Some questions about the Consecration in the Tridentine mass

[JKirkLVNV]

(cont).

Regarding this particular example of lifting the chasuble, I fail to see how it can be construed to obscure the heart of the rite as it requires no extra time (occurs simultaneously with a central element) and simply draws more attention to the majesty of the moment. My indult happens not to utilize this practice, so I’m not fighting for my own usage when I say: this particular custom should not be eliminated under the criteria of Sacrosanctum Concilium. **If I was not clear, let me clarify: it isn’t the practice so much as the mindset that will not let go of the practice. It isn’t that I mind that we have six candles, I mind the rigid insistance on six candles, as though Heaven’s indignation would be otherwise aroused. I don’t mind birettas, I simply don’t comprehend the insistence on them. Bishops wearing every bit of vesture that both deacons and priests wear proper to their orders seems to be overkill. Since the bishop is generally the only one allowed to wear a miter and carry a crosier (aside from some abbots), that should be sufficient sign that he holds the fullness of the ordained ministeries. When I speak of noble simplicity, I’m not talking about stripping the altars, and there is as much emphasis on “noble” as there is on “simplicity.” So many of the things that “traditionalists” insist on, I absolutely understand, but others, not so much. I get ad orientum, but I think gauntlets look downright effeminate and silly and I’m glad we don’t use them much any more. That’s noble simplicity, in my book. **

 

[patrick457]

To the mods and to those involved in the present debate: Can this thread be closed since its purpose was done? I don’t want to cause anymore trouble so can I request this thread to be closed already?

 

[puzzleannie]

NewAdvent:
The server also lifts up the chasuble with his left hand at the elevation, not at the genuflection (Rubr. gen., VIII, 6). This is** to keep back the vestment** while the priest elevates. With a modern Roman-shaped chasuble it is a mere form, and a memory of better days. In those days the Chasuble was longer, heavier, and went well down the arms.
When the priest lifted his arms, the chasuble would “drag” his vestments down his arm and expose his bare arm.
The arms were to be covered, however. So, lifting the chasuble’s weight and raising it up took the “drag” off the priest’s arm covering vestment.
I tell u what, they didn’t miss a thing did they?

those old fiddle back chasubles were also of much heavier fabric, made heavier with embroidery, often with metallic thread, and rather stiff, whereas modern chasubles are of much lighter fabric.

 

[Caesar]

Interestingly this was posted on the New Liturgical Movement blog (scroll down to “Stamford Pontifical Mass”) yesterday:

The Elevation of the Host. The custom of raising the chausible is a memory of the ancient practice of decorating a priest’s vestments with rich gems and brocade; such heavy robes were often difficult to move about in. Now, it is not a practical matter but a noble gesture of ritual courtesy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Interestingly this was posted on the New Liturgical Movement blog (scroll down to “Stamford Pontifical Mass”) yesterday:

But again, they haven’t cited anything. You, at least, made an attempt to attach it to at least Scripture. Again, it isn’t so much the practice or practices as the insistence on some of them.

And apologies to Patrick, I’m the one who hijacked the thread.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

JKirk,

We’ve always enjoyed mutual respect and constructive disagreement, so I’m leery of belaboring a point on which I think we basically hold the essentials in common while perhaps disagreeing on the particulars of implementation. That said, I think the main target of noble simplicity was not individual elements in and of themselves but aggregations of elements that are somewhat redundant and while singly entirely consistent with the spirit of the liturgy turn out to collectively risk overkill and thus a covering of the essence of the action, especially when those aggregates lengthen the action. So, for instance, one might argue that signs of the cross are good but we don’t really need as many as the '62 missal provides for - all fine and good, but they are going on side by side with the canon, not interrupting it or extending it. It would be practices that offend in the latter two ways that should be watched for, not necessarily those bits of icing that aren’t interfering at all with the movement of the liturgy. Does that make the specifics of my position clearer? Is that something to which you would agree?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirk,

We’ve always enjoyed mutual respect and constructive disagreement, so I’m leery of belaboring a point on which I think we basically hold the essentials in common while perhaps disagreeing on the particulars of implementation. That said, I think the main target of noble simplicity was not individual elements in and of themselves but aggregations of elements that are somewhat redundant and while singly entirely consistent with the spirit of the liturgy turn out to collectively risk overkill and thus a covering of the essence of the action, especially when those aggregates lengthen the action. So, for instance, one might argue that signs of the cross are good but we don’t really need as many as the '62 missal provides for - all fine and good, but they are going on side by side with the canon, not interrupting it or extending it. It would be practices that offend in the latter two ways that should be watched for, not necessarily those bits of icing that aren’t interfering at all with the movement of the liturgy. Does that make the specifics of my position clearer? Is that something to which you would agree?

Yes, generally, but I still think a lot of the **icing **is, of itself, very silly and effeminate and I’m glad we got shed of it.

 

[CatholicNick]

Yes, generally, but I still think a lot of the **icing **is, of itself, very silly and effeminate and I’m glad we got shed of it.

You sound so MUCH like the English protestants in the 19th Century, with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism.

They used to mock the lace albs/cottas, ‘gauntlets’ and the other beautiful clerical garb as ‘effeminate’ and womanly.

Ive even heard people on this forum describe Roman Chasubles as ‘silly aprons’…

But alas Jkirk, you are entitled to your own opinion about such things, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiments on ‘noble simplicity’.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You sound so MUCH like the English protestants in the 19th Century, with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism.

They used to mock the traditional lace albs, ‘gauntlets’ and the other beautiful clerical garb as ‘effeminate’ and womanly.

Ive even heard people on this forum describe Roman Chasubles as ‘silly aprons’…

But alas Jkirk, you are entitled to your own opinion about such things, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiments on ‘noble simplicity’.

