Ship of Fools: Looking backwards or moving forwards?

Thread: Looking backwards or moving forwards? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024952

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Personally, and this is a personal opener, I am not sure what to make of the trend in some RC liturgy, and especially papal liturgy, to bring back some rituals, gesture etc. which one thought was being discontinued.

This blog tells us that on Sunday gone the papal fanon made a reappearance at the canonisation mass of St Kateri Tekakwitha, St Marianne Cope and others.

Apparently the liturgy itself marked in part a return to more traditional rites.

I am all in favour of treasuring our heritages. I also see the need for some development in liturgy.

Are we to see the looking back as helpful and constructive to the way forward and should we all - I mean not just RCs - be doing more of it. Has Pope Benedict set a good example, or should we see this as a touch of nostalgia by an 85yr old man?

Whatever the return to the use of the fanon has raised comment. The Southern Orders blog sees it as a 'bombshell'

So is the way forwards in liturgical reform to look back and bring back some things forgotten or recently disused?

How would this translate to none RC circles?

[Code fix. Preview Post is your friend! Mamacita, Host]

[ 27. October 2012, 21:13: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

IMO, as far as liturgy goes, Benedict is setting an excellent example. The reform is indeed need of reform. Same goes for other liturgical churches.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

What the *** is a papal fanon? Seems a strange way to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. Noble simplicity should be our aim.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
"the Lord's promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the Supreme Magisterium free from error"

I know I'm only a horrible old Prod, but can somebody please point me to where this promise is? Or is the wording hoping the hearers won't ask whether the promise might only apply to the first half of the sentence?

And, yes, what is a fanon, does it matter, and why?

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
How would this translate to none RC circles?

A little harmless tat dress-up can't hurt.

I'm not sure any religious group can claim itself innocent of either looking backwards too far or moving forwards too quickly. Traditional liturgy does not always mean traditional doctrine, and avant-garde liturgy does not always mean contemporary doctrine.

If anything the only issue non-RCs might have would be the recent (30 years) explosion in the number of saints. That said, it has been handled rather well, with regional variety allowable in the liturgical calendar.

ETA: The fanon is the striped thingy around the pope's neck in the OP link's picture. I imagine, in honor of the Hawaiian connection, seafood of some sort was served at the pontifical board, and a bib of suitable stature was necessary.

[ 27. October 2012, 23:01: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

I would say that the worst problem with modern RC liturgy is the idea that we move forward by never looking back. If you never see what good was done, you'll ignore much of it, and if you never see what mistakes were made, you'll repeat all of them.

I absolutely love Benedict's views on liturgy, and I support how he has re enchanted the liturgy at the Vatican. I believe that Catholic liturgy has lost a lot of things unnecessarily. There seems to be this ideological baggage among older priests, religious, and laypeople that anything old or traditional is outmoded, and to be ignored or critiqued from the stance of our own modernity.

Luckily, younger Catholics, being free of that baggage, are able to sift through Catholic tradition and save or restore some of our practices that were lost for no good or valid reason.

I don't think anyone could say that looking backwards is uniformly bad for liturgical reform, because without it, the modern roman missal would not have multiple Eucharistic prayers, the current order for the liturgy of the word, most of the proper prayers, communion standing or communion in the hand,communion in both kinds, prayers of the faithful, etc. These are all archaic practices that had been in disuse for thousands of years.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

As I see it the 'reform of the reform' draws its inspiration from looking back at how things used to be done, rather than, say, the aim of 'noble simplicity' of Vatican II.

Undoubtedly the papacy will be guided in liturgy, and the deliberate revival of former liturgical practices must have been thought out and done with principles in mind.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Noble simplicity is indeed wonderful, but I'm beginning to fear where in Church of England parishes is it to be found.

Intrusive directions and treating the congregation like dim children ("We all stand and say together the prayer on page 3 or page 4 if you have the blue books" and the like) to my mind are far more distracting fussiness than the Pope wearing a bit of modest extra tat.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Oh I agree, venbede, I agree! It's all about self-consciousness vs God-consciousness. It's just that I don't see how wearing a stripy neckerchief is going to lead to the latter.

It needn't necessarily lead to the first either, but if such bits of tat are being worn, not unselfconsciously because they always have, but being deliberately revived in order to make a point (of what?) it does pose the question, wtf?

