Ship of Fools: Anglicans in Fiddlebacks

Thread: Anglicans in Fiddlebacks 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=027827

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I thought about posting this in the random questions thread, but I was hoping for more of a discussion than a simple yes/no answer. Not that there ever really IS a simple yes/no answer in Eccles....

I've done a bit of reading, and I'm under the impression that the Church of England in the 19th Century was a place where ritualism, and attendant vestments, were viewed with suspicion or outright dislike in many quarters. If memory serves, a bishop (+London?) was brought up on charges sometime around 1875 because of this.

By the 1950s in the RCC, the gothic chasuble had begun making a comeback. Wikipedia reports that there is a photograph of Pope Pius XI wearing one in about 1930.

Sometime in the 75 years between those two dates, many in the CofE began to use chasubles. My questions are fourfold:

When did the tide begin to turn in favor of chasubles in general? What caused the shift?
When did priests and bishops in the CofE begin adopting the Gothic chasuble that is so popular today?
Was the fiddleback ever commonly used in the CofE?
What was happening in PECUSA (TEC) during that same timeframe? Were the Americans following a similar road with vestments, or was their experience different from the CofE?

I realize that Google may well hold many answers, but I'm having a hard time figuring out search parameters. Besides, I feel like you all have read things that won't necessarily show up in a web search.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

It was + Lincoln.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

I speak from the American side of the pond, though I am fairly well-read concerning the details of ritualism on both sides of the pond. It is true that Mass vestments, especially the chasuble, were viewed with suspicion within Anglicanism when they first starting appearing in any discernible numbers in the 1870s on both sides of the Atlantic. For several decades, especially in England, it was priests who wore them, and almost never bishops, who were keen to distance themselves from such spectacles.

The early liturgical movement began to take hold, and use of chasubles, along with other liturgical accoutrements, continued to spread very gradually. The establishment of Anglican religious orders for men around the turn of the last century was certainly a factor in all of this, as they nearly always wore Mass vestments. The publication of the first edition of the English Missal (the so-called Knott Missal) in 1912 pushed the envelope further. But it was after World War I, when Anglo-Catholicism is said to have had its finest hour in the 1920s and 1930s, when vestments began to be seen as not only the province of Anglo-Catholic extremists, but of portions of the wider church. The parish communion movement of the same period also assisted in this regard, particularly since it was not exclusively associated with ACs.

However, in many areas on both sides of the pond, it was not until after the Second World War II that chasubles began to be seen regularly, and for some, not until the liturgical reforms of the 1970s and 1980s, when the Eucharist finally displaced Morning Prayer as the principal Sunday celebration in most parishes.

Fiddlebacks were/are generally regarded as a characteristic of Anglo-Papalists, though I have seen a handful of non-AP parishes use them in the hot summer months, where there is no air conditioning.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
... both sides of the Atlantic ...

Ahem.

Just sayin'.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
... both sides of the Atlantic ...
Ahem. Just sayin'.

Perhaps you will have to write a book about the antipodean differences..."My piscina drains differently" or something like that. [Razz]

I heard of a Lutheran liturgical expert who took a sabbatical in Australia for just that purpose, but I heard this years ago, and have yet to see a book!

[ 25. December 2013, 03:26: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

I find the whole vestments question (in the CofE) fascinating and began a thread earlier this year on the scope and historical thread. Several people have described some regional variation, and it seems that Chasubles were in use in London among non Anglo Catholics relatively earlier.

My own suburban London parish was MOTR with Matins as the main service and said services of HC at 8am and 12.15, but even here chasubles were used from the early 1920s -and the new building in 1932 had an Aumbry. Monthly sung communion was only established in the mid 1960s.

Worth adding that there was a clarification of the law in 1964 (I think) which established that no particular doctrinal significance could be drawn from vesture, which presumably made them more palatable to some who had resisted the move. Today they are the norm in all the churches around me.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Fiddleback, sigh, weep, sigh.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that fiddlebacks accompanied the general interest in a more Romewards ACism in the early 20th Century, possibly 1920s. Same time as the Knott Missal began appearing...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Fiddleback, sigh, weep, sigh.