But have you not committed the genesis fallacy, that something is wrong merely because of its source? Either the argument stands or falls on its own merit, surely. But really, we’re talking about subjective taste, I freely admit it.

Again, I’ve not proposed turning the Church liturgies into something Oliver Cromwell would be proud of. But to take your examples, yes, I think an alb without lace is highly preferably to one WITH lace (with lace it looks foppish), the gloves are just simply silly on a visceral level, etc., and much of what you describe as beautiful clerical garments I would say were made far more beautiful by their simplification (ie, the removal of lace). An excellent example of what I think we should avoid would be the pictures I’ve seen of Archbishop Levebreve on the day he ordained the Fab Four: His alb looks like a see-through negligee! I think we have a lot of beautiful things from tradition, but it’s like a classy dress on a beautiful woman. It isn’t always helped or enhanced by putting a big bow on it.

And please know, I’m not saying,“Gosh, hasn’t the post-VII era been good for the liturgy and the sarotrial sense of the clergy!” I’ve seen more polyester panchos than any human should have to, more felt stoles “made by our precious first communicants” (or their equivalent) than a person should be exposed to.

I guess I have to admit that I’m more Romanesque or Norman-influenced than I am a Baroque kind of guy. You’ve been to the Tower of London and seen the chapel, haven’t you? Not bad, from my view point, though I also like the Byzantine and some of the Gothic.

And yes, I’m one of the one’s who thinks most Roman chasubles look like Dairy Queen aprons. I think the Gothic are far more “noble” (unless they’re made of felt, as I said).

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I guess I have to admit that I’m more Romanesque or Norman-influenced than I am a Baroque kind of guy. You’ve been to the Tower of London and seen the chapel, haven’t you? Not bad, from my view point, though I also like the Byzantine and some of the Gothic.

And yes, I’m one of the one’s who thinks most Roman chasubles look like Dairy Queen aprons. I think the Gothic are far more “noble” (unless they’re made of felt, as I said).

Criticizing the Roman chasuble?! Anathema sit! This man is a danger to society!

PS - I’ll support you in condemning too much lace, but I like to have just a little band around the hem and wrists, enough to show you’ve put some care into making the alb nice without starting to show off too much cassock underneath.

 

[BobP123]

Speaking of feminization, has anyone read the book by Leon J. Podles, The Church Impotent, the Feminization of Christianity?

Makes its points very well.

 

[kleary]

I was taught that the reason why the chasuble is lifted fom the back by the Deacon (at Solemn Mass) or MC (Missa Cantata, solemn form), or altar boy (Low Mass) started in the Middle Ages. It was done because at that time the elevation of the Sacred Host and the Prescious Blood for adoration of the faithful was instituted. Also at that time the chasubles were made of a very heavy material and the lifting of the back of the chasuble enabled the priest to lift the Host or Chalice high enough for the faithful to see.

It has nothing to do with respect or any religious significance, it is simply a rubric left over from medieval times when the chasubles were very heavy and a new rubric was added to the TLM, the elevation of the Host and chalice for adoration of the faithful at the consecration.

Ken

 

[Uxor]

Speaking of feminization, has anyone read the book by Leon J. Podles, The Church Impotent, the Feminization of Christianity?

Makes its points very well.

No I haven’t read that book. But I have read a book called the Ungodly Rage, the Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism.
by Donna Steichen.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

but I like to have just a little band around the hem and wrists, enough to show you’ve put some care into making the alb nice without starting to show off too much cassock underneath.

Andreas:

Could I ask you to take a step back and read this aloud to yourself?

John

 

[Caesar]

Andreas:

Could I ask you to take a step back and read this aloud to yourself?

John

Lol! Although he may have a point . As a server in a Tridentine Mass I wear the cassock and surplice and I have to say that some lace is nice, but some of the surplices I’ve seen surplices and albs that are waaaaay over-done. I jave to say that I prefer a plain cotton surplice without any lace to something which resembles the doilies in my grandmother’s house, although like Andreas said a band of lace near the hems wouldnt be amiss.

 

[lak611]

You sound so MUCH like the English protestants in the 19th Century, with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism.

They used to mock the lace albs/cottas, ‘gauntlets’ and the other beautiful clerical garb as ‘effeminate’ and womanly.

Ive even heard people on this forum describe Roman Chasubles as ‘silly aprons’…

What are gauntlets?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Andreas:

Could I ask you to take a step back and read this aloud to yourself?

John

If I am gay, I’m sure not going to out myself where my *daughter *might someday read it.

But I think I’ve simply shown my security in my masculinity.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

What are gauntlets?

They are very manly gloves worn by bishops, with an equivalent vestment of cuffs for priests. I have no idea where they come from or what they are supposed to signify. If that had been on the Baltimore Catechism quiz it would have wrecked my perfect score…

I take that back, as Dappled Photos tells me:
“Episcopal gloves are symbolical of purity from sin, the performance of good works, and carefulness of procedure.”
dappledphotos.blogspot.com/2006/04/episcopal-gloves.html
There are some pics in the link.

So I suppose I should also amend my statement about the gauntlets being manly, but hey, they’re ours.

 

[lak611]

They are very manly gloves worn by bishops, with an equivalent vestment of cuffs for priests.

Thanks! Those were great pictures. Now for another question you probably think is silly: what are cuffs for priests? I have never seen them wear anything besides cassocks or clerical shirts when not vested for Mass/Benediction, etc.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If I am gay, I’m sure not going to out myself where my *daughter *might someday read it.

But I think I’ve simply shown my security in my masculinity.

LOL! I assumed you were just being a hoot!