Topic: Western vestments - lace cottas and more

[SubdeaconDavid]

Celtic purists who favour a revival of Sarum inspired or Sarum recreated vestments frown at lace cottas and and lace trimmed albs.  Why the dislike of what has been normative in Western Latin Christendom, and why not wear lace albs, plain linen amice, lace edged cottas or surplices, zucchettos (whioch I think pre-date the Schism) and birettas which are culturally resonant with what Western Christians would see a priest in? Can we definitively say that there was no lace before the Great Schism of the Western Church, or that there is anything intrinsically wrong in using lace now, even if it was not around before the Schism.  After all, we drive cars and use electricity.

[Christopher McAvoy]

The use of lace is most likely personal opinion rather than something officially disparaged or officially encouraged.
Lace was similar to gold in the past, very expensive and a sign of adorning in your best for praising God.
I believe many people can be uncomfortable with lace because they remind them of curtains or tablecloths, particularly in their ornateness. Another reason some are uncomfortable is that it has become associated solely with feminine tastes and fashion during the 20th century. That is a view that should be dispelled for historical reasons, as no one would want to be thought of as having gender confusion.

In smaller quantities, lace rarely gains criticism, the greater the quantity, the greater ornateness the more it gains either unwanted criticism or wanted admiration.

A more practical reasons why Orthodox western rites of today may prefer avoiding very much lace is that it does not necessarily go as well with earlier styles of vestments. It may seem to be a bit of a fashion clash. My opinion is that in smaller quantities no one care if lace is used and it may complement nicely the vestments, but that in larger quantities it becomes overly exotic That is only my opinion, which is very unimportant. I doubt this is a matter that anyone concerns oneself with very often.

This recent example of a 17th c. lace paramet is an lesser known method of using lace that I found appealing.

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2012/06/17th-century-lace-paraments.html


According to wikipedia:

"True lace was not made until the late 15th and early 16th centuries. A true lace is created when a thread is looped, twisted or braided to other threads independently from a backing fabric.

Objects resembling lace bobbins have been found in Roman remains, but there are no records of Roman lace-making. Lace was used by clergy of the early Catholic Church as part of vestments in religious ceremonies, but did not come into widespread use until the 16th century in northwestern part of the European continent.[3] The popularity of lace increased rapidly and the cottage industry of lace making spread throughout Europe. "

I know that part of the popularity of lace stems from the fact that both wealthier men and women of western europe used it in their clothing commonly by the end of the 16th c. see these two pictures :

http://www.featurepics.com/online/Thomas-Woodstock-Duke-Gloucester-1487067.aspx
http://www.featurepics.com/online/Francis-Bacon-1560067.aspx

[kijabeboy03]

I'm no liturgist, but I don't see the issue with the later ("fiddleback") vestments - they don't get in the way the way the older, more voluminous vestments do, and the overall style (between the adornment, the lace, et cetera) is beautiful - what's to object to? If it enhances the worship of God I don't see the issue...

[SubdeaconDavid]

I'm no liturgist, but I don't see the issue with the later ("fiddleback") vestments - they don't get in the way the way the older, more voluminous vestments do, and the overall style (between the adornment, the lace, et cetera) is beautiful - what's to object to? If it enhances the worship of God I don't see the issue...

I agree.  Lace and fiddleback  chasubles are arguably better than speculative recreations of pre-Schism styles especially ye olde Sarum

[kijabeboy03]

I don't have an issue with the older forms (they're preserved in Western Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism if I'm not mistaken), but I don't see why fans of either have to be down on the other :-). 'All we are saying...is give peace a chance...' ;-)

I'm no liturgist, but I don't see the issue with the later ("fiddleback") vestments - they don't get in the way the way the older, more voluminous vestments do, and the overall style (between the adornment, the lace, et cetera) is beautiful - what's to object to? If it enhances the worship of God I don't see the issue...