And I agree that an embarrassed clergyperson dithering in the sanctuary, fidgeting with half a dozen books, making jokey asides as well as continually announcing page numbers, is one of the best ways of ensuring that worship does not take place, and certainly helps to eliminate the possibility of God-consciousness.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What the *** is a papal fanon? Seems a strange way to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. Noble simplicity should be our aim.

A much abused expression, misused to justify iconoclasm and desacralisation of the liturgy.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

Btw the fanon is the distinctive ecclesiastical apparel of popes and has been since the 10th Century. It's absence in the past 30 years is a complete anomaly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_fanon

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Please could someone answer the questions what a fanon is, does it matter, and why?

All we've had so far is it's the sort of stripy shawl in the picture on the weblink, that it might be some sort of ceremonial bib and a Wikipaedia article that says a bit more about what it's made of. It doesn't actually even look all that nice.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It doesn't actually even look all that nice.

I think that settles it. For noble simplicity read tawdry fuss.

Strictly of course we Anglicans have got no horse in this race and shouldn't comment. Except that we have the same struggle, only more so, between fussy and pedantic tatophiles and intrusive 'worship leaders' who think worship= a cross between a (poor) school assembly and a (poor) pop concert. Those of us who want relaxed-yet-dignified by the book liturgy are to be found in all traditions I guess.

[ 28. October 2012, 16:26: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Btw the fanon is the distinctive ecclesiastical apparel of popes and has been since the 10th Century. It's absence in the past 30 years is a complete anomaly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_fanon

In that case, if popes survived without the thing for the greater part of a millennium, can you really argue that it is a sine qua non?

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
"the Lord's promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the Supreme Magisterium free from error"
I know I'm only a horrible old Prod, but can somebody please point me to where this promise is? Or is the wording hoping the hearers won't ask whether the promise might only apply to the first half of the sentence?

And, yes, what is a fanon, does it matter, and why?

Matthew 16: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The papal fanon is a shoulder cape, exclusive to the pope, worn over the cahasuble. There's a photo of it linked in the OP. Also, Google is your friend. Search Papal fanon there.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

... we have the same struggle, only more so, between fussy and pedantic tatophiles and intrusive 'worship leaders' who think worship = a cross between a (poor) school assembly and a (poor) pop concert. Those of us who want relaxed-yet-dignified by the book liturgy are to be found in all traditions I guess.

Hear, Hear!
*

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Btw the fanon is the distinctive ecclesiastical apparel of popes and has been since the 10th Century. It's absence in the past 30 years is a complete anomaly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_fanon
In that case, if popes survived without the thing for the greater part of a millennium, can you really argue that it is a sine qua non?

The church survived without vernacular liturgy for an even greater period. Can anyone really argue that it is a sine qua non?

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Btw the fanon is the distinctive ecclesiastical apparel of popes and has been since the 10th Century. It's absence in the past 30 years is a complete anomaly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_fanon
In that case, if popes survived without the thing for the greater part of a millennium, can you really argue that it is a sine qua non?
The church survived without vernacular liturgy for an even greater period. Can anyone really argue that it is a sine qua non?

Liturgical language can be a sort of 'living fossil' (even the English of the BCP, already archaic when Cranmer was composing in it), but all liturgies, obviously, must have been in a vernacular at least at the time of their devising, e.g. Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, or Coptic in the earliest days of the church. At a later date Latin would have been added, and later still when Constantine and Methodius took the faith to the Slavs they turned it into the then Slavonic vernacular. Then the language stuck for some centuries.

That said, the language of worship is one thing; some extra minor element of the papal wardrobe added in the tenth century is quite another.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Frankly, it's a rather ugly bit of vesture, and I don't care much for that particular chasuble Benedict selected either.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

My point about the fanon was not so much about the item of clothing itself, but more what reviving it represents in the context of liturgical development.

It seems that the Reform of the Reform movement is about reforming through reviving older customs rather than seeking creative fresh ways. In some ways that is how reform has been done in the past from time to time, I guess.

I am not saying that that process is necessarily wrong, I would be all in favour of returning some former practices back to our liturgies. However I also believe there are new treasures, new ways and reform can be about changing to adopt the new.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

I'm a weird sort of reactionary when it comes to these things. I see pictures of Popes past in a fanon, and I think "what a pity that disappeared". Then it comes back and I am in two minds about it. Mind you, the camauro came back a few years ago - but only once. Everyone thought he was wearing a santa outfit!!! Which is probably why it only appeared that once.

