|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Was Fortescue ever followed to the letter?
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
But this supports what I have long suspected – the old mass was performed sloppily in any case. (Eammon Duffy in Faith of Our Fathers says that in his Irish home town, a priest could say low mass in twenty minutes.)
The funny thing is that 20 minutes wouldn't be much too short for a low mass in the Novus Ordo (where a low mass should really never take more than 30 minutes), but it would seem rushed in the Tridentine form because of all the mandatory extra prayers (many of them silent). I've seen an Anglican Eucharist done in 15 minutes. It wasn't rushed, but they did use a horrible CW Eucharistic Prayer (H?) that's over before it begins (and also has the Sanctus in the wrong place).
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
a horrible CW Eucharistic Prayer (H?) that's over before it begins (and also has the Sanctus in the wrong place).
I thought you liked the old customs. One of the very earliest eucharistic prayers that has come down from antiquity as the sanctus at the end of the Eucharistic prayer rather than the middle.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One of the very earliest eucharistic prayers that has come down from antiquity as the sanctus at the end of the Eucharistic prayer rather than the middle.
Is that so? Could you unpack the claim a bit, please?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The detailed work on this appears in Bryan Spinks’ ‘The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer.
It seems that the sanctus, as we now know it, doesn’t appear in the very earliest extant Eucharistic prayers. For example, it doesn’t appear in Hippolytus.
Something resembling the sanctus forms a doxology at the end of the Great thanksgiving in Sarapion – very Jewish is in structure and itsd ‘sanctus’ is very like the Jewish berakot
According to C. Ratcliffe and W. E. Pitt, Addai and Mari had it at the end of the anaphora (and this prayer didn’t have the dominical words – and some, e.g. the now discredited Gregory Dix, argue that the sanctus is a later interpolation – it didn’t have the sanctus either, originally)
We have had this debate before – see here.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Gregory Dix my be discredited by leo, but he's now an optional lesser festival in the C of E calendar. I commemorated him at the office of course.
We had Prayer H for our children's masses. Not a great success, with all those responses.
And the sanctus doesn't conclude any surviving eucharistic prayer in use, which would suggest it was found to be not a good idea in experience.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Can we end the sanctus at the end of the EP tangent, please and return to the use and adaptation of liturgical guides?
Much obliged.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems that the sanctus, as we now know it, doesn’t appear in the very earliest extant Eucharistic prayers. For example, it doesn’t appear in Hippolytus.
Except that it's not Hippolytus, is it?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
You often heard it complained that the new mass lacks dignity and mystery and is performed sloppily and so on.
But this supports what I have long suspected – the old mass was performed sloppily in any case. (Eammon Duffy in Faith of Our Fathers says that in his Irish home town, a priest could say low mass in twenty minutes.)
Once mass is in the vernacular the sloppiness becomes more apparent.
Does that support any RC experience?
I would agree that the slopppiness becomes more apparent in the vernacular. I might further argue that it is, in a sense, therefore worse when this happens today, because more people can be scandalized by it.
However, I think that a far more significant observation is that the sloppiness of yesteryear (a phenomenon in the US, at least, which was and to a degree, still is, largely associated with "move things along" Irish clergy, sorry...) was more a product of just that, sloppiness. It was an assumption by priests, especially at Low Mass, that it really did not matter to the people if the priest sped through, since their comprehension and level of devotion was limited. OTOH, most of the complaints I hear today are about abuses.
By abuses, I mean willful disregard for the rubrics, Roman liturgical books and documents, notices from the Holy See, and liturgical history. Beginning in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there was a mentality, frequently conveyed in seminaries, that the missal of Paul VI "liberated" the liturgy from its own past. No small numnber of clergy, implicitly or explicitly, were taught that they could do X, Y and Z, even if the rubrics or other liturgical norms did not permit it, in the name of the needs of the community. Some of this led to careless practices and ad-libbed prayers, while others carried it to absurd and even offensive theatrics. Sometimes even when parishioners who were scandalized complained to pastors, they were completely ignored or, worse, told to buzz off. Only within the last 10-15 years has there begun to be a slow move away from this "anything goes" mentality.