I agree.  Lace and fiddleback  chasubles are arguably better than speculative recreations of pre-Schism styles especially ye olde Sarum

[FatherGiryus]

Well, there's 'lace' and then there's 'lacy lace.'  Most of the lace stuff I see in church supply catalogs I would never, ever wear because, frankly, it does look effeminate.  No amount of historical accuracy can overcome modern taste.

That being said, I have several old nautical ropework books that include instructions on "sailor's lace" which is not all that girly and was designed to secure unhemmed fabric edges.  I think it would be more in keeping with modern tastes, though it would require 'homespun' fabrics to execute, rather than 200-thread-count cottons and the like we have nowadays (unless you have lots of patience and really good eyesight).

I have a rule: if an 80-year-old woman loves it, I'm not wearing it.

[kijabeboy03]

Yes, the American male's current paranoia about such things is well documented...

Well, there's 'lace' and then there's 'lacy lace.'  Most of the lace stuff I see in church supply catalogs I would never, ever wear because, frankly, it does look effeminate.  No amount of historical accuracy can overcome modern taste.

That being said, I have several old nautical ropework books that include instructions on "sailor's lace" which is not all that girly and was designed to secure unhemmed fabric edges.  I think it would be more in keeping with modern tastes, though it would require 'homespun' fabrics to execute, rather than 200-thread-count cottons and the like we have nowadays (unless you have lots of patience and really good eyesight).

I have a rule: if an 80-year-old woman loves it, I'm not wearing it.

[FatherGiryus]

So, it is 'paranoia' to not want to dress as a woman?   

You want real paranoia by that standard, try Japan: a businessman who doesn't use the same knot as his coworkers for tying his tie is considered 'disloyal.'  Now, that's 'paranoia.'   

Yes, the American male's current paranoia about such things is well documented...

Well, there's 'lace' and then there's 'lacy lace.'  Most of the lace stuff I see in church supply catalogs I would never, ever wear because, frankly, it does look effeminate.  No amount of historical accuracy can overcome modern taste.

That being said, I have several old nautical ropework books that include instructions on "sailor's lace" which is not all that girly and was designed to secure unhemmed fabric edges.  I think it would be more in keeping with modern tastes, though it would require 'homespun' fabrics to execute, rather than 200-thread-count cottons and the like we have nowadays (unless you have lots of patience and really good eyesight).

I have a rule: if an 80-year-old woman loves it, I'm not wearing it.

[Christopher McAvoy]

I'm no liturgist, but I don't see the issue with the later ("fiddleback") vestments - they don't get in the way the way the older, more voluminous vestments do, and the overall style (between the adornment, the lace, et cetera) is beautiful - what's to object to? If it enhances the worship of God I don't see the issue...

I agree.  Lace and fiddleback  chasubles are arguably better than speculative recreations of pre-Schism styles especially ye olde Sarum

I know you say this with a good intention, on the surface one could be apt to think this. However, this is a statement which demonstrates a lack of formation in the tradition of the latin rite(s). I would not agree with it. I also prefer not to quote beatles songs to make points about the church. Unless one thinks the Beatles are "more popular than you know Who".

It is untrue that there are no pre-schism vestments and that what is made now has to be or therefore is always "speculative".

There are numerous pre-schism, and even moreso pre-13th c. vestments in tact in museums in europe which can be closely examined by those with dedication to vestment making, such as Benjamin Nicholas Slayton in South Carolina.

We have hundreds of illustrations of vestments in images from the 4th to 13th c. throughout the Latin western lands.

There is profound knowledge of what they were and much of the way they were made.

http://www.bildindex.de/bilder/mi00011b07a.jpg
Look at that stunning stole and maniple!

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/05/catholic-bamberg-vestments-of-pope.html
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-high-back-vestments.html
11th c. St. Vitalis Chasuble


circa 1270 - England, early gothic influence being felt, still not far removed


St. Dunstan, late 12th c. England


A Bishop in 1018 AD - Miracle de Saint Aubin, Vie de Saint Aubin d'Angers, Angers, vers 1100 (Paris, BNF Nal 1390 folio 1)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suewhite/2040245701/in/photostream/
Dalmatic from Spain, 13th c.