Ugly and unEnglish - like cottas. Sell them to a fancy dress shop.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

In more decades than I wish to count, I have been attending a wide variety of Anglican services, variously vested, and have only twice seen fiddlebacks at work. On both occasions, the cleric involved, of an artistic bent, had purchased them from a post-Vatican II sell-off of Spanish and French vestments. I understand that there are a few Canadian parishes which have them on stock, but I do not think that they get much use. I think that they work better in warmer climates.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
"My piscina drains differently" or something like that

oooh ... now you've got me thinking .... alas I have no piscina, though [Waterworks]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Why did Roman Catholic priests - in all parts of the world - largely switch from fiddleback to gothic chasubles? What did the gothic chasubles represent to them? At what point did wearing a fiddleback chasuble in the RCC start having the connotation of being reactionary?

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

For some entertaining insights into the revival of vestments in the CofE (and much other good stuff) I can recommend Dom Anselm Hughes' 'The Rivers of the Flood,' wherein may be found his personal history and reactions to events in the early 20th century.
There are also a number of excellent pix.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

Even better than that, if you can find it, is 'Fashions in Church Furnishing' by Peter Anson. Fascinating!

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Oh good, book suggestions. Thanks, I'll locate them.

I have a couple follow-up questions, but I am making merry with my in-laws so I'll have to come back to it later.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why did Roman Catholic priests - in all parts of the world - largely switch from fiddleback to gothic chasubles? What did the gothic chasubles represent to them? At what point did wearing a fiddleback chasuble in the RCC start having the connotation of being reactionary?

This was a change that built up gradually from the turn of the last century and continued through the 1960s. Up until the 20th century, fiddlebacks had been the norm in most places for several centuries, but gothic chasubles had never completely disappeared. Like all such shifts, some influential priests--more likely bishops--wear a specific style, then others gradually imitate them, especially if a renowned figure does so. The advent of photography had much to do with this, because now pictures of vested prelates and other celebrants would at least occasionally be seen. Another a very large force at work in the 20th century shift was the emergence of church supply houses, especially in North America and Europe.

These companies began to multiply after World War I, and the modern catalogue containing photos of prefabricated vestments and associated vestment kits began to appear, just as catalogues did in the secular world. This created the beginnings of evolving styles of Mass vestments and other church articles that, like in the secular world, could be manipulated by commercial interests, whereas previously vestment styles had evolved naturally and very slowly over centuries. The liturgical movement had started in the late 1800s, and St. Pius X in the early 20th century recognized that movement, so there was much talk of earlier practices and liturgical styles. The church supply houses picked up on this, seeing the opportunity to use the movement's discussions to their advantage. From the 1920s to 1960s, one saw a continued shift toward gothic chasubles. Bishop Fulton Sheen's famous book This Is The Mass in the late 1950s had beautiful color photos of His Excellency celebrating each part of the Mass, while wearing a lovely gothic chasuble. This certainly helped the gothic style rebound, as Bishop Sheen was very widely loved in the US, even among non-Catholics, due to his long-running popular radio and TV programs (though he never appeared in Mass vestments for these).

When the liturgical reforms began in the mid-sixties, the shift completed. At that point, since gothic style had already been rising for decades, it took on the meaning of progressive liturgical reform. Since many parishes still had Roman fiddleback vestments in their closets, these almost immediately came to symbolize the old Latin Mass and traditional devotions, and the gothic became associated with the "new Mass." Again, church suppliers were a huge part of this, because by that time they produced full-color catalogues that extolled the use of contemporary style of vestments. Sure, one could still get cloth-of-gold vestments with orphreys and sacred images for those high feast days, but these were outnumbered in the catalogues four to one by new, often polyester, modern chazzies, with wheat grains, grapes, modern art depictions and the like. These became the symbol of the reformed liturgy, and fiddlebacks were finally put out to pasture in most places. Ditto for most traditional church furnishings. As more and more new parish churches were being constructed in the sunbelt and far western states in the sixties and seventies, they needed new, modern-looking vestments and church furnishings for their new, modern-looking buildings in the suburbs.

Ironically, as the traditional Latin Mass began to reappear, first very gradually, then increasingly in more dioceses, the same church suppliers were on it. In the mid-nineties they began to offer limited numbers of fiddleback vestment sets again, though usually at very high cost. But as the number of such Masses increased through the next decade, followed by Pope Benedict's freeing up restrictions on the old rite in 2007, boom! The prices went down and selections went up. Fiddlebacks are obviously not mainstream again, but they are easily available, including on eBay. Market segmentation, as in the secular world, now guarantees that they are available to those who want them. Even the styles of gothic vestments have been gradually moving away from some of the sixties and seventies styles and become more ornate. Not surprisingly, many of the merchants who offer these at more affordable rates are in Asia.

