What's your opinion on offering Mass in baroque vestments in a Gothic chapel?
#21
(09-25-2011, 05:30 PM)City Smurf Wrote: For what it's worth.. Baroque all the way for me.  The Goths can keep their ponchos.
But it is supposed to be like a poncho!

[Image: S_Giles.jpg]
Reply
#22
(09-25-2011, 05:30 PM)City Smurf Wrote: For what it's worth.. Baroque all the way for me.  The Goths can keep their ponchos.

That is the general idea, actually. The chasuble is descended from the outer coat or garment of people in the ancient Roman Empire. The main problem I see with the fiddleback chasuble is that if the alb is like underwear, then you see a heck of a lot of it since the fiddleback is so minimalized. It's like the sleeveless t-shirt (or a-shirt, I suppose) of vestments.


I used to be a big fan of Baroque style, but not so much anymore. I agree with Augustus Pugin, that great Gothic revival architect who said Gothic was the true Christian architecture.

Restore the rood screens! Restore the minor orders!
Reply
#23
(09-26-2011, 03:34 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: That is the general idea, actually. The chasuble is descended from the outer coat or garment of people in the ancient Roman Empire. The main problem I see with the fiddleback chasuble is that if the alb is like underwear, then you see a heck of a lot of it since the fiddleback is so minimalized. It's like the sleeveless t-shirt (or a-shirt, I suppose) of vestments.

I used to be a big fan of Baroque style, but not so much anymore. I agree with Augustus Pugin, that great Gothic revival architect who said Gothic was the true Christian architecture.

Restore the rood screens! Restore the minor orders!

The fiddleback just looks much cleaner and sharper than the poncho.  It brings it with a greater sense of majesty.
Reply
#24
Time to bring out Rev. Father Adrian Fortescue's essay on The Vestments of the Roman Rite again! http://maternalheart.org/library/vestmen...escue.html

Rev. Adrian Fortescue, The Vestments of the Roman Rite Wrote:There are canons of beauty admitted by every artist, every person of good taste. Now, in any garment one of the first canons is that its beauty depends fundamentally not on embroidery or added ornament, but on its material, shape, and especially on folds. Large garments falling in massive folds are dignified and beautiful. Garments cut short, stiff, flat, of bad outline, are ugly. 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.

Curiously all the traditional societies still use fiddlebacks, even though they all read and teach Fortescue's manuals on the liturgy, I'm sure.
Reply
#25
(09-26-2011, 04:15 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Large garments falling in massive folds are dignified and beautiful. Garments cut short, stiff, flat, of bad outline, are ugly.

That's the opinion of the author. The classical exactitude of Baroque chasubles seems much more dignified, precise, human (in the highest sense), symbolic to me. The priest in Roman chasuble is like a flat sign-post pointing to Christ, not a mess of flowing seams, as a moving mountain of material.

(09-26-2011, 03:34 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Gothic is the true Christian architecture.

I never understood this contention; every Catholic I've ever met has put it forward. The holy glory our Lord calls us to certainly includes the baptism of the Doric, Corinthian, and Ionic orders. What grand creations of perfection like Il Gesu can be erected to God's glory! Gothic is always so lop-sided and haphazard. Look at the ugly lack of proportion between so many western towers of the old Gothic churches. What an affront; how ugly! God deserves something crafted and shaped according to the most precise plan. Flying buttresses to cover up structural inconsistencies... yuck. Do it right.

Why is it the true Christian architecture? Is this some association with the Middle Ages that automatically makes it great? If Gothic architecture is the truest expression of Christianity, let's reshape Michelangelo's dome and Bernini's facade. Get rid of that pagan Sistine chapel, eh? This needs a lot of explaining for me, not vague references to a golden age. I'm perfectly open to it, but not if the only argument is that it's "the true Christian one", because I thought "the" true Christian architecture might try to humbly replicate the tomb-altars of poor underground crypts. Baroque certainly doesn't, but neither does Gothic.
Reply
#26
Baroque fiddleback vestments are dorky and just generally look crap. I've only ever seen them used in SSPX masses (and an FSSP Mass offered by a former SSPX priest). The diocesan TLM churches in Melbourne and Sydney (Caulfield and Lewisham, respectively) always celebrate Mass in Gothic vestments, thankfully.
Reply
#27
The Sunday Mass I serve at, the celebrant always wears Gothic.. and it's a very Baroquesque building.
Reply
#28
(09-26-2011, 04:41 AM)Laetare Wrote:
(09-26-2011, 04:15 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(09-26-2011, 03:34 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Gothic is the true Christian architecture.

I never understood this contention; every Catholic I've ever met has put it forward.