The fiddleback chasuble (while very pleasant in summer heat) is not a proper Orthodox western rite vestment.

From the earliest years of the Church until about the 16th century, the conical or bell-shaped chasuble had been the norm for the ministers at the altar.  In the 13th century, as described in part two of this series, the shape of that chasuble was slightly modified for the greater convenience of the wearer.

From the 15th century, however, in various parts of Europe, but particularly northern Europe, vestment makers took it upon themselves to modify the chasuble still further to free-up the celebrant's arms.  Thus, even at this early date but only in some places, that exaggerated shape referred to unkindly as the "fiddleback" began to appear.  It is noteworthy that the truncation of the chasuble in this way was never sanctioned by Ecclesiastical authority.  Whilst abbreviated chasubles were appearing North of the Alps, Rome retained the Tradition of the ample chasuble, as did Spain.

As has been written about in Part Three of this series, Saint Charles Borromeo prescribed dimensions he believed to be the minimum in order for a chasuble to conform to Tradition.  He prescribed that the chasuble was to be very long, reaching at the back almost to the heels of the wearer and wide enough so that it reached to at least half way between the elbow and the wrist.

http://saintbedestudio.blogspot.com/2012/07/chasuble-styles-of-roman-rite-4.html

This is much like the rule of women not wearing skirts that go above the knee.
Chasubles ought to conform to a minimum length/width so that the alterations to traditional design do not make it unrecognizable from what has been passed down.

[SubdeaconDavid]

The 13th century is post Great Schism which makes all those vestments irrelevant. Given that Orthodoxy makes adjustment for cultures and nations, what is so wrong with lace and fiddleback chasubles both of which have hundreds of years use in the Western heterodox Latin use and thus have far more historical association with people in the West than pre-XI century models?  The argument that lace is effeminate is subjective at best and a sweeping simplification otherwise.

[Sleeper]

Agreed, SubdeaconDavid. I've never quite understood the desire to treat the Western patrimony as anything less than a whole, rather than trying to dice it up into time periods and make cases for which era is better and which location is preferable, etc. It comes from a desire to mold the West to one's own liking, rather than accepting the West as it is, as something received and traditioned. It relies solely on scholarship which often tends to be incomplete or at worst, completely inaccurate. What you end up with is something concocted and fabricated, with no living experience among faithful people.

[kijabeboy03]

My thoughts exactly :-).

As for the effeminacy, one's masculinity (and security therein) should rest in the person, not whether that person is wearing lace in a liturgical context...

The 13th century is post Great Schism which makes all those vestments irrelevant. Given that Orthodoxy makes adjustment for cultures and nations, what is so wrong with lace and fiddleback chasubles both of which have hundreds of years use in the Western heterodox Latin use and thus have far more historical association with people in the West than pre-XI century models?  The argument that lace is effeminate is subjective at best and a sweeping simplification otherwise.

[witega]

Agreed, SubdeaconDavid. I've never quite understood the desire to treat the Western patrimony as anything less than a whole, rather than trying to dice it up into time periods and make cases for which era is better and which location is preferable, etc. It comes from a desire to mold the West to one's own liking, rather than accepting the West as it is, as something received and traditioned. It relies solely on scholarship which often tends to be incomplete or at worst, completely inaccurate. What you end up with is something concocted and fabricated, with no living experience among faithful people.

In the "Western tradition" I was familiar with prior to coming to Orthodoxy, ministers wore suits and ties, communion was performed with grape juice, and iconoclasm was in full effect (though baptism was by full immersion and the music was all a cappella). And I doubt anyone, including you, thinks it's a good idea to bring those traditions into the Orthodox Church. But unless you actually are willing to accept Orthodox churches with grape juice and priests serving in ties, you have to admit that you aren't willing to accept the 'Western Patrimony' (things 'received and traditioned' as the 'living experience among faithful people' in the West) as an actual whole--you're practicing discernment and drawing lines of some kind even if it's just to say that 19th century Rome is better than 16th century Boston or 20th century LA. And in that case the best placement of those lines is very much open to discussion and 6th-century Rome clearly is more inherently legitimate than 19th century Rome.

