Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
At the elevation, it appears that the two assistants are reaching up to hold the chasuble away from the celebrant's arms, so it does not interfere with his movement. This looks ever so much better than the usual (and useless) practice of lifting the tail of the chasuble.
I think Jungmann said the original gesture was just this, holding the chasuble to free the celebrant's arms.
Thanks for posting this wonderful event, Shawn. I guess he won't be popular with his brother bishops in England and Wales. Good for him! Again, please note his youthfulness. Tom
Agreed that the "lifting" looks better than usual here. But shouldn't this action be reserved for gothic chasubles. It just looks silly when they lift up a chasuble that doesn't touch the arms of the celebrant. I mean his arms are free, why lift the back up? What does that do?
Incidently, I've seen deacons do this for Archbishop Burke during the NO Mass when he is wearing one of his heavy gothic chasubles.
Different: I think you are right; the lifting ought to be used only when, and where, it is actually needed. Lifting the back of the chasuble does nothing, except make for a very visible distraction at a most sacred moment of the canon.
Joseph Mansfield: I couldn't agree more.
Michael.
Perhaps the lifting of the chasuble was once a purely functional action. But with time it has become a fixed rubric in the 1962 Missal, and hence it must be followed always, no matter what type of chasuble is being used.
If we follow the mentality of doing just what is strictly functional, then we would be probably eliminating most of the beautiful and sugestive gestures of the Tridentine Mass, and we would end up with something like the Novus Ordo. Liturgy has an organic development, and things like these must be kept.
I was present at this Mass an it was indeed a splendid and historic event well worth the day trip to London.
It is a pity that the LMS press release should be inaccurate about the music.
This was not 'traditional plainchant' sung by the Men of the Cathedral Choir.
It was Victoria's glorious six part setting of the Requiem, one of the greatest masterpieces of renaiassance polyphony.
And the choir was not the Cathedral Choir but a group calling itself the "Westminster Cathedral Special Service Choir", which included women. They were very good but could have done with twice the number of voices to cope with the Cathedral's cavernous acoustic and the remote place from which they sang.
Excellent points, Gustavo Ráez-Patiño. The maniple was used to wipe sweat. A layman's necktie was used as a napkin. The three buttons on the bottom of the sleeve of a suit jacket were to stop one from wiping his nose with his sleeve. The dismissal of the Mass now has liturgy that follows it. Slippery slope if someone wants to start deleting things like those...
Mr Ráez-Patiño: Your point is well made and well taken. Do you have access to a 1962 missal, and could you possibly give a direct quotation of the rubric in point? I can't find a full text of the missal on the web and if I did I would not know what to search for. I'd like to see exactly what the original Latin said.
It never ceases to amaze me, in reading the Comments on NLM, how a “rubrical instruction” can generate so much verbiage. So to put my 2 pence in, I would suggest that it seems excessive to lift or hold back the side of a Chasuble that has NO SIDE…the Fiddleback/Roman Chasuble. Even the Neo-Gothic Chasuble of the 1920-50’s were never full enough to warrant this; the Fuller (often times referred as the ‘Monastic cut’) Gothic make this rubrical instruction purposeful. As one Comment remarked, it is distracting, even more so I found (50 years Ordained here) for the Celebrant.
Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus,
Fr. Yohannes, O.S.B.
And the choir was not the Cathedral Choir but a group calling itself the "Westminster Cathedral Special Service Choir", which included women.
Included women? Shome mishtake, shurely?
Ah. I found it, in the Ritus servandus VIII.6:
6. ... Deinde, dum celebrans elevat hostiam, manu sinistra elevat fimbrias posteriores planetae, ne ipsum celebrantem impediat in elevatione bracchiorum; quod et facit in elevatione calicis; ...
Which sez, that the chasuble is lifted lest it hinder the celebrant in raising his arms.
So ... I'd have to agree with Mr Ráez-Patiño and Ken that the rubric should be obeyed. But perhaps the obedience could be a little less ostentatious?
Visiting Westminster Cathedral was one of the highlights of my trip to London a few years ago. What an amazing place. I would love to assist at a high Mass there.
This is an interesting discussion regarding the rubric mandating the lifting of the priest's chasuble. I share many of the concerns of other posters. We should never remove rubrics simply because their original significance has ceased. As one poster said, this would be the beginning of a slippery slope toward the Novus Ordo. Furthermore, it would betray a functionalism that is foreign to the history of the Roman Rite and how other Apostolic Churches treat the Sacred Liturgy.
