FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy (/showthread.php?tid=36066)

Pages: 1 2


The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - Baskerville - 05-05-2010

Has anybody read this by Father Adrian Fortescue? I just ordered a copy and it looks pretty good.


Re: The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - NonSumDignus - 05-05-2010

It's an excellent book; Fortescue was one of the best liturgists in the Church's history.

It's definitely not dumbed down though; a solid amount of prior knowledge of the liturgy is necessary, and the author assumes the reader knows Latin (he will quote Latin texts and not provide a translation). He will occasionally quote things in Greek without providing a translation too, but not often enough to trip-up someone who doesn't read Greek.

Overall though a great read.


Re: The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - The_Harlequin_King - 05-05-2010

I haven't read the entire thing, but it's extremely useful for anyone who wants to have a more advanced understanding of the liturgy.

Fortescue doesn't like fiddleback chasubles, though, so if that's your thing, I suppose he can't be an authority for everything.


Re: The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - Baskerville - 05-05-2010

(05-05-2010, 12:14 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: I haven't read the entire thing, but it's extremely useful for anyone who wants to have a more advanced understanding of the liturgy.

Fortescue doesn't like fiddleback chasubles, though, so if that's your thing, I suppose he can't be an authority for everything.

Well Fiddlebacks are my thing but they dont validate a Mass :laughing:


Re: The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - INPEFESS - 05-05-2010

(05-05-2010, 12:14 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: I haven't read the entire thing, but it's extremely useful for anyone who wants to have a more advanced understanding of the liturgy.

Fortescue doesn't like fiddleback chasubles, though, so if that's your thing, I suppose he can't be an authority for everything.

He doesn't 'like' them? What part of them are you supposed to particularly 'like'? They are worn for the sake of tradition, not aesthetics.


Re: The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - Joshua - 05-05-2010

(05-05-2010, 05:41 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-05-2010, 12:14 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: I haven't read the entire thing, but it's extremely useful for anyone who wants to have a more advanced understanding of the liturgy.

Fortescue doesn't like fiddleback chasubles, though, so if that's your thing, I suppose he can't be an authority for everything.

He doesn't 'like' them? What part of them are you supposed to particularly 'like'? They are worn for the sake of tradition, not aesthetics.

I believe its referring to a debate that continues to rage among traditionalists to this day, namely, a preference for vestments of the medieval period (conical chasubles, appareled amices and albs, etc.)  VS. those who prefer what was more common in the baroque/counter-reformation era (fiddlebacks, lace, etc.). The subject matter thickens as, in addition, the debate usually extends into the schools of sacred architecture and sacred music of the two periods as well.

I personally have penchants for several aspects of both schools of thought, but I tend to lean more towards the Baroque.  ;)


Re: The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - Baskerville - 05-05-2010

(05-05-2010, 06:00 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(05-05-2010, 05:41 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [quote='The_Harlequin_King' pid='559578' dateline='1273076059']
I haven't read the entire thing, but it's extremely useful for anyone who wants to have a more advanced understanding of the liturgy.

Fortescue doesn't like fiddleback chasubles, though, so if that's your thing, I suppose he can't be an authority for everything.


I personally have penchants for several aspects of both schools of thought, but I tend to lean more towards the Baroque.  ;)

Same hear I like the middle ages but I love the architecture and clothing of the clergy from the Baroque. Some of those Baroque Bavarian and Austrian Churches just blind you with their gold, frescoes and statues.


Re: The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - devotedknuckles - 05-05-2010

A very good book I have acopy



Re: The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - The_Harlequin_King - 05-06-2010

(05-05-2010, 05:41 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: He doesn't 'like' them? What part of them are you supposed to particularly 'like'? They are worn for the sake of tradition, not aesthetics.

Don't shoot the messenger. Those are his words. This is what Fortescue said about chasubles:

the Reverend Adrian Fortescue, "The Vestments of the Roman Rite" Wrote:A man in massive folds of rich
material looks manly, dignified, and fine. A man in tights looks
ridiculous. That is one chief reason why we see the only hope for
beauty of vestments in a return to the older tradition, in which they
were large and fell in fine folds. In the eighteenth century a
desolating wave of bad taste passed over Europe. It gave us Baroc
churches, tawdry gilding, vulgarities of gaudy ornament instead of
fine construction. It passed over clothes, and gave us our mean,
tight modern garments. And it passed, alas! over vestments too,
and gave us skimped, flat vestments of bad colour, outlined in that
most impossible material, gold braid, instead of the ample, stately
forms which had lasted till then.
This question of vestments is not
an isolated one. It is part of a general issue which runs through all
ecclesiastical art and music. We do not like Baroc vestments any
more than Baroc architecture or Baroc music.