(Not that I have any more issue with the addition of lace to vestments than I do the addition of 'travelers by air' to the Eastern-rite litanies. But to object that it's not even a legitimate question because it's part of the 'Western Patrimony as a whole' makes no sense.)

[Sleeper]

Agreed, SubdeaconDavid. I've never quite understood the desire to treat the Western patrimony as anything less than a whole, rather than trying to dice it up into time periods and make cases for which era is better and which location is preferable, etc. It comes from a desire to mold the West to one's own liking, rather than accepting the West as it is, as something received and traditioned. It relies solely on scholarship which often tends to be incomplete or at worst, completely inaccurate. What you end up with is something concocted and fabricated, with no living experience among faithful people.

In the "Western tradition" I was familiar with prior to coming to Orthodoxy, ministers wore suits and ties, communion was performed with grape juice, and iconoclasm was in full effect (though baptism was by full immersion and the music was all a cappella). And I doubt anyone, including you, thinks it's a good idea to bring those traditions into the Orthodox Church. But unless you actually are willing to accept Orthodox churches with grape juice and priests serving in ties, you have to admit that you aren't willing to accept the 'Western Patrimony' (things 'received and traditioned' as the 'living experience among faithful people' in the West) as an actual whole--you're practicing discernment and drawing lines of some kind even if it's just to say that 19th century Rome is better than 16th century Boston or 20th century LA. And in that case the best placement of those lines is very much open to discussion and 6th-century Rome clearly is more inherently legitimate than 19th century Rome.

(Not that I have any more issue with the addition of lace to vestments than I do the addition of 'travelers by air' to the Eastern-rite litanies. But to object that it's not even a legitimate question because it's part of the 'Western Patrimony as a whole' makes no sense.)

No, no, I'm with you Witega. My church growing up was of the Welch's and oyster crackers variety. I was just speaking as if the catholic tradition of the West were a given, not any old thing that is "western." Apologies if anyone thought otherwise. What I mean is the patrimony of Western catholics who are in that stream of tradition that has come down to us from the early Church in the West. The Western catholic tradition that stands in unbroken continuity with the past, just like the Eastern catholic tradition of Orthodoxy.

Yes, distinctions have to be made, and lines have to be drawn, and there are disagreements about what that should or should not entail. I was just stating that personally, I don't understand the impetus to "return" to something that would ultimately be a thing of our own making. In other words, Antioch's approach of resuming the actual living tradition of those Western catholics that sought to come into communion with her, to my mind, makes the most sense. It's not a cart blanche approval of anything and everything, and there have indeed been guidelines set for how this is to be carried out but it is built on the understanding that liturgy and tradition ("patrimony") are living things that you can't just fiddle with without a host of new problems arising.

[age234]

Playing devil's advocate a bit here...

By the Orthodox Church's self-understanding of the meaning of "Catholic", 19th century Rome is no more Catholic than 16th century Boston or 21st century Los Angeles. They are all separated from the full grace of the Church. Why then is there validity to Roman patrimony but not Protestant? It all developed in separation from us.

In other words: if they could not preserve communion with the Church, why trust their ability to preserve anything in particular, such as vestments?

[SubdeaconDavid]

Agreed, SubdeaconDavid. I've never quite understood the desire to treat the Western patrimony as anything less than a whole, rather than trying to dice it up into time periods and make cases for which era is better and which location is preferable, etc. It comes from a desire to mold the West to one's own liking, rather than accepting the West as it is, as something received and traditioned. It relies solely on scholarship which often tends to be incomplete or at worst, completely inaccurate. What you end up with is something concocted and fabricated, with no living experience among faithful people.