I can certainly list many popular practices that do not square with current Roman liturgical norms, but such a list is not the purpose of my post here, or this thread. But suffice to say that while I see priests speeding through Low Mass in Latin as a very serious infraction, I also suspect that this probably pales in comparison with Clown, Dance or Puppet Masses, improperly disposed of Precious Blood, enactments of the gospel readings, people gathered around altars, ad-libbed prayers where such are not permitted, and omissions of chants, music and prayers in favor of pop songs.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
It was an assumption by priests, especially at Low Mass, that it really did not matter to the people if the priest sped through, since their comprehension and level of devotion was limited.
I really don't this was the case, except maybe for those priests who were natural snobs, and you can find natural snobs everywhere from the Ship to your local comic-book store.
In a weird sort of way it had to do with trust in the efficacy of the sacrament. As long as things were done sufficiently correctly and with sufficient devotion then that was good enough for everybody even if it meant you got it done in 20 minutes.
I don't think it was a disregard of the people by the priests. As long as the priest did what had to be done and as long as the people did what they ought to have been doing (either following along in their missals or with devotions and meditations in their prayer books or in reciting the rosary) what had to be done was being done. The sacrifice of the mass is an objective reality (to Catholics, anyway) and so I don't think the question of comprehension and level of devotion among the people really entered into the equation. I don't think questions of "performance" ever really came in to the celebration of low masses because I think that aspect wasn't on most peoples' radar.
On the surface it might appear to be like the disregard for rubrics that came after Vatican II but I think that had to with an almost opposite attitude, that "the mass is the mass is the mass" wasn't enough so you had to make things "relevant", or you had get people involved, etc. in addition to bending the rubrics. This is why we ended up with some priests who not only chat their way through the mass, but would do things like if they felt the response of "and also with you" wasn't loud enough then they would make people repeat it once more, with feeling.
I don't think this attitude is really the fault of the Ordinary Form. It was a perfect storm of things that came together in the late 60s and afterwards and the Ordinary Form was a doorway it came through.
I've got other thoughts on this but they'll have to wait until after the weekend.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
In the late 1970's, a clergyman I know was impressed when a priest celebrated a Low Mass, using one of the Anglican Missals (a close approximation of the Tridentine rite in English), in only twenty minutes. A normal time for a low mass was between twenty-five and thirty minutes, more if there were many communions.
When communicants were numerous and extra priests were available, some Roman Catholic parishes minimized the time required for the Mass by beginning the administration of communion as early as the Epistle.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
One of the [Fortsecue] rubrics, to take a single example, refers to a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites stating that it is strictly forbidden to genuflect on top of a ladder.
I don't think it unreasonable to do a Snopes check here.
sebby, can you kindly provide us with the cite?
There are certainly enough copies of Fortescue—in all his editions—proximate to the eyeballs viewing this thread to be able to appreciate an edition-page-footnote reference.
In the 2nd and revised edition, 1919, on page 243, footnote 1 reads as follows:
"Ritus serv., p14, § 6. It is impossible to genuflect on the top of a ladder. If a ladder is used, he must first come down, then genuflect on the ground."
Genuflecting on ladders is, of course, never seen in any of the churches in which I serve. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
A reply within 13 minutes. And, by a host. It's enough to make a liturgy geek's chest swell with pride. I apologize for my Snopes crack.
For those sports fans following along at home, the context is that of "Benediction and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament" (Chap. XXII). The relevant quote is quote:
If a stand or small ladder is necessary, it is brought forward by a server (the M.C.) and put in position. The priest then mounts and places the monstrance on the corporal which lies on the throne.
In some churches he may have to go behind the altar and mount some steps there. When he has done this he genuflects again,¹ and comes back to his place.
The helpful footnote had disappeared by the Fortescue-O'Connell 10th edition of 1958.
[ 26. August 2012, 01:40: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
A reply within 13 minutes. And, by a host.
And a Methodist, no less!
eta: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 26. August 2012, 02:38: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
When communicants were numerous and extra priests were available, some Roman Catholic parishes minimized the time required for the Mass by beginning the administration of communion as early as the Epistle.