Sorry to provide such a cynical-sounding narrative of commercialism, but these companies have been influential trend-setters, especially in the middle and late twentieth centuries.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I can't say how widely fiddlebacks have ever been used in our neck of the C of E woods, but we do have a white/gold example in our sacristy cupboard. I have seen it used (Easter 2009 IIRC), but we currently have a full set of gothic High Mass vestments. IMHO, the fiddleback is a most unsightly and attenuated thing - probably causing the Baby Jesus to cry - and I'm glad we don't use it any more. YMMV, of course!

Ian J.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Isn't 'fiddleback' more a type of chasuble found
in certain parts of the Anglican church ? I've seen once in a museum a medieval 'fiddleback' chasuble where both the back as well as the front of the chasuble had the shape of a fiddle.
Generally speaking the 'Roman' chasuble has a 'fiddlefront' and a straight back.For more important days the form of the chasuble was often of heavier material so that it would hold its shape.Ceremoniar has explained some of the reasons for the change from 'Roman' to 'Gothic' chasuble within the RC church.The only time I have seen a real 'fiddleback' chasuble was in an Anglican church in York.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Isn't 'fiddleback' more a type of chasuble found
in certain parts of the Anglican church ?

For some Anglo-Papalists certainly, in a dramatic triumph of ideology over good taste, fiddlebacks are very much a party badge or shibboleth. You're right about the name, in a sense: it's the front of the chasuble which resembles (the back of) a fiddle. Viewed from behind as they traditionally would be, they often hang down more or less straight.

Here in Canada, I have seen them used at Low Masses at St Mary Magdalene's in Toronto and at St John the Evangelist in Montréal (as well as on occasions at the latter when we can't summon a deacon and must content ourselves with a Sung Mass).

[ 27. December 2013, 12:54: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I actually like how fiddle-backs look, apart from whatever connotations people choose to associate with them.

Sorry.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
This was a change that built up gradually from the turn of the last century and continued through the 1960s. Up until the 20th century, fiddlebacks had been the norm in most places for several centuries, but gothic chasubles had never completely disappeared. Like all such shifts, some influential priests--more likely bishops--wear a specific style, then others gradually imitate them, especially if a renowned figure does so. The advent of photography had much to do with this, because now pictures of vested prelates and other celebrants would at least occasionally be seen. Another a very large force at work in the 20th century shift was the emergence of church supply houses, especially in North America and Europe.

When the liturgical reforms began in the mid-sixties, the shift completed. At that point, since gothic style had already been rising for decades, it took on the meaning of progressive liturgical reform. Since many parishes still had Roman fiddleback vestments in their closets, these almost immediately came to symbolize the old Latin Mass and traditional devotions, and the gothic became associated with the "new Mass." Again, church suppliers were a huge part of this, because by that time they produced full-color catalogues that extolled the use of contemporary style of vestments. Sure, one could still get cloth-of-gold vestments with orphreys and sacred images for those high feast days, but these were outnumbered in the catalogues four to one by new, often polyester, modern chazzies, with wheat grains, grapes, modern art depictions and the like. These became the symbol of the reformed liturgy, and fiddlebacks were finally put out to pasture in most places. Ditto for most traditional church furnishings. As more and more new parish churches were being constructed in the sunbelt and far western states in the sixties and seventies, they needed new, modern-looking vestments and church furnishings for their new, modern-looking buildings in the suburbs.

Why did the fiddleback become so universal in the Roman Catholic Church in the first place? Just because the Council of Trent standardized liturgical texts and rubrics for the Roman Rite didn't mean vestment styles were mandated by law (or where they?). With a global church wouldn't there have been some regional variation in the shape of vestments even before mass production and the rise of commercial church supply companies and catalogs?

I understand the business and politics of the shift in vestments that occurred in the mid-20th century, but I do not understand the aesthetics or liturgical scholarship of it.

Why did the Liturgical Movement argue that gothic chasubles were better? Just because they were older? Does anyone have any idea what vestments, if any, were worn in the first centuries of Christianity and what they looked like?