In the "Western tradition" I was familiar with prior to coming to Orthodoxy, ministers wore suits and ties, communion was performed with grape juice, and iconoclasm was in full effect (though baptism was by full immersion and the music was all a cappella). And I doubt anyone, including you, thinks it's a good idea to bring those traditions into the Orthodox Church. But unless you actually are willing to accept Orthodox churches with grape juice and priests serving in ties, you have to admit that you aren't willing to accept the 'Western Patrimony' (things 'received and traditioned' as the 'living experience among faithful people' in the West) as an actual whole--you're practicing discernment and drawing lines of some kind even if it's just to say that 19th century Rome is better than 16th century Boston or 20th century LA. And in that case the best placement of those lines is very much open to discussion and 6th-century Rome clearly is more inherently legitimate than 19th century Rome.

(Not that I have any more issue with the addition of lace to vestments than I do the addition of 'travelers by air' to the Eastern-rite litanies. But to object that it's not even a legitimate question because it's part of the 'Western Patrimony as a whole' makes no sense.)

No, no, I'm with you Witega. My church growing up was of the Welch's and oyster crackers variety. I was just speaking as if the catholic tradition of the West were a given, not any old thing that is "western." Apologies if anyone thought otherwise. What I mean is the patrimony of Western catholics who are in that stream of tradition that has come down to us from the early Church in the West. The Western catholic tradition that stands in unbroken continuity with the past, just like the Eastern catholic tradition of Orthodoxy.

Yes, distinctions have to be made, and lines have to be drawn, and there are disagreements about what that should or should not entail. I was just stating that personally, I don't understand the impetus to "return" to something that would ultimately be a thing of our own making. In other words, Antioch's approach of resuming the actual living tradition of those Western catholics that sought to come into communion with her, to my mind, makes the most sense. It's not a cart blanche approval of anything and everything, and there have indeed been guidelines set for how this is to be carried out but it is built on the understanding that liturgy and tradition ("patrimony") are living things that you can't just fiddle with without a host of new problems arising.

The strength of Orthodoxy i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy lies in the unbroken patristic and apostolic succession, in liturgical continuity and the validity of all our sacraments.  The West lost this  - period.  I agree that Western Christian tradition continued, albeit separated from the Church, outside the Body of Christ, and I can see a lot of point in seeking to be relevant in WR terms to the religious culture of the people as they came to Orthodoxy.  I also agree that trying to recreate post-schism Sarum etc is contrived, and has massive discontinuity with the lived experience of people in the west. 

Arguably Western Christians I believe should look to the Byzantine unbroken traditions, and see that the saints of Gaul and England and Western Europe are the saints of the Eastern Church as well. and that the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom in English or the local language is not arcane or culturally impossible to swallow.  As you note, we might as well have priests in ties and grape juice communion and do happy clappy songs or have women in the altar like the Roman Church etc.

[Sleeper]

Playing devil's advocate a bit here...

By the Orthodox Church's self-understanding of the meaning of "Catholic", 19th century Rome is no more Catholic than 16th century Boston or 21st century Los Angeles. They are all separated from the full grace of the Church.

I agree that the (somewhat) recent self-understanding of some Orthodox understand Western catholics in this way, but I must disagree that this is how things actually are, or that it is how the Orthodox communion at large has understood things over the centuries. A "catholic" is a baptized Christian joined to the mystical body of Christ in the sacraments, under a bishop with Apostolic succession. More shades of nuance could be used of course, but in simplistic terms, that's what it means. The "Catholic" Church is the local Church; the pre-eternal Church made manifest in space and time as baptized Christians gather under their bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. This is the Church confessed in the creed, this is the full, complete, whole Church which has the fullness of grace and the means of salvation. And this is the truth of the matter whether or not each local catholic church is united to a particular geopolitical superstructure.

This way of looking at the Church was gradually de-emphasized in favor of speaking of the Church in terms of the oikomene; or "all believers everywhere," catholic as "universal" rather than "whole." But "church" in that sense is not the same as the ontological Church; the mystical Body of Christ.