And to that effect, I have seen churches with more than one altar rail- The other a few feet past the first- So that two rails could be used by communicants at once. Even at my parish, the practice during easter, Christmas, and days when many people are expected is to have three or four priests all giving communion at the same time, criss-crossing past each other.
As to the shortness of masses, I found an old bulletin from a large church near where I used to live. It listed low masses a half hour from each other from 6 AM to 9, a high mass at 9, and two more low masses at 9:45 and 10:15. Even assuming it was non-communicating missa cantata and not a full high mass, 45 minutes sounds like breakneck speed, and I suppose something had to be ommited.
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In pre Vatican 2 days a weekday Mass could easily be celebrated in 20 minutes.
sincwe the priest (and the server) said everything in Latin and mainly in a monotone there was no problem with this.There wouldn't be any homily during the week and often there would be few communicants.At the early Masses Communion was often given out before the Mass as into the 60s communicants would come fasting from midnight or after the mid fifities for 3 hours before the reception of Communion.
However I don't remember anything being omitted,particularly as it was held to be very important to follow the rubrics to the letter (minus unintentional mistakes)
There also was not any lack of reverence.It was just the way things were done.I wish that people would stop oblique or direct castigation of Irish Roman Catholics who at least in the performance of the sacred liturgy were no worse and no better than anyone else.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
I think that whatever bits of the liturgy are not chanted should be said at the normal speech rhythm. This will, of course, vary from person to person, but there are few things that do more to destroy the pace of the liturgy than an officiant who speaks too slowly and with lots of 'meaningful' pauses. The intercessions are a particular and repeated offender in this regard. In fact, the intercessions are almost always too long and read too slowly. There is no reason why a low mass with neither hymns nor a homily should EVER last longer than 30 minutes. Overlong intercessions are, in my experience, the most likely reason for it to run over.
There are, however, times when going slowly can be very effective. Some priests (especially, it would seem, very young priests) say the words institution as though there were a full stop between each one: 'TAKE. EAT. THIS. IS. MY. BODY.' When accompanied by genuine reverence, this can be very edifying, even awe-inspiring, although I can see how it would degenerate into cheap theatrics if the genuine reverence weren't there.
[ 26. August 2012, 14:07: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Some priests (especially, it would seem, very young priests) say the words institution as though there were a full stop between each one: 'TAKE. EAT. THIS. IS. MY. BODY.' When accompanied by genuine reverence, this can be very edifying, even awe-inspiring, although I can see how it would degenerate into cheap theatrics if the genuine reverence weren't there.
Though if they were following Fortescue to the letter, these words would be inaudible.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems that the sanctus, as we now know it, doesn’t appear in the very earliest extant Eucharistic prayers. For example, it doesn’t appear in Hippolytus.
Except that it's not Hippolytus, is it?
I had a detailed reply about this all ready last night but deleted it for fear of appearing to be habitually sniping at leo, which really isn't my intention. It's just that we disagree so much on liturgics.
However, yes, I was amused by the irony of leo describing Gregory Dix as discredited and then in the very next breath citing one of the erroneous theories on which his "discredited" work was based.
The Shape of the Liturgy was and remains a great work and incredibly valuable today. However, as with any such work, it reflected the thought and assumptions of its day, many of which have been superseded by more recent discoveries and thought.
Dix' chapter on the eucharistic prayers includes a section on the early Roman tradition, focusing on a particular eucharistic prayer, which he attributes to St Hippolytus of Rome, following the general thought of his day. The problem is that citing this prayer is based on two assumptions: a) that the document in which the prayer was found in recent centuries was a document penned by St Hippolytus that was known about but not extant until its comparatively recent discovery, and b) that such a document ever existed in the first place. More recent scholarship has raised serious doubt about "b", and even if "be" were disproved, there is further question about whether the document is in keeping with what is known about the Roman liturgical tradition.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
...even if "be" were...
Um... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I wish that people would stop oblique or direct castigation of Irish Roman Catholics who at least in the performance of the sacred liturgy were no worse and no better than anyone else.
I hope you notice my appreciation of the RC mass I attended recently over on the One Up for the Catholics thread. I can't make a link work.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems that the sanctus, as we now know it, doesn’t appear in the very earliest extant Eucharistic prayers. For example, it doesn’t appear in Hippolytus.