That said; if we are interested in developing a traditional implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium’s (article 50) command to reform the Ordo Missae, this rubric could be removed as one of the "less useful additions" it alludes to. In fact, the Ordo Missae of 1965 removed this rubric regarding the lifting of the chasuble, no doubt as part of its implementation of SC, 50.
Some may argue that no change should be made to the 1962 Roman Liturgy. However, to affirm this while not totally abandoning the desire for a traditional implementation of the Second Vatican Council is simply to keep the official liturgical (and otherwise) reform in the hands of the liberals and modernists who will continue to posit their radical implementation as the only possible way. I believe we should avoid this if we can.
God bless,
The lifting of the priest's chasuble, although originally of practical significance, has, like so many other ceremonies of the Mass, taken on a more symbolic significance.
The lifting of the chasuble symbolizes the flow of grace from the Host being lifted, out from the priest and to the people and all those present. When one views it in this light, it seems an incredibly beautiful gesture which is not distracting but rather brings our focus ever more closely to the Christ, the Origin and Provider of all Grace.
I wouldn't wish to downplay the symbolism anyone may see in these gestures, just to point out that the symbolism was attached long after the ceremonial action and is not required to be held by the Faithful.
There is a rubric and it is required. But the rubric requiring the lifting of the chasuble can be practised very discreetly, so that it doesn't overwhelm the really important ceremonial action, namely the elevation of the sacred species.
Michael.
Beautiful black vestments. I've never seen anything like this before. A beautiful liturgy.
I don't find the lifting of the Roman chasuble in the slightest bit distracting to look at. It's clear that the Host is at the top of what becomes a most graceful upward slope. Besides, despite the Roman chasuble being cut with no sides, the shoulders are often not so free and lifting the chasuble can in fact be a great help, especially if the chasuble is heavy with gold.
Utility ought not to be the first criterion in Liturgical discussion - look where it's got us... look at what happened to all the "useless repetitions". Liturgy is not utility!
I obviously agree with all the commentors who warn against a utilitarian approach to the sacred liturgy. As has been said, this is exactly what led to the abolition of "useless" (useless for what?) repitions etc. Also, I fail to see how the circumstance that "the symbolism was attached long after the ceremonial action" is relevant. As has been pointed out, the symbolism of liturgical vestments as expressed in the vesting prayers was also attached long after their use - this is how the organical development works. Like df, I do not find the lifting of the chasuble (which should of course not be exaggerated) distracting in the least. On the contrary, it symbolises that flow of grace, and to me at least, is also a beautiful imitation of the numerous parts in the Gospel where people touch the seam of the Lord's garment and are healed. E.g. Matthew 9, 20: "Et ecce mulier, quae sanguinis fluxum patiebatur duodecim annis, accessit retro et tetigit fimbriam vestimenti eius." Or 14, 36: "et rogabant eum, ut vel fimbriam vestimenti eius tangerent; et, quicumque tetigerunt, salvi facti sunt." Also, it evokes the vision of Isaiah 6, 1: "vidi Dominum edentem super solium excelsum et elevatum; et fimbriae eius replebant templum."
As for those who are saying we have to cut away some things to apply Sacrosanctum Concilium: I am not saying that the 1962 Missal cannot be changed at all (fly-in-amber), but that ought to be an organic development, not again arbitrary changes by committees. Also, I think we see finally with Spe Salvi that it becomes now possible, as the Holy Father has already said 20 years ago, to recognize Vatican II as a valid Council, but to also recognize that not all its prudential decisions, like the one on liturgical reforms, were very felicitous. These decisions are not dogma but can, after careful evaluation, be changed.
I am very hopeful for this man. He offered the mass beautifully. His is obviously intelligent. I did find his sermon very strange though. He describes the requiem Mass as a "celebration" "I use this word advisedly" he said . He went on to discuss Saint Paul's attitude to death as a welcome event as he could be with his Lord Jesus Christ. He used the parable of the prodigal son to demonstrate God's forgiveness. He said that like the prodigal son, our brother was now in the arms of our Father in heaven. In summary that our celebration today was to remember the life of this dead man and all the good he has done, and to pray for him.
Why one would pray for a man who was already in the arms of God I cannot understand.
