L
liturgyluver
Guest
Yes, I think so. Last time I counted there were 12 Catholic and 50 Anglican parishes that have Polyphonic settings and robed choirs.It seems central London is rather spoiled then. =)
Yes, I think so. Last time I counted there were 12 Catholic and 50 Anglican parishes that have Polyphonic settings and robed choirs.It seems central London is rather spoiled then. =)
I agree about the darkness in the Cathedral, but I find it’s more than countered by the genuine warrmth of welcome you find there, the relaxed execution of the liturgy (neither of which you find at the Oratory), and the wonderful choir which I agree is magnificent.My cousin was in Westminster Cathedral Choir, so I went to quite a few services there. That choir is magnificent!
You are right about the Oratory - I find it dark and gloomy too. And I don’t particularly like the cathedral either - it’s even darker. I prefer Gothic to byzantine or Romanesque.
Unfortunately the Protestants got all the best Catholic Churches![]()
shudderI agree about the darkness in the Cathedral, but I find it’s more than countered by the genuine warrmth of welcome you find there, the relaxed execution of the liturgy (neither of which you find at the Oratory), and the wonderful choir which I agree is magnificent.
Re your last comment - the only pre-reformation edifiice in the West End of London is Westminster Abbey. There are many beautiful Anglo-Catholic churches but Farm Street Church of the Immaculate Conception and St James Spanish Place are just as nice.
I don’t remember that when I lived in London. However, it seems the first “polyphonic” song I heard in the states was “Row, row, row your boat.”Yes, I think so. Last time I counted there were 12 Catholic and 50 Anglican parishes that have Polyphonic settings and robed choirs.
I wasn’t thinking specifically of London, however there is Temple Church…
Re your last comment - the only pre-reformation edifiice in the West End of London is Westminster Abbey. There are many beautiful Anglo-Catholic churches but Farm Street Church of the Immaculate Conception and St James Spanish Place are just as nice.
The Church was built by the Knights Templar, the order of crusading monks founded to protect pilgrims on their way to and from Jerusalem in the 12th century. The Church is in two parts: the Round and the Chancel. The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 by the patriarch of Jerusalem. It was designed to recall the holiest place in the Crusaders’ world: the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. It is a numinous space – and has a wonderful acoustic for singing. templechurch.com/history-2/
Yes I had forgotten about Temple though of course it was modified and restored by Christopher Wren and then ruined by bomb damage in WW2 so not really an original, but a beautiful space.I wasn’t thinking specifically of London, however there is Temple Church
No need to shudder.shudder
=YoungTradCath;9354914]The Cardinal and Oratorians put on a Mass that I would very likely give up two EFs per month to go to:
It was the Feast–at Oratories, actually a Solemnity–of St. Philip Neri.
And yes, for the record, he wore a cappa magna, and buskins, and pontifical sandals, and gloves. Oh and a pontifical dalmatic, but these are becoming so increasingly common that it’s kind of pointless to mention it.
The Kyrie and Gloria were from Haydn’s Theresienmesse, the Credo was III, and the Sanctus and Agnus Dei–I’m not sure which–were from the Liber Usualis. The Sanctus and Agnus Dei would have been the polyphonic settings, but since you can’t “layer” the singing “over” the ritual, the Mass would have been rather prolonged. The Ordinary Form is an extreme impediment to singing longer polyphonic settings for this reason. Nevertheless, it was magnificent I’m sure.
Pics are too large for this forum, but go have a look.
WOWPS: So much for the 1970s… this is surely the 1670s!
Well the belief is exactly the same, it’s the same rite even: “just” the form is different.In my seven-and-a-half years on CAF I have never before seen a thread that so clearly illustrates the degree to which the traditional/non-traditional divide is actually about aesthetics rather than belief.
I think aesthetics is an area where the OF is enriched by the EF and other lithurgies such as the Eastern and those of the Religious. Beauty can be found in simpleness as described by our Franciscan Friar JReduction as well as in more elaborate lithurgies. I think most of us want a sense of transcendence, for the sensory experience to reflect the spiritual reality of the Mass as Heaven on Earth.In my seven-and-a-half years on CAF I have never before seen a thread that so clearly illustrates the degree to which the traditional/non-traditional divide is actually about aesthetics rather than belief.
I am fascinated by the idea that God himself becoming physically present in the bread and wine is not enough for you. Why do you need more at a Mass?I think aesthetics is an area where the OF is enriched by the EF and other lithurgies such as the Eastern and those of the Religious. Beauty can be found in simpleness as described by our Franciscan Friar JReduction as well as in more elaborate lithurgies. I think most of us want a sense of transcendence, for the sensory experience to reflect the spiritual reality of the Mass as Heaven on Earth.
Why the “Nike basketball shoes” hyperbole? Nothing like a little emotion to derail the discussion, huh? As I said in this case from a utility standpoint he had to wear something. I hardly think they were they were the “right thing” to wear. maybe a nice pair of black dress shoes next time.They are the right thing for a bishop to wear, and centuries of tradition supports this uninterruptedly. Now, a bishop can wear Nike basketball shoes if he likes during Mass (really not trying to be snarky, but this effectively the case) because there are no requirements.
However, it is fitting to say that buskins and sandals are proper to bishops and are “the right thing” more so than any other random shoe.
You too have that reversed. Their requirement was not suppressed. Priests were never required to wear them. Wearing them was supressed at one point – might still be for all I know.Their requirement is suppressed but priests and prelates are free to wear buckled shoes if they wish.
I’m not even sure that’s the case. I think of myself as very traditional-minded in a liturgical sense but buskins, slippers, lace and capes do very little for me.In my seven-and-a-half years on CAF I have never before seen a thread that so clearly illustrates the degree to which the traditional/non-traditional divide is actually about aesthetics rather than belief.
=Hokomai;9361530]In my seven-and-a-half years on CAF I have never before seen a thread that so clearly illustrates the degree to which the traditional/non-traditional divide is actually about aesthetics rather than belief.
It is not about wanting more. But beauty extends beyond just aesthetics, beautiful art and music has a sacred place in Catholism. I think ultimately it points to God. Not just surface beauty, but beauty as a whole, in creation, and in becoming Holy as human beings.I am fascinated by the idea that God himself becoming physically present in the bread and wine is not enough for you. Why do you need more at a Mass?
I’m fascinated that you don’t think this miracle deserves the very best to go along with it. I am stunned at the lack of preparation of some Masses. You’d think the miracle of the Mass would have people burning the midnight oil to prepare. Instead it’s often used as an excuse for poor preaching, poor coordination of the Mass, poor music, etc.I am fascinated by the idea that God himself becoming physically present in the bread and wine is not enough for you. Why do you need more at a Mass?