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.

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!

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!

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.

Best thread ever! Thanks, Julie!

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. ;-(

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.

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.

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!

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.

I am Byzantine. We operate on the principle of "less is more, but more is better."

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.

Chant certainly is alive in some Ukrainian Catholic parishes.

Well, adding lace to vestments only originated in the seventeenth century, so one may as well consider it an innovation of the modern era.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

...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.

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.

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"!

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.