He cherry picks the gospels and infers meaning that goes beyond the text to suit his own position. There are many statements that indicate the seriousness of sin in the Gospels. Many of our Saints have begged us passionately to pray for the souls of those who have passed over. Our Church teaches us that it is a very important and efficacious act of charity. So who is off message here?
Overall, no mention of purgatory, no mention of how the love of Christ shown to us in His desire to save us by the offering of His body and blood and His prayers to the Father is rightly reflected in our love and prayers and the offering of the Mass for our deceased brothers and sisters, which we know is so helpful to those who have passed over. Also, by extension an implicit denial of final Judgement because the dead were already in "the arms of the Father".
In short, this man needs your prayers. His mind seems to be infected with protestant heretical thinking and I don't think he even sees it. I hope he reads Spe Salvi and give assent to it's content. It would help him and the people who are under his care. Pray that his mind will be opened to the truth and that he will return like the prodigal son, to the fullness of Catholic Faith. On the other hand, maybe he was just having a bad day and forgot himself, I really hope so.
Gustavo Ráez-Patiño, thank you! After reading Different's post, I was going to write something similar; however, you stated the point eloquently.
Was anyone else troubled by the sight of a woman in a surplice in the second photo?
The vestments are beautiful; however, I do prefer vestments with more visible symbols on them, my preference.
It is a curiosity to me that one seems to see the extraordinary form celebrated only with fiddlebacks. My understanding is that this is not something mandated; other, fuller vestments are just as suitable, yet I haven't noticed that in the pictures I've seen.
No more please...
Fr. Martin Fox
If you want to see pictures of Mass celebrated according to the 1962 MR, without baroque vestments, you could look here:
Le Barroux
http://www.barroux.org/docum/doc.../
documpres.html
(scroll down to "photos")
or here:
Clear Creek
http://picasaweb.google.com/
Clea...ionOfANewDeacon
or here
Fontgombault
http://www.fssp.org/en/photos.htm
(click on ordinations, then scroll down to 2003, priestly ordinations, Fontgombault)
a woman in a cassock and surplice?
doesnt bother me especially if its on a really fine soprano or alto in the choir.
It is commendable that the Mass celebrated at the request of HE but I look forward to HE either celebrating or merely being present at the Extraordinary Form of Mass.
I know of at least one order of nuns that (according to a 1902 work) wore the surplice in choir. I'm not defending or decrying the practice, just throwing it out there.
Very much so, Michael. The whole point of one wearing a cassock and choir surplice (rounded) is to fulfill the clerical role St. Pius X wrote about:
12. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir.
...
14. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise. It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze.
http://www.unavoce.org/
intersoll...licitudines.htm
If one is going with the Pius XII liberalizations on the choir, then certainly the "ecclesiastical habit and surplice" should not be worn by females.
Fr. Fox,
The last pictures shown from this cathedral a month or two back used a AWN Pugin designed gothic revival set.
We do need to keep in mind history as well. The fuller form was only revived recently in many places and as such, from a practical perspective, there are not always sets that include all of the traditional parts of the vestment set, such as maniples, burses, chalice veil, humeral veil, let alone cope, dalmatic and tunicle.
This too can dictate vestment choice.
Matthew OTHW mentioned the wearing of surplices in choir by nuns. Canonesses regular used to wear surpilces in choir. I don't think many do so any longer, alas.
Aha! That must be it, Dom Christopher. Do you know where this custom came from? Most interesting.
May I raise a captious point about the loose use of the word 'fiddleback' to describe a Latin chasuble? Fiddlebacks were confined to chasubles that actually looked like a violin or viola. Narrow at the shoulder, they balloon towards the base and looked beautiful if they were well cut. The vestments used here are simple Latin vestments, neither more nor less. At one time they were the standard vestments used in Westminster Cathedral and the sacristy is full of them. Gothic vestments have only been in regular use in relatively recent years, although the cathedral does possess a few Gothic High Mass sets from the past, notably those designed by Pugin for Cardinal Wiseman. The Gothic preference has increased during the present Cardinal's time in office. Until then, Latin vestments were in regular use from 1903 onwards.
Matthew,
I have no idea. It may have been felt appropriate to be one step down, so to speak, from canons regular, who of course wear rochets.
But canonesses could have rather splendid outfits.