Pugin explains all.
Reply
#29
Laetare Wrote:That's the opinion of the author. The classical exactitude of Baroque chasubles seems much more dignified, precise, human (in the highest sense), symbolic to me. The priest in Roman chasuble is like a flat sign-post pointing to Christ, not a mess of flowing seams, as a moving mountain of material.

To be fair, it is certainly his opinion. But Baroque is not Classical; Classical is Classical. For that, look to the Baltimore Basilica (designed by Latrobe, the same architect who designed the U.S. Capitol building). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Basilica

Also, Christ Himself undoubtedly wore flowing garments, if for no other reason than because all garments were like that in the first century. And if He were more into the Roman style of the time, it would literally involve the "moving mountains of material" that is the Roman toga. (Not saying Christ would have worn a toga, but I remember a previous post of yours suggesting Christ would have been shorn and shaven like the Romans.)

Quote:I never understood this contention; every Catholic I've ever met has put it forward.

As archdiocesan posted, Pugin explains why here: http://www.archive.org/stream/a604878600...9/mode/2up

He addresses the differences between Pagan and Christian architecture on page 39. Of course, his experience is informed by his Englishness. Nearly all pre-Reformation buildings in England are Gothic or have Gothic elements. When London burned in 1666, Christopher Wren had the city rebuilt in a Classical fashion, which was heavily associated with both Protestantism and the so-called "Age of Reason". The Gothic revival of the 1800's was always and everywhere a hearkening back to the glories of the pre-Reformation world. It was part of the larger romantic movement that swept Europe after the godless excesses of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars.


Quote:What grand creations of perfection like Il Gesu can be erected to God's glory!

I used to like Il Gesu until I learned that it was the first major church built without choir stalls in the Counter-Reform era. This was for two reasons: so the altar could be highly visible, and because the Jesuits were not bound to the Office. Today I think we can more easily "see" (haha) how these are bad trends:

1.) The Counter-Reformation curiously implemented a vast, Protestant-esque campaign to destroy rood screens so that the faithful would have less obstruction between themselves and the sanctuary. But we can see now how this was a precursor to the Vatican II-era reforms. Trads can't logically admire the silent Canon of the old Mass while also deride the pre-Reformation era's sense of mystery by its use of rood screens and veiling holiness from the public eye. They both originate from the same medieval age.

2.) Getting rid of choir stalls to bring the laity closer to the sanctuary is another step like the removal of rood screens.... but look at our dismal situation today, where almost no trad churches even have Sunday Vespers, much less daily Office. The Office has been reduced to the private devotion of the clergy, rather than something to be attended with any degree of pomp in church by the laity. Another reason for the removal of choir stalls was the introduction of women into choirs (who couldn't sit in the front of the church), and we all know how I feel about that.


Quote:Gothic is always so lop-sided and haphazard.

You do realize that "Baroque" almost literally means lopsided, right? Again, Baroque is not to be confused with Classical. Baroque implies oval shapes.


Quote:Look at the ugly lack of proportion between so many western towers of the old Gothic churches. What an affront; how ugly! God deserves something crafted and shaped according to the most precise plan. Flying buttresses to cover up structural inconsistencies... yuck. Do it right.

You don't seem to understand Gothic architecture at all. As Pugin explained, everything in Gothic architecture has a purpose. The buttresses were made for a practical reason, which was to hold up the walls of the church. Buttresses were needed because the walls had so many windows, to bring as much light into the church as possible (in sharp contrast to the previous Romanesque churches which were very dark inside).

The towers of the old Gothic churches may be uneven because they actually collapsed all the time in the medieval period. The medievals were pioneers of feats never before achieved in all of human history with far fewer resources than later ages, so yeah, they fell down and had to be rebuilt rather often.


Quote:Why is it the true Christian architecture?

Besides what I what I said above, Gothic is Christian because it was created by Christians in a wholly Christian era. Notice how, in that essay, Pugin actually calls it "Pointed Architecture" most of the time. It highlights the nature of the architecture to point upwards to God and to uplift the soul.


Quote:If Gothic architecture is the truest expression of Christianity, let's reshape Michelangelo's dome and Bernini's facade. Get rid of that pagan Sistine chapel, eh?

I'd never do something that extreme..... but Pope Julius II's decision to completely obliterate the old Saint Peter's Basilica was a bad judgement call, in my opinion, and most people of the time thought the same thing. After all, the real goal of the new Saint Peter's at that time was to house Julius's mausoleum and stand as a testament to his awesomeness. The vast amounts of money needed to build the new Saint Peter's was also a tertiary cause of the Protestant Reformation.

And I wouldn't redo the Sistine Chapel, either, but when you go inside it in person, there's something rather queer about the art style, if you know what I mean. It's wonderful to behold, but still..... for a chapel, there sure are a lot of dicks in plain sight.
Reply
#30
It's very sad Old Saint Peter's got torn down.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)