The situation we find ourselves in now is that there are Catholics who are in communion with each other, and Catholics who aren't. But, as Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck says, "'the Catholic Church' contains in itself the fullness of means of grace, sanctification and salvation, whether or not 'united' into a particular geopolitical superstructure. In other words, Cyprian of Carthage, Stephen of Rome and Firmilian of Caesarea can still be bishops of the catholic Church and saints in spite of their ruptures of communion. The Churches of St. Thomas in India, or those of Ethiopia were always one, holy, catholic and apostolic even when disconnected from Rome or Constantinople. It also means that the saints (of East and West, for instance St. Francis of Assisi and St. Sergius) do not drop in and out of the catholic Church because their patriarchs are quarreling over who knows what. Likewise, the idea that salvation is tied to a particular worldwide organism becomes obsolete" (His Broken Body, p. 345, Kindle edition).

Why then is there validity to Roman patrimony but not Protestant? It all developed in separation from us.

Well, Protestantism isn't a monolithic reality. Which Protestant patrimony would we be talking about? Lutheran? Presbyterian?

The guideline set forth in Antioch was: Parishes and larger units received into the Archdiocese retain the use of all Western rites, devotions, and customs which “are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith and are logically derived from a Western usage” antedating the Schism of 1054.

The important point in this, for this conversation anyway, is that it be "logically derived" from the tradition of the first millennium. It implies that there is a stream of tradition that has existed from this time to our own, and that anything within that stream that is not contrary to the faith of the Fathers is acceptable. What in Protestant tradition could really fit into that category?

[Sleeper]

Agreed, SubdeaconDavid. I've never quite understood the desire to treat the Western patrimony as anything less than a whole, rather than trying to dice it up into time periods and make cases for which era is better and which location is preferable, etc. It comes from a desire to mold the West to one's own liking, rather than accepting the West as it is, as something received and traditioned. It relies solely on scholarship which often tends to be incomplete or at worst, completely inaccurate. What you end up with is something concocted and fabricated, with no living experience among faithful people.

In the "Western tradition" I was familiar with prior to coming to Orthodoxy, ministers wore suits and ties, communion was performed with grape juice, and iconoclasm was in full effect (though baptism was by full immersion and the music was all a cappella). And I doubt anyone, including you, thinks it's a good idea to bring those traditions into the Orthodox Church. But unless you actually are willing to accept Orthodox churches with grape juice and priests serving in ties, you have to admit that you aren't willing to accept the 'Western Patrimony' (things 'received and traditioned' as the 'living experience among faithful people' in the West) as an actual whole--you're practicing discernment and drawing lines of some kind even if it's just to say that 19th century Rome is better than 16th century Boston or 20th century LA. And in that case the best placement of those lines is very much open to discussion and 6th-century Rome clearly is more inherently legitimate than 19th century Rome.

(Not that I have any more issue with the addition of lace to vestments than I do the addition of 'travelers by air' to the Eastern-rite litanies. But to object that it's not even a legitimate question because it's part of the 'Western Patrimony as a whole' makes no sense.)

No, no, I'm with you Witega. My church growing up was of the Welch's and oyster crackers variety. I was just speaking as if the catholic tradition of the West were a given, not any old thing that is "western." Apologies if anyone thought otherwise. What I mean is the patrimony of Western catholics who are in that stream of tradition that has come down to us from the early Church in the West. The Western catholic tradition that stands in unbroken continuity with the past, just like the Eastern catholic tradition of Orthodoxy.

Yes, distinctions have to be made, and lines have to be drawn, and there are disagreements about what that should or should not entail. I was just stating that personally, I don't understand the impetus to "return" to something that would ultimately be a thing of our own making. In other words, Antioch's approach of resuming the actual living tradition of those Western catholics that sought to come into communion with her, to my mind, makes the most sense. It's not a cart blanche approval of anything and everything, and there have indeed been guidelines set for how this is to be carried out but it is built on the understanding that liturgy and tradition ("patrimony") are living things that you can't just fiddle with without a host of new problems arising.