Then there is the Pastoral Staff of Pope Paul VI (which everyone eventually identified with John Paul II). I thought it was rather ugly when it was in use, but now rather nostalgically miss it.

Today Pope Benedict closed the Synod of Bishops in Rome and the fanon was not in evidence.

Here's Pope Paul VI in the fanon and Here's JPII.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Thank you for that Triple Tiara ( by the way is the T T on its way back!)

What strikes me about what you helpfully tell us is how random the use of these insignia is. Now you see it now you don't.

In former years was there not more consistency about such insignia or robes. Ater all priests in celebrating ceremonies tend to be consistent, in mass robes, for example. They don't suddenly appear at one mass in the maniple then the following week don't wear it.

One cannot help thinking the inconsistency may reflect an experimenting. Whatever it is a curious way of going about a reform.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I think that, if one's going to have a pope, one should allow him to dress like one. And, given that his distinctive vesture is the fanon, it would make sense for him to wear it. The problem, of course, is that it's incredibly, well, ugly. I'm sure it's not but it looks as if it's made of cheap polyester and wouldn't look terribly out of place in Primark or somesuch.

Thurible

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
... The problem, of course, is that it's incredibly, well, ugly. I'm sure it's not but it looks as if it's made of cheap polyester and wouldn't look terribly out of place in Primark or somesuch. ...

I couldn't have put it better.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

That sentiment may be due to its unfamiliarity. After all, if one had never seen a mitre and someone suddenly appeared in one, one is likely to think it too is a very odd thing. The fanon is made of silk.

I think there is a bit of experimentation going on. This pope's installation mass was masterminded by the former Marini, who also thought there ought to be a distinctive papal vesture, so he came up with a redesigned pallium. Remember that one? It looked rather awkward to wear, and when Marini mark 2 appeared on the scene it disappeared and the pope now wears a newer design similar to the one worn by Archbishops but larger and still distinctive. Heheh they had to change the mosaic in St Paul-outside-the-walls when he changed gear: old; new.

The traddies are indeed wetting their panties in anticipation of the tiara making a return (I see you there Trisagion [Big Grin]

)

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Just seen this - a collage of the most recent popes in fanons (minus JPI)

I sometimes think poor old Papa Ratzinger looks crumpled in whatever he wears. And in that picture of him look up his sleeve and see how many layers he is wearing! There's shirt, cassock, alb, dalmatic, chasuble, fanon and finally pallium. He's probably wearing a vest as well - and of course an amice. Phew!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Just seen this - a collage of the most recent popes in fanons (minus JPI)

I sometimes think poor old Papa Ratzinger looks crumpled in whatever he wears. And in that picture of him look up his sleeve and see how many layers he is wearing! There's shirt, cassock, alb, dalmatic, chasuble, fanon and finally pallium. He's probably wearing a vest as well - and of course an amice. Phew!

I am reliably informed (by a participant in his annual academic get-together) that he wears a cardigan underneath all of his other layers.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Cold-blooded, those Germans [Snigger]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Evidence of a cardigan here heheh

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The traddies are indeed wetting their panties in anticipation of the tiara making a return (I see you there Trisagion )

It will be hollow without the flabella and sedia gestatoria.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

"Backwards"? "Forwards"?

The implied teleology of progress is, frankly, absurd.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The traddies are indeed wetting their panties in anticipation of the tiara making a return (I see you there Trisagion )

I resemble that remark. [Biased]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

Perhaps I'm just tacky, but I rather like the look of the fanon, but it does depend rather on what else the Holy Father is wearing (preferably something relatively simple in decoration).

This may be a tad on the 'busy' side.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Evidence of a cardigan here heheh

At least it's white!

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I think that at this point, to talk about going 'backwards' or 'forwards' is the wrong metaphor. I think it makes more sense to talk of waiting for the dust to settle, working out how exactly reforms should be enacted, and what parts of the liturgical praxis of previous centuries should be retained as part of it, what dropped, what adapted.

The use of the fanon indicates that the current Pope is open to the idea of distinctive papal vesture having a part in modern rites. Does this, in itself, tell us anything? Well, I guess it tells use that he doesn't think a pope is quite the same as other metropolitan bishops and is entitled to vestments that mark this fact. But I don't think this in itself should come as a massive revelation to anyone who knows much about Roman Catholicism.