The reform of music
came first. We still thank God for it. And there are signs of the
same movement in the other arts. The same tendency that has
already given us back the old full neums of plainsong, instead of
the skimped, degraded forms we used to hear, now tends to a
return to the older full shapes of vestments. For these curtailed
shapes are not the historic ones which came down hardly modified
for so many centuries. They are a quite modern example of Baroc
taste. Must we, when we have expelled that deplorable period in
everything else, still keep it in this one case? Nor is what I say the
fad of one or two archaeologists. As far as I know, every student of
historic liturgy (I name especially Mgr. Wilpert and Father Braun),
and every artist and person of artistic taste, wants to restore a fuller,
more ample, more ancient form of vestments. In Rome too. I am
confident that the same movement which restored plainsong will
go forward, is going forward, at Rome,1 and will apply these
principles to other points as well. Dismiss from your minds the
idea that it is a question of Roman shape or Gothic shape. That puts
the whole issue in a false light. It is not a question of place, but of
period of time. These modern shapes are not specially Roman; they
came in at the same time nearly everywhere. And the older shape
was used at Rome just as much as everywhere else. Rome is full of
pictures and monuments which show that Popes wore the same
large vestments as everywhere else in the West, till Baroc taste
swept over Rome too. Let us be as Roman as possible always. But
in artistic matters let us look to Rome's good artistic periods. It
would be absurd to defend mangled plainsong and operatic music
as Roman. It is just as absurd to claim the name of the ancient city
for only one period of her long artistic development. Skimped
chasubles, gold braid, and lace are not Roman ; they are eighteenth century
bad taste.



Re: The Mass a study of the Roman Liturgy - INPEFESS - 05-06-2010

(05-06-2010, 10:15 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(05-05-2010, 05:41 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: He doesn't 'like' them? What part of them are you supposed to particularly 'like'? They are worn for the sake of tradition, not aesthetics.

Don't shoot the messenger. Those are his words. This is what Fortescue said about chasubles:

the Reverend Adrian Fortescue, "The Vestments of the Roman Rite" Wrote:A man in massive folds of rich
material looks manly, dignified, and fine. A man in tights looks
ridiculous. That is one chief reason why we see the only hope for
beauty of vestments in a return to the older tradition, in which they
were large and fell in fine folds. In the eighteenth century a
desolating wave of bad taste passed over Europe. It gave us Baroc
churches, tawdry gilding, vulgarities of gaudy ornament instead of
fine construction. It passed over clothes, and gave us our mean,
tight modern garments. And it passed, alas! over vestments too,
and gave us skimped, flat vestments of bad colour, outlined in that
most impossible material, gold braid, instead of the ample, stately
forms which had lasted till then.
This question of vestments is not
an isolated one. It is part of a general issue which runs through all
ecclesiastical art and music. We do not like Baroc vestments any
more than Baroc architecture or Baroc music.


The reform of music
came first. We still thank God for it. And there are signs of the
same movement in the other arts. The same tendency that has
already given us back the old full neums of plainsong, instead of
the skimped, degraded forms we used to hear, now tends to a
return to the older full shapes of vestments. For these curtailed
shapes are not the historic ones which came down hardly modified
for so many centuries. They are a quite modern example of Baroc
taste. Must we, when we have expelled that deplorable period in
everything else, still keep it in this one case? Nor is what I say the
fad of one or two archaeologists. As far as I know, every student of
historic liturgy (I name especially Mgr. Wilpert and Father Braun),
and every artist and person of artistic taste, wants to restore a fuller,
more ample, more ancient form of vestments. In Rome too. I am
confident that the same movement which restored plainsong will
go forward, is going forward, at Rome,1 and will apply these
principles to other points as well. Dismiss from your minds the
idea that it is a question of Roman shape or Gothic shape. That puts
the whole issue in a false light. It is not a question of place, but of
period of time. These modern shapes are not specially Roman; they
came in at the same time nearly everywhere. And the older shape
was used at Rome just as much as everywhere else. Rome is full of
pictures and monuments which show that Popes wore the same
large vestments as everywhere else in the West, till Baroc taste
swept over Rome too. Let us be as Roman as possible always. But
in artistic matters let us look to Rome's good artistic periods. It
would be absurd to defend mangled plainsong and operatic music
as Roman. It is just as absurd to claim the name of the ancient city
for only one period of her long artistic development. Skimped
chasubles, gold braid, and lace are not Roman ; they are eighteenth century
bad taste.

THK, I wasn't shooting you; I intended my response as it is interpreted literally. I meant it to refer to him, not to you. Style and fashion are arbitrary.