Did anyone think fiddlebacks were ugly in the centuries in which they were almost universally used in the RCC? I don't like the look of them much (although I understand they could be comfortable in hot weather). But it seems odd that from Trent to the 20th century no changes seem to have occurred in taste regarding the shape of chasubles in the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Chasubles were common articles of clothing in the early centuries of the Church, so Christian clergy would not have been identifiable by them. Their appearance and use as liturgical vestments is, on the other hand, is well documented.

Basilica of Saint Vitale, 548

The Basilica of Saint Apollinaris, 549

The square yokes, lack of Christian symbolism, and stoles worn outside the chasuble are all notable.

[ 27. December 2013, 14:44: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Chasubles were common articles of clothing in the early centuries of the Church, so Christian clergy would not have been identifiable by them. Their appearance and use as liturgical vestments is, on the other hand, is well documented.

Basilica of Saint Vitale, 548

The Basilica of Saint Apollinaris, 549

The square yokes, lack of Christian symbolism, and stoles worn outside the chasuble are all notable.

I'm not sure either of those are wearing a stole over their chasuble!

It looks more like a pallium to me?

T

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The Rector of St Margaret Lothbury in the City of London wore a white and gold fiddleback chasuble this Christmas. I have seen photographs.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I actually like how fiddle-backs look, apart from whatever connotations people choose to associate with them.

They're not all created equal. My previous parish houses a rather lovely art nouveau one, which the vicar wore to celebrate this year's missal Mass at the University of Trinity College.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why did the fiddleback become so universal in the Roman Catholic Church in the first place? Just because the Council of Trent standardized liturgical texts and rubrics for the Roman Rite didn't mean vestment styles were mandated by law (or where they?). With a global church wouldn't there have been some regional variation in the shape of vestments even before mass production and the rise of commercial church supply companies and catalogs?

I understand the business and politics of the shift in vestments that occurred in the mid-20th century, but I do not understand the aesthetics or liturgical scholarship of it.

Why did the Liturgical Movement argue that gothic chasubles were better? Just because they were older? Does anyone have any idea what vestments, if any, were worn in the first centuries of Christianity and what they looked like?

Did anyone think fiddlebacks were ugly in the centuries in which they were almost universally used in the RCC? I don't like the look of them much (although I understand they could be comfortable in hot weather). But it seems odd that from Trent to the 20th century no changes seem to have occurred in taste regarding the shape of chasubles in the Roman Catholic Church.

Taking the last point first, this is the most identifying characteristic of the Tridentine Church, i.e., how so little changed in four centuries. One of the things, for better or worse, that the Council of Trent was trying to accomplish was uniformity, which was felt to be the best response to the growing Protestant Reformation. Much of it, liturgically and catechetically, was set in stone by the council's decrees and those of St. Pius V in the immediate aftermath. Putting aside the discussion of whether or not this was the best course of action (I personally think that it was, given the time and circumstances), the reality and expectation was that what was the situation in Rome at the time was simply made the norm for all Western parishes. The printing press made the publishing of liturgical books and other conciliar decrees possible on a large scale.

Many things were not specifically legislated by edict, and fiddleback vestments were such a matter. However, one sees again that the then-current Roman style became the norm everywhere. The reason for the shift was practical. Medieval chazzies had generally become quite large and heavy. This is the reason that the altar boy (or deacon at Solemn Mass) lifts the bottom of the chasuble at the elevation--to make it easier for the priest to raise the Most Holy. Like so many points of liturgical ceremonial, a practical movement later became imbued with allegorical and symbolic significance. A response to these heavy vestments was the fiddleback chasuble, which was much lighter and easier to handle. However, the by-then symbolically-invested (pun intended) lifting of the chasuble remained, even after it no longer had any practical necessity. This was the condition at Rome in the late 16th century, and it became the norm throughout the Western Church for reasons explained above. Fiddlebacks were also much easier to fold and transport, so missionaries and priests who had to celebrate secretly found them quite useful.

Naturally, there were some variations, and we are told that the gothic chazzie never died out completely, making its return a little easier. The Liturgical Movement did make use of them a good deal--though there was no organized or official position in this regard--simply because it seemed to emphasize the historical aspects of the Mass, as opposed to the Tridentine.

As far as which style is more aesthetically pleasing, I have no preference. My EF parish uses fiddlebacks almost exclusively, but I can say that it completely depends on the set. I have seen fiddlebacks that are lovely and others that have no sacred insignia on them, only floral designs. Certainly I have seen many ugly gothic sets over the past four decades, while others are positively equisite. The shape matters not to me.