(I agree by the way that it looks a bit ugly!)

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

Of course, what the Church should be doing is looking backwards and moving forwards. It can therefore hardly come as a surprise when she walks into things.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I think there is indeed a problem with the looking back and moving forwards metaphor. Sorry.

However, while I think there is a lot to be said for rexamining the old store house of liturgy and trying out again one or two of the old things, maybe like the fanon, there is also much that is good in the new and innovative.

I think I agree that maybe it is about a time of trial and experiment.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I suspect that there is a little gentle pressure being exerted from the top to remind folks that aggiornamento is a word that has a meeaning closer to 'updating' than 'revolution.' Personally, although I am only an interested observer being an Anglican, I do like to see the Modern Rite of the Roman Church celebrated more in accordance with tradition, and the Traditional Rite be part of the modern Church.

I do not have a beef with the Fanon - or for that matter with the Sedia Gestoria or the Tiara because in Roman ecclesiology the Pope is a bit more than just another Archbishop, and should wear appropriate tat. After all, he already wears the non-sauce proof white cassock, so we know who he is!

PD

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I too am Anglcan PD. I think that what we observe from a distance in RCs we may find in a different way in parts of Anglicanism.

I am not sure. I am thinking over this one! In one area where there may be a looking back in the Church of England is in hymnody. The seems to me a recovery of some styles of music and hymns which had rather been discarded.

I also wonder whether psalmody will be 'revived' in those parts of Anglicanism which have discarded it.

What, however, concerns me is the 'when I feel like it' approach to reviving older things. To harp on still about that Papal fanon. It makes an appearance one week but not the next. If it is felt to be a significant piece of venture indicating Authority then why not at the council of bishops? Why just have one airing.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I would far rather Pope John Paul II had worn a tiara and been carried on a the shoulders of the Swiss Guard, attended by ostrich feather fans, than make all those pronouncements on homosexuality, abortion and the ordination of women in the tone that he did, while failing to press his belief in virtual pacifism and unilateral disarmament to the same extent. And making the papacy a personality cult, brave old warrior that he was.

I don't see any harm in the fanon. I don't think it's ugly and most people wouldn't notice it.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I would far rather Pope John Paul II had worn a tiara and been carried on a the shoulders of the Swiss Guard, attended by ostrich feather fans, than make all those pronouncements on homosexuality, abortion and the ordination of women in the tone that he did, while failing to press his belief in virtual pacifism and unilateral disarmament to the same extent.

Horse hockey. [Mad]

Blessed John Paul proclaimed the teachings of the Church, as he is expected to do, not proclaim some crank's specific political views.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I was rather hoping that we might leave the Dead Horses alone and stick to talking about papal vesture...

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Thank you, seasick. I should have said "rather than overemphasize the role of the papal ministry."

Sorry.

Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on :

It strikes me, looking at one of the links posted, that Pius XII was able to make any vestment look holy and dignified (even if he did look rather like a bank manager).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

What does horse-hockey mean please? It's not a term I've met before. If it's a name for polo, I don't get the reference.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I would far rather Pope John Paul II had worn a tiara and been carried on a the shoulders of the Swiss Guard, attended by ostrich feather fans, than make all those pronouncements on homosexuality, abortion and the ordination of women in the tone that he did, while failing to press his belief in virtual pacifism and unilateral disarmament to the same extent.
Horse hockey. Blessed John Paul proclaimed the teachings of the Church, as he is expected to do, not proclaim some crank's specific political views.

You're both wrong. I would make two points here, one of which is that J2P2's (and, at a slightly different angle, B16's) political views were very much oriented toward peaceful resolution of disputes and favoured disarmament, to the point that they were both roundly criticized by right-wing commentators for their lack of realism and their toadying to Communist powers. We need to remember that they both had memories of what wars look like on the ground. As well, his views on social responsibility, while referring to the Fathers and also to Leo XIII and Pius XII, were ones which could quite easily fit with those of the NDP or old Labour, much more than they would with those of visible RCs in North American public life.