These reconstructions really put the O into POD:
http://www.mons.be/images/lib/pr...noinesses-
m.jpg
http://www.mons.be/images/lib/pr...noinesses-
X.jpg
And if you go here, and wait as the pictures change, you'll see Mère Yvonne-Aimée of Malestroit, a most extraordinary canoness regular, wearing a surplice while receiving the Légion d'honneur from General De Gaulle: (she did everything, from hiding Allied airmen during WW II in her nuns' hospital to bilocating to Paris while being interrogated by the Gestapo):
http://www.augustines-malestroit...om/
portrait.php
Regards.
It would seem to me that dressing up women with cassocks and surplices, not giving them any distinctive dress, and allowing them to sing chants in the sanctuary amongst men says one of two things. Either women can fulfill the same clerical/ministerial as men in the choir, or there was no ministerial role to begin with, which would make liturgical vestments for the choir obsolete. According to the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, the laity are not active ministers in the liturgy, which means when boys serve at the altar, they are temporarily vested as clerics so as to maintain the distinction between laymen and clerics.
Female religious communities were always exceptions to this rule, with abbesses being allowed to wear mitres and carry croziers in the Middle Ages. According to John Harper, with the exception of VERY few communities, however, women never wore albs, surplices or copes. These were/are vestments of the clergy, and like it or not, they send the wrong message, just like altar girls in the sanctuary.
I'd be interested to know more about the history of women in choirs. Did they sing the proper chants in the Middle Ages, and if this happened in monasteries, why not in the cathedral/parish setting? Why do recordings of plainchant never use women?
Thanks for the links to images.
I'm not being critical, but I admit a preference for fuller, gothic vestments over the more minimal Roman style. Perhaps because, as I get older, I find myself getting more "gothic" (i.e., fuller)!
"As has been said, this is exactly what led to the abolition of 'useless' (useless for what?) repititions etc."
This expression from Sacrosanctum Concilium, 34 (further clarified by SC, 50) is often criticized. However, I think there are good grounds to interpret this phrase as referring to removing only the repetitions/duplications of the priest privately reciting those parts of the Ordinary and Proper that the choir at High Mass sings.
The liturgical conferences prior to Vatican II specifically referred to this practice when they requested that "duplications" be removed from the Liturgy. Ergo, there are no grounds to believe that these same people meant something different when Sacrosanctum Concilium was drafted.
In addition, it should be noted that the practice of the priest privately reciting those parts of the Ordinary and Proper sung by the Choir at High Mass was truly useless and was an unintended anomaly introduced into the Sacred Liturgy when the medieval low Mass developed. It deserved to be removed from the Liturgy.
"Also, I think we see finally with Spe Salvi that it becomes now possible, as the Holy Father has already said 20 years ago, to recognize Vatican II as a valid Council, but to also recognize that not all its prudential decisions, like the one on liturgical reforms, were very felicitous. These decisions are not dogma but can, after careful evaluation, be changed."
I respect this opinion. Recently, I've been contemplating the fact that most of us who desire the organic development of the traditional Liturgy are often reduced to stamping the timecard of Vatican II, rather than advocating the organic liturgical development we truly feel the Holy Spirit is leading the Church to.
However, the fact remains that we are living in rather interesting times for the traditional Liturgy of the Church. The Holy Father has freed the 1962 Liturgy and intends to use this freedom as a way to begin a new official liturgical reform, which has as its goal a New Revised Liturgy that incorporates the best of the new Liturgy into the tradition of the old handed-down Roman Rite (not vice-versa).
Undoubtedly, part of this plan is to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium in a new, traditional manner. I've yet to hear anything from Rome, which would indicate that SC is now optional. For this reason, I think we should let our voices be heard for a traditional implementation of this document. To do otherwise would cause radical voices to once again decide how the traditional Liturgy will be reformed. I hope you see my point.
Sacrosanctum Concilium's so called mandate to remove certain things from the mass and reform the liturgy are merely means to an end. The ends are authentic participation, knowledge of the mass, and devotion to the mass. All 1962 Masses I go to fulfill the ends are met but the means are not employed. Therefore, the 1962 missal does NOT need to be changed at all to conform to the wishes of Vatican II. In the Novus Ordo I see the means being employed but the ends are not really there many times. Why change something just to meet the means, when the ends are already present. The ends are more important than the means. I propose DON'T change the 1962 Missal, because it fulfills the ends of Vatican II, and it would cause Traditionalists to go crazy. Traditionalists want a fixed rite so traditionalists (including myself) are sure of a wonderful rite of Mass that we will have for all ages.
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
