Cardinal Burke celebrates magnificent Ordinary Form Mass

[YoungTradCath]

The Cardinal and Oratorians put on a Mass that I would very likely give up two EFs per month to go to:

newliturgicalmovement.org/2012/05/cardinal-burke-at-london-oratory_30.html

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.

PS: So much for the 1970s… this is surely the 1670s!

 

[Brendan]

The Cardinal was the keynote speaker at our parish’s Lenten Symposium this year

 

[Laetus]

The Cardinal and Oratorians put on a Mass that I would very likely give up two EFs per month to go to:

newliturgicalmovement.org/2012/05/cardinal-burke-at-london-oratory_30.html

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.

PS: So much for the 1970s… this is surely the 1670s!

I’ve never cared for all the lace. It looks far too effeminate and pansified to me but I do appreciate it when bishops and priests try to celebrate the Mass in a solemn way.

I was at a liturgy once where there were several cardinals in choir. Most of them had on “Vatican-style” rochets (which I like) but there were a fair number of French lace and lingerie sheer ones as well. Only one cardinal had a plain white rochet and he looked by far the best and most masculine. I’m sure his “plain white rochet” was fine linen and all but it looked so much better than the others. I will always remember that.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’ve never cared for all the lace. It looks far too effeminate and pansified to me but I do appreciate it when bishops and priests try to celebrate the Mass in a solemn way.

I’ve always thought the aversion to lace was a very insecure modern thing. =p

 

[Laetus]

I’ve always thought the aversion to lace was a very insecure modern thing. =p

“Modern thing”? Wearing lace rochets is by no means an ancient practice. Some might equate it to be, but it’s not. I also don’t think it’s a matter of being “insecure.” It’s a matter of being dignified and appropriately masculine. In my world, dignified males simply don’t wear lace or lingerie. That might not be the case in other parts of the world.

 

[Laetus]

I’ll add this. If all rochets, albs, surplices and cottas had been traditionally plain and the lace/sheer lingerie was first introduced in the 1960’s/1970’s, I can just imagine how they would be attacked, along with anyone who would dare wear such avant garde garb.

I tend to judge such vestment/garb by their utility, physical beauty and appropriateness and not if they were commonly worn in the 19th century.

 

[YoungTradCath]

“Modern thing”? Wearing lace rochets is by no means an ancient practice. Some might equate it to be, but it’s not. I also don’t think it’s a matter of being “insecure.” It’s a matter of being dignified and appropriately masculine. In my world, dignified males simply don’t wear lace or lingerie. That might not be the case in other parts of the world.

I am not saying to wear lace is ancient, or modern, or of the Middle Ages or whatever. I am saying the aversion to lace seems to be a modern and somewhat short-sighted insecurity, sort of like single men having live flowers in their houses, or a man wearing pink.

 

[Laetus]

I am not saying to wear lace is ancient, or modern, or of the Middle Ages or whatever. I am saying the aversion to lace seems to be a modern and somewhat short-sighted insecurity, sort of like single men having live flowers in their houses, or a man wearing pink.

I have never heard of a problem with either one although he had better know HOW to wear pink…

 

[triumphguy]

Unfortunately, for me the lace and fripperies add all the vigor, life and style of a Victorian momento mori to the sacred liturgy.

 

[Laetus]

Unfortunately, for me the lace and fripperies add all the vigor, life and style of a Victorian momento mori to the sacred liturgy.

That’s a very interesting way of putting it. Very accurate indeed.

The sad thing is, things like all the lace, the cappa magna, the buskins, the pontifical sandals, and the gloves, etc. come across as almost being silly. To the point of detracting from all that was beautiful about that Mass.

 

[Laetus]

I’ll add this. If all rochets, albs, surplices and cottas had been traditionally plain and the lace/sheer lingerie was first introduced in the 1960’s/1970’s, I can just imagine how they would be attacked, along with anyone who would dare wear such avant garde garb.

I tend to judge such vestment/garb by their utility, physical beauty and appropriateness and not if they were commonly worn in the 19th century.

Just imagine the comments of “hippy lace” garb and “shear liberal lingerie-like” garb…

 

[Alfonsus]

Just imagine the comments of “hippy lace” garb and “shear liberal lingerie-like” garb…

Well, why would we care?
To be honest, in my modern sensitivity, even the alb is silly for a man. In place I live, that kind of long tunic down to the feet is only used by ladies as sleeping attire.
But heck, the rest is catechesis, study of history, and taste…

 

[Laetus]

Well, why would we care?
To be honest, in my modern sensitivity, even the alb is silly for a man. In place I live, that kind of long tunic down to the feet is only used by ladies as sleeping attire.
But heck, the rest is catechesis, study of history, and taste…

You miss my point. Just imagine how those would act who lionize things like all the lace, the cappa magna, the buskins, and the gloves, etc. because they are old IF they had been introduced in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. They would verbally shred the garb without mercy. Imagine how those who currently like vestments like the fiddleback chasubles if they had been introduced in 1969. They would be attacked for being the silly-looking vestments they are.