The other of which is that J2P2's approach to papal vesture is worth noting-- as one conscious of the needs of drama, he appeared to ensure that whatever chasuble, mitre, etc he was wearing helped focus the eyes of the camera upon him. More than many, he was aware that visual presentation provided its own messaging, one which he seemed to want to focus on the clarity of charismatic authority, rather than any other factors which distract from that-- television news would not give him a 30-second message spot without something to show on the screen. As well, he seemed intrigued by what designers and textile artists could do-- I'm not sure if the results were always happy, but his ability to work with symbolism and turn it into a contemporary expression of traditional thought was remarkable. Remember that his formation was one of trying to maintain Xn belief and to evangelize in an officially atheist Poland, and conscious of a de-Christianizing Europe, and so he addressed himself largely to a public not caring about the details of vesture, but wanting leadership and inspiration. Lace, therefore, when wanting to buck up the troops in the seminaries, but bold and sweeping gesture for the outsiders.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

It means, if context is taken into account, the equivalent of balderdash, tosh, bunkum, baloney, hogwash, poppycock, twaddle, tripe, claptrap, bosh, macaroni.

Ahem, getting away with myself, and this is not the Circus.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

That was for Enoch, of course.

Augustine the Aleut, do you really, seriously think Popes themselves spend that much time thinking through the vestments they are to wear? That all sounds plausible, but I think it's an interesting exercise of psychospiritual analysis gone too far.

The ones who make these decisions are the Papal MCs. No doubt they would need the nod from the Pope about a big change, but it all comes down to the MC in the end. It's why you got things like this under the old Marini (that's him on the right) and by contrast this . That's because the Papal MC changed, to the new Marini - that's him on the right. Pope Benedict's "style" did not appear until the new Marini arrived, and JPII's "style" was really the style of Marini mark 1. He looked very different when Virgilio Noe was MC.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

...and by contrast this .

I am sorry but my immediate response to the second is he appear pregnant in it. I'd say about seven months gone.

Jengie

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Indeed

I detest wearing cinctures. For all I care, bring back the maniple and get rid of the cincture. Priests of a certain girth should never wear a cincture without covering their midsection with a chasuble. Chasubles are liturgical black even when they are white (or some other color).

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It's why you got things like this

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! I'd forgotten that one. [Projectile]

Thurible

Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on :

Australia wasn't it?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
J2P2's (and, at a slightly different angle, B16's) political views were very much oriented toward peaceful resolution of disputes and favoured disarmament, to the point that they were both roundly criticized by right-wing commentators for their lack of realism and their toadying to Communist powers.

I am aware of that and deeply respect John Paul for it.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It's why you got things like this
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! I'd forgotten that one.

Thurible

It's obviously from the same design house that 'serves' Katherine Jefferts Schori! [Devil]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That was for Enoch, of course.

Augustine the Aleut, do you really, seriously think Popes themselves spend that much time thinking through the vestments they are to wear? That all sounds plausible, but I think it's an interesting exercise of psychospiritual analysis gone too far.

The ones who make these decisions are the Papal MCs. No doubt they would need the nod from the Pope about a big change, but it all comes down to the MC in the end. It's why you got things like this under the old Marini (that's him on the right) and by contrast this . That's because the Papal MC changed, to the new Marini - that's him on the right. Pope Benedict's "style" did not appear until the new Marini arrived, and JPII's "style" was really the style of Marini mark 1. He looked very different when Virgilio Noe was MC.

J2P2 certainly did in the earlier part of his term-- down to reviewing the design of stages and commenting on colour palate and camera angles -- I have this from a former colleague who was a security liaison for the 1984 Canadian visit. As well, he had a number of sessions with tailors and designers in the early 1980s-- you may be quite right and his attention moved elsewhere and gave way to others' initiatives. He likely had his plate full with other things.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It's why you got things like this
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! I'd forgotten that one.

Thurible
It's obviously from the same design house that 'serves' Katherine Jefferts Schori!

Maybe it was one of her cast offs...
[Biased]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

It's Katharine. [/pedant]

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Noble simplicity is indeed wonderful, but I'm beginning to fear where in Church of England parishes is it to be found.

Intrusive directions and treating the congregation like dim children ("We all stand and say together the prayer on page 3 or page 4 if you have the blue books" and the like) to my mind are far more distracting fussiness than the Pope wearing a bit of modest extra tat.

That, I'm afraid sounds all too familiar. It's partly why I do my own thing and partly take refuge in cathedral worship. Luckily I'm within easy reach by road and rail of four cathedrals, all of which do fairly decent services.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Noble simplicity is a wonderful concept and, as with most compound terms (think "Anglo Catholic" or "full, conscious and active participation") it is important to understand the meaning of the parts in order to arrive at an understanding of the whole - which might well be greater than the sum of those parts.