Except that it's not Hippolytus, is it?
Dix' chapter on the eucharistic prayers includes a section on the early Roman tradition, focusing on a particular eucharistic prayer, which he attributes to St Hippolytus of Rome, following the general thought of his day. The problem is that citing this prayer is based on two assumptions: a) that the document in which the prayer was found in recent centuries was a document penned by St Hippolytus that was known about but not extant until its comparatively recent discovery, and b) that such a document ever existed in the first place. More recent scholarship has raised serious doubt about "b", and even if "be" were disproved, there is further question about whether the document is in keeping with what is known about the Roman liturgical tradition.
I meant to say something as well but I didn't want to start a tangent. From what I have read and been taught recently, the Apostolic tradition is a composite work from differing sources, with parts from the second century and parts from the 4th century. And likely, it presents Alexandrian practice and not Roman.
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Well Paul Bradshaw and his collaborators argue that it's sixth century West Syrian. Whatever, it isn't the ancient Roman prayer that we were all told it was.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
We do that at my parish during 40 hours devotion and vespers/benediction during advent and lent. The niche above the altar where the crucifix usually goes becomes the place of exposition. Two years ago during vespers one of the evenings during 40 hours, the officiant nearly did fall off the ladder while getting the monstrance down. Luckily, the MC caught him. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Catching falling rectors was NOT covered in my MC training. I am sorely vexed about the glaring deficiencies in our ceremonial! Should I bow before or after catching her, or is that merely the time for the liturgical invocation, "Holy Moly!"
(To which, of course, the congregation responds, "And also with you.")
I should mention that one of the criteria in becoming MC at my shack seems to be the ability not to freak out if the purificators are AWOL or the Intercessor disappeared after the Gospel hymn, but to proceed in an orderly fashion with hands folded to get whatever it is that is needed for the worship to continue. It's also our jobs to keep the other servers calm when that kind of thing happens, learn from the day, and move on with no recriminations or bitter pearl-clutching blamefests afterwards.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Can someone explain to a Baptist what Fortescue is? I gather it contains instructions for things like how a book should be orientated when placed on a credence (whatever that is) and the volume of a priest's voice. Is it a book of incredibly detailed instructions on how to follow a printed liturgy, then? Clothing, timings, hardware, actions, music, lighting, etc?
Who was Fortescue? What was his objective? What does it mean today if someone follows Fortescue? What are the alternatives? Percy's Parson's book has been mentioned. Is developing your own local style a respected option? Arethosemyfeet mentioned theological rationale, which seems a good thing to me, so does Fortescue explain why the edges of a books pages should be towards the altar (or whatever it was), or does he just give instructions?
(I'm aware that (S)pike couchant is a wind-up but I hadn't heard of Fortescue and I'm genuinely interested.)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I'm tempted to divert to this thread and define a fortescue [n] as a blunt instrument wielded by an imperious head server/MC/sacristan to ensure compliance with his (or more rarely her) whims.
But I understand 'Fortescue' in this context as meaning the Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described (have I got the title right?) by a certain Mr or Fr Fortescue which dates from the early years of the 20th century, later updated several times. And as you rightly infer, it is a meticulous guide to celebrating the liturgy of the (old, now 'Extraordinary' Roman Rite.) A tiny minority of Anglicans seem to have taken it as their handbook too, rather than simply using it as a general guide to liturgical principles. More commonly, Anglo-catholics of a Roman inclination have used their own Ritual Notes, which I suppose is a version of Fortescue adapted to the Prayer Book liturgy (as itself adapted/enriched from RC sources.) More purist 'Prayer Book Catholics' have turned to Percy Dearmer's [aka St or the Blessed Percy] Parson's Handbook.
Since the emergence of revised rites in both the Anglican and RC traditions, it has made more sense for the former to seek guidance from Catholic sources (for example Aidan Kavanagh), as the two traditions have converged to a large extent. But clearly the details are not identical. Nor are the theological presuppositions.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Can someone explain to a Baptist what Fortescue is?
I can try!
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I gather it contains instructions for things like how a book should be orientated when placed on a credence (whatever that is) and the volume of a priest's voice. Is it a book of incredibly detailed instructions on how to follow a printed liturgy, then? Clothing, timings, hardware, actions, music, lighting, etc?