The strength of Orthodoxy i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy lies in the unbroken patristic and apostolic succession, in liturgical continuity and the validity of all our sacraments.  The West lost this  - period.

Did they?

Arguably Western Christians I believe should look to the Byzantine unbroken traditions, and see that the saints of Gaul and England and Western Europe are the saints of the Eastern Church as well. and that the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom in English or the local language is not arcane or culturally impossible to swallow.  As you note, we might as well have priests in ties and grape juice communion and do happy clappy songs or have women in the altar like the Roman Church etc.

I agree that the beautiful tradition of the East can help shed light on our own Western past.

[Christopher McAvoy]

My explanation for why vestments from the 12th and 13th century are valid to use for comparison for modern vestments is because most of their design had still not changed since before the hypothetical "1054" date of the schism, only a few details had changed in the 200 years between 1054-1254.

This would be the same thing as saying that one ought to not use a gregorian chant gradual from after 1254 - only before 1054.
99% of the saints were the still same (St. Francis for example had just entered into some propers) little significant theological development in that could be called unorthodox took place in the sequences and hymns written before 1254.

The 13th century and early 14th century was the true beginning of a huge cultural paradigm shift for the western church.
Thats when motets, gothic art, "early humanism" was really making an impact. Post 14th century art is always very realistic, pre-14th century (pre-Giotto) art is always more in harmony with byzantine art of today, though even than it was never aboslutely identical, just as coptic art was never identical to anatolian.

I think to be overly strict with the dates of things is problematic. If 99% of the patrimony was in tact, much is still valid.


Once again my opinions are that Lace, although a late development as far as I know is a legitimate custom which is a personal preference. However the fiddleback chasuble is different. Charles Borromeo had banned all fiddlebacks from his diocese in 1572. The fiddleback is a sort of abuse that gradually became relaxed over time but was never-the-less an overly tailored minimized chasuble.

 There's a difference between personal taste and reinventing or reinterpretated traditional vestment specifications.
One can have a moderately cut back chasuble and still be comfortable without going to the full "turtle shell" extreme.

Surely no one is going to be considered gravely wrong for wearing lace or fiddlebacks - only potentially "out of the ordinary".

There is a value to discussing these things, even if we have are own preferences, we learn from each others views.
I am glad everyone contributed their thoughts.

[Christopher McAvoy]

I thought this image might be the sort of inspiration for some western rite orthodox, concerning the later cutback chasuble and use of lace. This picture is one of the few examples one can find anywhere in recent years where a latin rite heterodox archbishop has anyone bow down out of respect to him. The SSPX preserved the respect for their bishops. There's much symbolism in that gesture.  My preference and belief of course is that the chasuble ought to be a few inches longer and few inches wider if worn by an orthodox WR cleric, everything else is terrific.

[SubdeaconDavid]

Once upon a time conservative Anglo-Catholics bowed to a bishop as they processed in to church and genuflected and kissed their ring/hand.  I wonder if that has died out? My only comment about the people is that the piety is great to see - although women with uncovered hair is something that one would hope not to see.

[ilyazhito]

By the way, do Western-rite Orthodox bishops enter already vested, or do they enter in mantle and choir dress and then get vested the way they do at an Eastern liturgy? I think that the vstrecha in the Eastern rite is a similar show of respect.

[Santagranddad]

Men in lace? I recall one priest whose mother told him to avoid men dressed in lace at all costs. 

[Shlomlokh]

I thought this image might be the sort of inspiration for some western rite orthodox, concerning the later cutback chasuble and use of lace. This picture is one of the few examples one can find anywhere in recent years where a latin rite heterodox archbishop has anyone bow down out of respect to him. The SSPX preserved the respect for their bishops. There's much symbolism in that gesture.  My preference and belief of course is that the chasuble ought to be a few inches longer and few inches wider if worn by an orthodox WR cleric, everything else is terrific.