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :

quote:
The Rector of St Margaret Lothbury in the City of London wore a white and gold fiddleback chasuble this Christmas. I have seen photographs.

Jeremy?!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:

quote:
The Rector of St Margaret Lothbury in the City of London wore a white and gold fiddleback chasuble this Christmas. I have seen photographs.
Jeremy?!

That would have been worth seeing!!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Fiddleback sighting at 8.30 am, with crossed stole.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Isn't 'fiddleback' more a type of chasuble found
in certain parts of the Anglican church ? I've seen once in a museum a medieval 'fiddleback' chasuble where both the back as well as the front of the chasuble had the shape of a fiddle.
Generally speaking the 'Roman' chasuble has a 'fiddlefront' and a straight back.For more important days the form of the chasuble was often of heavier material so that it would hold its shape.Ceremoniar has explained some of the reasons for the change from 'Roman' to 'Gothic' chasuble within the RC church.The only time I have seen a real 'fiddleback' chasuble was in an Anglican church in York.

I made a complete Tridentine Mass Set, complete with fiddleback chasuble and all the trimmings, for my former priest.

The term relates the overall shape of the chasuble to the back of a fiddle, not the back of the chasuble to a fiddle. The chasuble cannot look like the front of a fiddle without sticking strings and a wooden stick on it. Not the best look for a priest, tbh.

While making it I learned that there are many different styles; Spanish, French, Italian etc. The one I made was based on Spanish, with some modifications. Beyond that is far too erudite for me to comment on further; the differences are in the neckline, the curvature of the sides and other stuff.

As I understand it, the fiddleback is valued for its extreme non conformity. If the CofE were to make fiddlebacks compulsory for all clergy, I suspect this particular priest would immediately revert to Gothic. You really have to love Anglo Catholic priests.

[ 29. December 2013, 14:24: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

According to the Watts & Co site,

quote:
Watts & Co’s most important projects of the nineteenth century included the first vestments worn since the Reformation at both Westminster Abbey – for Queen Victoria’s jubilee in 1887 – and at St Paul’s Cathedral, again for the Queen’s jubilee celebrations in 1897

Which rather suggests that vestments were being worn in London from the late 1890s. I've seen Watts & Co vestments that date to earlier than the 1920s. (Not sure if the fiddleback is a Watts & Co creation.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I think that the 'vestments' were more likely to be copes than chasubles.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

G F Bodley, one of the founders of Watts and Co, designed chasubles and copes for the churches he designed. He died in 1907. It would be a bit difficult for him to be designing them in the 1920s.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:

quote:
The Rector of St Margaret Lothbury in the City of London wore a white and gold fiddleback chasuble this Christmas. I have seen photographs.
Jeremy?!

This is their customary house style

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:

quote:
The Rector of St Margaret Lothbury in the City of London wore a white and gold fiddleback chasuble this Christmas. I have seen photographs.
Jeremy?!

This is their customary house style

This is for the Wednesday informal prayer service. At the Tuesday BCP Communion robes are worn.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

In addition to proclaiming their loyalty to "Modern Western" (rather than Sarum) use, there is another reason why some Anglican priests choose chasubles of the "fiddleback" or "Roman" shape. They officiate in churches of Classical design (whether Renaissance, Baroque, or some other variant) and think that chasubles of the Counter-reformation shape are more in keeping with the architectural setting in which they are used. In such churches, the "Gothic" shape certainly seems anachronistic.

As an aside, many of the surviving Medieval chasubles now seen in museums were cut down at some point to bring their shape up to date while saving their valuable embroidery.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
In addition to proclaiming their loyalty to "Modern Western" (rather than Sarum) use

"traditional" Western, surely. Having grown up with the modern Roman Rite I certainly wouldn't call fiddlebacks particularly characteristic thereof.

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
In such churches, the "Gothic" shape certainly seems anachronistic.