[/QB]
Pretty much. Although Fortescue doesn't concern himself with church furnishings in much detail. His main focus is on ritual action.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Who was Fortescue?
I'm so glad you asked! I think that most people who know about his life would agree that Adrian Fortescue (1874 – 1923) was one of the most interesting men of his or any other age. The scion of a notable Recusant family, he studied in Rome and Austria where he distinguished himself as a brilliant scholar, receiving three doctoral degrees and reputedly learning 11 languages. His early career makes him sound a bit like Indiana Jones, including incidents where he shot an attacker in Anatolia and fended off another assailant with his bare hands in what is now Israel. The publication of his letter has revealed that he had a trenchant wit, with his favourite subjects being his fellow Catholics. One comic passage of his is too good not to reprint here:
quote:
[Some nuns] have given me a picture of a gentleman whom I recognise as that illustrious prelate the present incumbent of the Roman bishoprick: I am informed that if I look at it in the proper spirit it will give the pontifical blessing – a striking sight which I am naturally anxious to enjoy. Hitherto I have not succeeded in convincing it of my spiritual propriety. I have told it all the things that I think it would like to hear – that I am dead nuts on encyclicals, that ubi Petrus ibi the whole shew, that Roma locuta est (she never stops) nulla salus est (I hope I haven’t got this mixed); I have even said polite things about its fel. Rec. predecessors of the X and XV centuries; alas, in vain! It hasn’t once burst into: Sit nome Domini benedittumme [n.b. the deliberately mispelt Latin, which is probably an attempt to mimic the Pope's heavy Italian accent]
Fortescue is, however, almost certainly best known today for his work 'Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described'
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What was his objective?
I believe it was to make money, actually (for his parish, not himself, let me hasten to add!), but he also made a wealth of liturgical knowledge available to those without access to a small library of liturgical texts (all of them written in Latin).
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What does it mean today if someone follows Fortescue?
Generally speaking, that he or she adheres to the ceremonial norms of the Roman Rite as they existed at some point before the Second Vatican Council (the exact point varies depending on which edition is used).
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What are the alternatives? Percy's Parson's book has been mentioned.
For Anglicans, the most common alternatives would be 'Ritual Notes', which is very similar to Fortescue but simplified and aimed a specifically Anglican audience, and (as you mentioned) Percy Dearmer's 'Parson's Handbook', which is a somewhat idiosyncratic attempt to reconstruct English liturgy as it might have existed in the early years of the reign of Edward VI. Of the three, Dearmer has by far the strongest views and is the most entertaining to read. Personally, however, I find liturgy a la Dearmer to be rather dull: it's not the ceremonial of the Use of Sarum, but a highly simplified version thereof. Dearmer was obsessively keen to show that he was within the letter of the rubrics of the BCP, which can lend his ceremonial a rather staid quality when compared to Fortescue or Ritual Notes. This is not of particularly great relevance, however, as I don't think there is currently any parish in the world that follows all of Dearmer's advice, at least for regular services (his former parish of St Mary the Virgin, Primrose Hill, unsurprisingly comes the closest). Some of Dearmer's general principles were, however, very influential in English cathedrals amongst other places.
Besides these three, there are a plethora of other liturgical guides, but of these on GIRM (the guide to the modern Roman Rite) enjoys any great popularity.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Is developing your own local style a respected option?
That depends on what you mean by 'respected'. In theory, this is frowned upon. In practice, it is universally the case.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Arethosemyfeet mentioned theological rationale, which seems a good thing to me, so does Fortescue explain why the edges of a books pages should be towards the altar (or whatever it was), or does he just give instructions?
Fortescue is rigorously footnoted, but these citations usually refer to precedent and authoritative guides, rather than giving theological explanations. In actual fact, there really isn't a lot of apparent doctrinal reason for a lot of what is done in the liturgy, although some people will invent doctrinal explanations for everything.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
(I'm aware that (S)pike couchant is a wind-up but I hadn't heard of Fortescue and I'm genuinely interested.)
Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered, if I'm just a 'wind-up', but I thought your question was worth answering.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
I should perhaps mention that a preference for Fortescue is often associated with a baroque aesthetic ('Those were the days when that divine baroque./ Transformed our English altars and our ways' as Betjeman put it), for Martin Travers over Ninian Comper, as it were. Fortescue himself, however, designed his own vestments in a decidedly gothic style and outfitted his serving team in what appear to be surplices in the full English shape more associated with Percy Dearmer (yes, that is great man himself in the middle).
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Ven Bede indeed I read on another thread your description of an RC Mass which you attended recently in a 'back streets church' I thought it probably referred to a London suburb.I hadn't realised that it was an Irish church,but thanks very much for your encouraging words.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Well it was indeed in a London suburb, but Father clearly hailed from the Emerald Isle.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I should perhaps mention that a preference for Fortescue is often associated with a baroque aesthetic ('Those were the days when that divine baroque./ Transformed our English altars and our ways' as Betjeman put it), for Martin Travers over Ninian Comper, as it were. Fortescue himself, however, designed his own vestments in a decidedly gothic style and outfitted his serving team in what appear to be surplices in the full English shape more associated with Percy Dearmer (yes, that is great man himself in the middle).
I don't think I know what a baroque aesthetic is in this context. Telemann and Scarlatti come unhelpfully to mind. Travers and Comper don't mean a thing, either. Can Fortescue's style be summarised? Presumably it's more than a sort of historical re-enactment thing.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I should perhaps mention that a preference for Fortescue is often associated with a baroque aesthetic ('Those were the days when that divine baroque./ Transformed our English altars and our ways' as Betjeman put it), for Martin Travers over Ninian Comper, as it were. Fortescue himself, however, designed his own vestments in a decidedly gothic style and outfitted his serving team in what appear to be surplices in the full English shape more associated with Percy Dearmer (yes, that is great man himself in the middle).
I don't think I know what a baroque aesthetic is in this context. Telemann and Scarlatti come unhelpfully to mind. Travers and Comper don't mean a thing, either. Can Fortescue's style be summarised? Presumably it's more than a sort of historical re-enactment thing.
Okay, right. Travers and Comper were competing architects and designers of liturgical furnishings in the early part of the last century. They had very different styles:
Travers immitated the style of Baroque churches from Continental Europe whilst Comper took his inspiration from English and French churches of the High Middle Ages. There were sometimes practical reasons for choosing the Baroque over the Gothic: Travers' fees were, I believe, much smaller.
Sacred vestments also come in Gothic or Baroque styles. The main difference here is in the shape of the chasuble, which has changed considerably over time.
Despite what some people will try to tell you, there is absolutely no theological reason to prefer one style over the other. It is simply a matter of personal taste. Either style can be either lovely or horrible depending on its design and craftsmanship, and most Anglo-Catholic parishes will have vestments in both styles.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
In some cases, the style of vestments has been chosen to suit a particular church building. The "Gothic" shape, not surprisingly, seems at home in Gothic and Gothic Revival churches; the "Baroque" shape is appropriate not only in Baroque buildings, but also in those which which follow other variants of classical architecture, such as Renaissance and Georgian.
Among Anglicans in the period between the World Wars, the choice of style also depended on whether one's ideal was the pre-reformation church in northern Europe or the Roman Catholic Church as it emerged from the counter-reformation. The Baroque style appealed to "advanced" Anglo-Catholics precisely because it shocked people with Protestant sensibilities.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Why would anybody care about the shape of the chasuble, though? Does it signify something? Does it enable something?
Here's a brief, illustrated history of the fashions of the chasuble. The shape of the chasuble signified something about the perceptions where true tradition was to be found, in rather amusingly contradictory ways, as you can read at the link. The overarching (shape-independent...) spiritual tradition concerning the chasuble sees it as a symbol of charity. Hence the stole, symbol of priestly authority, should be worn beneath the chasuble - so that charity always covers authority. In the traditional vesting prayers the chasuble is associated with the "yoke of Christ".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Hosting
Given that the OP has been responded to (to the extent it could be); and given that this thread keeps sprouting tangents despite hostly admonitions, it's being closed.
If there's further discussion to be had on the topic of chasubles, please take it to The Tatler.
Thank you.
Mamacita, Eccles Host
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
