many people seem to think chant should be sung.

    Next item is to start getting the congregation to sing some "Chant Hymns" such as the Pange Lingua in it's English Translation by Fr Edward Caswall.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    In fact the congregation sings the Our Father so well, that whilst we were trialling a digital organ, I used to have use the Open Diapason 8, Flute 4' and Pedal Bourdon 16' to adequately support the singing!
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    ...the congregation sings the Our Father so well, that... I used to have use the Open Diapason 8, Flute 4' and Pedal Bourdon 16' to adequately support the singing!


    No. You didn't have to.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    So much of accompanying depends on many factors. If your building is Our Lady of the Marshmallows and absorbs nearly every sound, you may need an en chamade trumpet for accompaniment. If you have an acoustically good building, less can be quite enough. Digital instruments are all over the place making it impossible to specify stops needed. Speaker placement, amplifier power, and again building can change everything.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,606
    But I have to come back to this: what is it that keeps the two forms of the Roman rite so distinct and separate from each other? Since they are both---and I'm not disputing this at all----authentic and orthodox expressions of the Catholic faith and of the same rite---why can't you just freely "mix and match" the exterior elements of both?

    NOSTALGIANISM: The Heresy that in the Celebration of the Mass according to the Liturgical Books of 1962, the Sacred Liturgy must be celebrated according to the way in which the oldest person in the congregation can remember them, ca. 1945; In practical terms, this mandates the use of Fiddle-Back vestments; Lace albs, cottas, and altar-cloths, &c; an Hammond Organ; and either the St. Bastil's Hymnbook or the St. Gregory Hymnal: and precludes the Sung Mass; the use of Gothic vestments; alb and amice apparels; 'Monastic' suprlices; Tournemire; Palestrina; and Gregorian Chant. Conversely, this also applies to the Novus Ordo Missae, in that it must be celebrated as the oldest person in the congregation can remember it, ca. 1973; in practical terms, this mandates the use of no vestments, save a wide stole worn over an un-adorned alb; Hammond Organ; and either the Gather Hymnal or Breaking Bread: and precludes the Sung Mass; the use of vestments; choir dress; Tournemire, Palestrina; and Gregorian Chant.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    So, Salieri, in that unfortunate worldview, we're stuck with circa 1945 and circa 1973 forever. The great irony about the liturgy in America circa 1945 is that so many people look back at it as the high point, the Golden Age of the Catholic liturgy, when in fact the liturgy had by then ossified to the point that the faithful in large part were "mute spectators" and were not truly engaged in the public worship of the Church.

    Listen to Cardinal Ratzinger's description of the state of the preconciliar liturgy:

    On the other hand, it must be admitted that the celebration of the old liturgy had strayed too far into a private individualism, and that communication between priest and people was insufficient. I have great respect for our forefathers who at Low Mass said the "Prayers during Mass" contained in their prayer books, but certainly one cannot consider that as the ideal of liturgical celebration!


    And contrasting that typical 1945 paradigm with a typical Catholic Sunday Mass circa 1973 could cause any observer to marvel at how both liturgical forms exist side by side in the same Church.

    If one judges by the externals only in most of the celebrations of the OF and EF, it's easy to conclude that, as Cardinal Ratzinger said, "the two forms of celebration are seen as indicating two different spiritual attitudes, two different ways of perceiving the Church and the Christian life."

    And is that an ideal situation for the one, catholic universal Church whose constant prayer is ut unum sint?
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,031
    A friend once said, "Only an island nation could give birth to a faith as ridiculous as Anglicanism."

    Even as someone who is a very dedicated Anglophile and admirer of their liturgical patrimony, I fear someone whose only exposure to Anglicanism was this thread might agree with my friend.

    In other news, maybe Mondays should become "Magnificat Mondays, with a side of Hyperbole"!
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,606
    So, Salieri, in that unfortunate worldview, we're stuck with circa 1945 and circa 1973 forever.

    Look at almost any US Mass in either the EF or OF and tell me that isn't true. I know there are a few examples of the contrary (St. John Cantius, Chicago; St. Thomas Aquinas, Palo Alto; St. Mary's, Norwalk; Oratory of St. Philip Neri, DC) but in the main, in both forms, the paradigm is a Low Mass cum Four-Hymn-Sandwich. To me it's the same thing but different. The congregations (around here, at least) are still mute; not quite as mute as once they were, since now they actually mumble the Mass texts rather than mumbling the Rosary at Mass, but there really is, in all actuality, no Active/Actual/Engaged/Whatever Participation, just rote recitation:
    V: The mic is broken.
    R: And with your spirit.

    AND while SSPX France may be a wonderful model for EF praxis in line with all the pre-conciliar liturgical teachings, and, let's be honest, much more in tune with Sacrosanctum Concillium than most Novus Ordo parishes, they are the exception because the old Liturgical Movement had such strong footing in France --- A Midnight High Mass in the US is far more likely to include Rossini Propers ("sung" Bel Canto) and a Mass setting based on 'Gesu Bambino' (also "sung" Bel Canto).

    Let's face it, the average US EF parish has more in common with the average US OF parish than either group would like to realize -- Both are exceedingly conservative in their praxis, in an almost fundamentalist way, merely clinging to the "glorious past" that they remember; neither pay any heed whatever to Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII, Vat II, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Gueranger, Pugin, et al. The musico-liturgical organizations that are really Liberal are the CMAA and Illuminare Publications; not NPM, and the Big 3.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl Adam Wood
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,606
    I also have heard of EF folk who refuse to go to Mass said with Gothic vestments - even if said vestments were made in 1932 - as if the validity of the Mass is call'd into question by the shape of the chasuble. Give. Me. A. Royal. Break.