Hmm. I'm not sure about this. ISTM there's a limit to which one can bend to "fit" the architecture. If S. Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge, can pull off the pre-Pian floor show in a Wren church with the Decalogue and Creed engraved in the reredos, I don't think a fulsome chasuble is too much of an additional stretch.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

I put "Modern Western" in quotes because it was often used in the 1920's, when the dispute among Anglo-Catholics about liturgy in general and vestments in particular was at its peak. A great many vestments for which that expression might be used today seem to have been designed to advertise their wearers' indifference to beauty. In my opinion, any chasuble limp enough (and cheap enough) to be stored on a coat hanger is a vestment to be avoided.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
In addition to proclaiming their loyalty to "Modern Western" (rather than Sarum) use, there is another reason why some Anglican priests choose chasubles of the "fiddleback" or "Roman" shape. They officiate in churches of Classical design (whether Renaissance, Baroque, or some other variant) and think that chasubles of the Counter-reformation shape are more in keeping with the architectural setting in which they are used. In such churches, the "Gothic" shape certainly seems anachronistic. ...

This sounds a bit like choosing one's clothes to match the curtains. [Razz]

Posted by ardmacha (# 16499) on :

Surely the baroque style sent out a visual message of Roman doctrine /extreme outlook.The latin chasuble was a party badge rather than an aesthetic or "furnishing" statement. I imagine that in the 1910-1965 period that those who wore Roman shaped vestments were saying that they were Papalist in both liturgy and doctrine. Just as there was a Rome-ward movement in the Anglo-Catholic movement (see Michael Yelton's ANGLICAN PAPALISM) so there was a Roman Catholic anglicising movement, with many Gothic vestments, apparels on albs, riddle post altars, Sung Vespers (instead of the usual Rosary,sermon and Benediction). Much of this overlapped with the continental and Benedictine inspired Liturgical movement. Eve way back in the mid 19th century Dom Gueranger was encouraging Gothis vestments at Solesmes.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Come to think of it, I've also seen an Anglican priest in a fiddleback at an outdoor celebration for Sea Sunday. I suspect it's as likely to be a visual indicator of the weather as of churchmanship!

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Chasubles were common articles of clothing in the early centuries of the Church, so Christian clergy would not have been identifiable by them. Their appearance and use as liturgical vestments is, on the other hand, is well documented.

Basilica of Saint Vitale, 548

The Basilica of Saint Apollinaris, 549

The square yokes, lack of Christian symbolism, and stoles worn outside the chasuble are all notable.
I'm not sure either of those are wearing a stole over their chasuble!

It looks more like a pallium to me?

T

Yep, those are palliums (or pallia if my Latin still serves me).

[ 04. January 2014, 10:01: Message edited by: NatDogg ]

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

I was vested in a fiddle back at my ordination. Few people had seen them, though to be honest, they are quite a bit more comfortable in hot weather which is what I guess is why they were invented in the first place.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I was vested in a fiddle back at my ordination. Few people had seen them, though to be honest, they are quite a bit more comfortable in hot weather which is what I guess is why they were invented in the first place.

Close: it's easier to do various liturgical things, like elevating the Host, if one's arms aren't encumbered by heavy brocade, so the more ample 'Gothic' chasuble was gradually cut down to the "strange and undignified stiff little vestment" so hated by Dearmer.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

I agree with Vade Mecum on the practical advantages of fiddleback chasubles. A priest wearing such a chasuble is less likely to accidentally upset the chalice. It is to be noted that nineteenth-century "Gothic Revival" chasubles did not extend as far down the celebrant's arms as their Medieval prototypes did. The same can be said of many of today's "full-cut" vestments.

One likely reason for the abandonment of the fuller form of the chasuble was the increasing splendor of the textiles from which they were made. Rich velvets and brocades were inherently heavy and stiff, and the addition of elaborate embroidery and appliques made them still heavier and stiffer. Vestments made form such fabrics also required two additional layers of cloth: a smooth lining to make it easier to don and remove the garment, and a sturdy interlining to support the weight of the embroidery. Such three-layer textile sandwiches could never fall in graceful folds. They looked much better when hanging nearly flat, and the abbreviated form of chasuble allowed them to do precisely that.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
it's easier to do various liturgical things, like elevating the Host, if one's arms aren't encumbered by heavy brocade,

Bingo. Perhaps I'm mistaken, not having studied the matter nearly as much as others here; but it seems to me that the fiddleback chasuble, in facilitating the elevation, connotes the importance of this gesture, and therefore an explicit affirmation of the Roman Catholic teaching as to when consecration occurs and its significance.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
I agree with Vade Mecum on the practical advantages of fiddleback chasubles. A priest wearing such a chasuble is less likely to accidentally upset the chalice.