ISTM that in the fifty two years since Sacrosanctum Concilium was launched upon the world the term "noble simplicity" has most frequently been understood as "simplicity": nobility has been nowhere in sight. In fact, it has been used to justify vandalism, an abandonment of the beautiful, the jettisoning of cultural expressions of the faith of great nobility, often in favour of the cheap, the tawdry, the ugly and the banal. Lets have noble simplicity by all means but don't equate that with polyester horse-blanket vestments accompanied by crass music in ugly "worship spaces". [Projectile]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

[Overused]

How right you are, Trisagion, how right you are!

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

To

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
...and by contrast this.
I am sorry but my immediate response to the second is he appear pregnant in it. I'd say about seven months gone.

and

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Priests of a certain girth should never wear a cincture without covering their midsection with a chasuble.

I say that there is some Great Mystery pertaining to Old Men and their Belts. As the Old Men age, the belt seems to drift, higher and higher, up the torso.

Belts, be they called cinctures or girdles, ought to be drawn at the waist, at hip bone height.

In that pic of poor Benny that TT supplied, as of many men his age, his belt looks to be approaching to nipple height.

As to

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What does horse-hockey mean please?

Triple Tiara is being too delicate by half, by omitting to say the word, shit, crap, or, at least, pie.

So, horse hockey is euphemistic for horseshit, horsecrap, and horse manure.

The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang also gives merely, horse as another synonym.

It doesn't mention it, but I wonder if the shape of the dropped excrement gave rise to hockey [puck] as in the expression, cow pie.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
...and by contrast this.
I am sorry but my immediate response to the second is he appear pregnant in it. I'd say about seven months gone.

Now it can be told- BXVI is Pope Joan!

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Wasn't there something about popes proving they weren't women in the past? Mabe that's just a myth though. [Smile]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Noble simplicity is a wonderful concept and, as with most compound terms (think "Anglo Catholic" or "full, conscious and active participation") it is important to understand the meaning of the parts in order to arrive at an understanding of the whole - which might well be greater than the sum of those parts.

ISTM that in the fifty two years since Sacrosanctum Concilium was launched upon the world the term "noble simplicity" has most frequently been understood as "simplicity": nobility has been nowhere in sight. In fact, it has been used to justify vandalism, an abandonment of the beautiful, the jettisoning of cultural expressions of the faith of great nobility, often in favour of the cheap, the tawdry, the ugly and the banal. Lets have noble simplicity by all means but don't equate that with polyester horse-blanket vestments accompanied by crass music in ugly "worship spaces".

I completely agree. (Pendantic moment,Sacrosanctum Concilium was just shy of 49 years ago, on 4 December 1963.) But I sympathize with the above sentiments. [Overused]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I completely agree. (Pendantic moment,Sacrosanctum Concilium was just shy of 49 years ago, on 4 December 1963.) But I sympathize with the above sentiments.

The depressing thing about my error is that I checked the date of its promulgation before drafting the post. [Hot and Hormonal]

....mea maxima culpa.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

...though there is always something deeply ironically amusing about someone being "pendantic."

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

I thought it rather ungracious to flag up that little solecism.

[ 02. November 2012, 22:20: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Just seen this - a collage of the most recent popes in fanons (minus JPI)

The poor blighter never had time to get it back from the tailor [Frown]

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Perhaps, but is it not true that JPI got rid of some of the trappings of the papacy in his sadly very short reign - for example the tiara and seat and coronation, or had they already gone?

Whatever he didn't come across as a pope that looked back for inspiration. However, I know his reign was very very short.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Perhaps, but is it not true that JPI got rid of some of the trappings of the papacy in his sadly very short reign - for example the tiara and seat and coronation, or had they already gone?

Whatever he didn't come across as a pope that looked back for inspiration. However, I know his reign was very very short.

No, that was Paul VI.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Coronation of Paul VI

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Coronation of Paul VI

Thank you so much for that TT. I'd forgotten about those big feather things as well.

So it was JP I who got rid of such a lot in such a short reign.

One suspects things would be rather different had he lived longer, and if he had not been Pope at all - although the latter in a very different way from the former.
[Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0