I’m not sure why a simple alb would ever be “silly” for a Catholic priest. It’s a symbol of the sort of clothing worn during Jesus’ time here on Earth.

 

[arkwright]

The sad thing is, things like all the lace, the cappa magna, the buskins, the pontifical sandals, and the gloves, etc. come across as almost being silly. To the point of detracting from all that was beautiful about that Mass.

Are you saying that the Cardinal Burke looks a right berk ?

He does .

 

[JGMendes4049]

So much Catholic eye candy.

 

[TrueLight]

The pictures are lovely. I hope there will be a video soon.

 

[triumphguy]

I’m not sure it’s Catholic per se, but rather a Victorian vision of what Catholic should look like.

In my opinion.

And that’s the problem… outside of the rubrics the rest is a matter of taste.

 

[Sarabande]

I’ve always thought the aversion to lace was a very insecure modern thing. =p

I think I see what you mean, although the late 1960s and 1970s had its share of lace and velvet for men. (At least from the pics I’ve seen since I wasn’t even a glimmer in my parents’ eyes at that point.) So, it would sort of be a revival to the '60s? Also, it seems it really wasn’t until the ‘70s/80s that the lace on the priests’ clothes started going “out of style”? That said, I was just looking at my First Holy Communion pics in the 1980s and a couple of the priests there were wearing the lace, so…

Whenever I hear some men talk like that today, there is definitely an element of insecurity with their own sexuality or at least how they would be viewed by the world. I’m not referring to those on this thread as I do not know them and cannot study their faces, body language or tone of voice. In one regard, I can understand how they can feel that way based on what has been socially and culturally acceptable for what is “masculine” for the past couple of centuries. Around the 19th century, men’s attire started to become much more “conservative” than in the past. Look at portraits and photographs and you can see the change from colorful, embroidered, lacy clothing to more dark clothes with simple lines. Prior to that, when you look at men’s clothes, especially for the well-off, their attire was just as “beautiful” as women’s regalia in terms of embroidery, color, materials, lace, etc. Of course, you always had the “fops” who were even more “pretty” in their clothing and movements than even the average well-off male and female of the time. I would say the 19th century is when the fops came to appear too effeminate even though some were not gay.

So, today, when a man (or a woman) sees a male wearing lace or anything that is no longer associated with male fashion, it and the men wearing it are viewed as effeminate or “pansy-ish” (ie. “gay”).

To me, the lack of or addition of lace, flowery embroidery, etc. on a priest’s attire for mass doesn’t distract me. Either way it’s part of our tradition - plain or flowery. Perhaps it’s because I’m really into studying history and used to seeing very straight, masculine men in flowery attire at reenactments and operatic performances that it doesn’t affect me and make me think that they appear effeminate. A man wearing a dress? Yes, that would look really effeminate and silly. Lace on the edges of men’s clothing or priests’ clothing? Nah… It doesn’t even stick out to me when I see it.

In regards to the OP, I think it’s wonderful that Cardinal Burke is doing this. I’d love to see the video.

 

[Sarabande]

I’m not sure it’s Catholic per se, but rather a Victorian vision of what Catholic should look like.

I think it’s less Victorian and more from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries if not earlier, although we do know that priests wore that during the Victorian era 1837-1901 (I believe that is the right time period during Victoria’s reign.), as well as through the 20th century. Again, the 19th century is when men’s fashion became more conservative, although it seems that priestly attire did not.

In my opinion.

And that’s the problem… outside of the rubrics the rest is a matter of taste.

True. Although I don’t find it as a problem, especially when it comes to simple or ornate priestly attire… as long as they aren’t naked or wearing something like a ball gown.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

The Cardinal and Oratorians put on a Mass that I would very likely give up two EFs per month to go to:

newliturgicalmovement.org/2012/05/cardinal-burke-at-london-oratory_30.html

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.

PS: So much for the 1970s… this is surely the 1670s!

I think your choice of words – “put on a Mass” – is very telling. A stage play is “put on;” a Mass is celebrated or offered. I do not find all that “frippery” ( great word) inspiring or devotional. I do not believe in “more lace, more grace.” To my way of thinking, the Cappa magna, buskins and all are far more about the celebrant than about Jesus or the Sacrifice of the Mass. When the focus and “ooohs and ahhhs” are all about the trappings, then what’s going on is truly a performance that is “put on,” and not about worship and “doing this in remembrance of Me.”