But the sort who advocate fiddlebacks tend to advocate maniples too.

if you've ever worn a maniple, you'll know how dangerous they can be.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
I agree with Vade Mecum on the practical advantages of fiddleback chasubles. A priest wearing such a chasuble is less likely to accidentally upset the chalice.
But the sort who advocate fiddlebacks tend to advocate maniples too.

if you've ever worn a maniple, you'll know how dangerous they can be.

There are such things as 'Gothic' maniples, of course. Cf any picture of a mediaeval Mass. IIRC, Deamer thought that the 'Gothic' maniple (or fanon, as he insists on calling it) was easier to wear, being longer; but he's wrong about lots of things. In any case I've never seen a mishap.

As for likelihood, I've seen both Roman and 'Gothic' chasubles worn without maniples, and would probably say that, within AC circles at least, wearing a Roman chasuble is no marker of likelihood to wear a maniple (and have even seen otherwise very sound priests refuse them because they find them awkward): perhaps the deciding factor is to ask whether a 'Gothic' chasuble is being worn in conformance to a)Liturgical archaeologism, or b) The Spirit of Vatican II/The Liturgical Movement. Maniples are, I feel, more, likely in the former scenario, and unheard of in the latter.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

But maniples are still likely to trip something up.
speaking as an erstwhile maniple (relunctantly) wearer who once rescued 3 chalices at an Edington High Mass and who lives to tell the tale.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But maniples are still likely to trip something up.
speaking as an erstwhile maniple (relunctantly) wearer who once rescued 3 chalices at an Edington High Mass and who lives to tell the tale.

It would have to be a fairly flimsy chalice to be knocked over by a strip of silk (however lovingly - and heavily - embroidered with scenes from the life of Our Lady by the Broderers' Guild), no? Surely the answer is just to use more ornate baroque plate at the altar? [Big Grin]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Speaking from experience, if you are even a little bit keck-handed, you can knock anything over. So I'm with Leo on this.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Fiddleback, sigh, weep, sigh.
Ugly and unEnglish - like cottas. Sell them to a fancy dress shop.

My sentiments exactly. (Even outside England, they are still ugly. My humble opinion of course!)

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Fiddlebacks are not designed to be seen from the front and look silly when worn at a westward facing celebration. But then most people who prefer them prefer ad orientem anyway.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Fiddleback, sigh, weep, sigh.
Ugly and unEnglish - like cottas. Sell them to a fancy dress shop.
My sentiments exactly. (Even outside England, they are still ugly. My humble opinion of course!)

Ugly is in the eye of the sacristan, of course, but the idea that they are un-English is ridiculous: there is nothing specifically English about Gothic chasubles either. Had we not left off wearing Mass vestments in the 16thC, the fiddleback would have been widely used here too, just as the Gothic was on the continent. And when Mass vestments were reintroduced, both types were used. The blasted/blessed Percy is responsible for the idea that there is something foreign about them, and he is Wrong About Almost Everything. He also says that lace is unmanly, which as bare a nineteenth century anachronism as I care not to see.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

You blaspheme the name of the Most Blessed Perse!

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You blaspheme the name of the Most Blessed Perse!

Here I stand, I can do no other!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Though, apparently, Luther never said that!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Not in that context, certainly.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Nor any other. It was invented by Roland Bainton because it made a snappy title for his book.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Nor any other. It was invented by Roland Bainton because it made a snappy title for his book.

It's inscribed on the Luther Monument at Worms, which was erected in 1868--a good 36 years before Bainton's birth in 1894.

Luther may indeed have never said it. But the myth (if myth it be) predates the 20th century.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

When Luther was called upon at the Diet of Worms to retract his opinions, he said :Da.. mein Gewissen in den Worten Gottes gefangen ist,ich kann und will nichts widerrufen,weil es gefaehrlich und unmoeglich ist,etwas gegen das Gewissen zu tun. (Since my conscience is bound up in the Word of God,I cannot and will not retract anything,since it is dangerous and impossible to go against one's conscience).
Just as the various Gospel writers recorded the words of Jesus in slightly different ways,this became in popular language: Hier stehe ich,ich kann nicht anders.Gott helfe mir.Amen (Here I stand,I cannot do otherwise.God help me. Amen)
These words were put upon the monumental statue of Luther which now stands (fittingly) in front of the venerable Catholic cathedral in Worms.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0