Where are their beards?

[Schultz]

Once upon a time conservative Anglo-Catholics bowed to a bishop as they processed in to church and genuflected and kissed their ring/hand.  I wonder if that has died out? My only comment about the people is that the piety is great to see - although women with uncovered hair is something that one would hope not to see.

They are not in a church.

[sheenj]

I thought this image might be the sort of inspiration for some western rite orthodox, concerning the later cutback chasuble and use of lace. This picture is one of the few examples one can find anywhere in recent years where a latin rite heterodox archbishop has anyone bow down out of respect to him. The SSPX preserved the respect for their bishops. There's much symbolism in that gesture.  My preference and belief of course is that the chasuble ought to be a few inches longer and few inches wider if worn by an orthodox WR cleric, everything else is terrific.

Where are their beards?

Those are SSPX clergy, not Orthodox WR Clergy.

[Mor Ephrem]

Men in lace? I recall one priest whose mother told him to avoid men dressed in lace at all costs. 

I could do without some of the lace (e.g., the use of lace around the collar of that chasuble), but overall I think the Latins pull this sort of thing off well. 

[Shlomlokh]

I thought this image might be the sort of inspiration for some western rite orthodox, concerning the later cutback chasuble and use of lace. This picture is one of the few examples one can find anywhere in recent years where a latin rite heterodox archbishop has anyone bow down out of respect to him. The SSPX preserved the respect for their bishops. There's much symbolism in that gesture.  My preference and belief of course is that the chasuble ought to be a few inches longer and few inches wider if worn by an orthodox WR cleric, everything else is terrific.

Where are their beards?

Those are SSPX clergy, not Orthodox WR Clergy.

Yes, clearly. It was more of a rhetorical question.

In Christ,
Andrew

[Regnare]

By the way, do Western-rite Orthodox bishops enter already vested, or do they enter in mantle and choir dress and then get vested the way they do at an Eastern liturgy? I think that the vstrecha in the Eastern rite is a similar show of respect.

Well, in the Catholic pre-conciliar liturgy, the bishop enters in procession, vested like this http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3429/4569541460_11b2490dc0_o.jpg and then vests completely at the altar (sometimes, however, he simply enters vested). I don't know what Orthodox bishops do right now, but I doubt it involves a rochet and cappa magna. Entering in Eastern mantle and choir dress would seem a bit odd, but in the absence of actual Western rite bishops I think something like you suggest would be acceptable and in accordance with tradition.

[Romaios]

By the way, do Western-rite Orthodox bishops enter already vested, or do they enter in mantle and choir dress and then get vested the way they do at an Eastern liturgy?

I don't know what Orthodox bishops do right now, but I doubt it involves a rochet and cappa magna.

AFAIK there is no such thing as a WRO bishop right now.

[Regnare]

AFAIK there is no such thing as a WRO bishop right now.

There isn't, though I know Bishop Jerome at least actually celebrated the Divine Liturgy. Does anyone know if he is the only bi-ritual Orthodox bishop? Or, for that matter, if he ever celebrated anything like a Pontifical liturgy, as opposed to simply acting as a priest?
All of the Western Orthodox liturgies I've seen simply assume that the (Eastern-rite) bishop is attending but not vested or celebrating (e.g., directions for the bishop to remove his kalimafki at certain points).

[Apostolic Seeker]

Lace isn't bad per definition, but it can ruin the alb. It often is translucent and weakens the drapery. Something horrible as this, for example. Fiddleback chasubles originated as liturgical abuse, however. I think it's prudent to at the very least keep to the minimum size established by Charles Borromeo.

In any case, neither lace nor fiddleback chasubles are current in the mainstream Roman church.

[Alpo]

My preference and belief of course is that the chasuble ought to be a few inches longer and few inches wider if worn by an orthodox WR cleric, everything else is terrific.

You have an opinion about lenght and width of liturgical garments?

[Apostolic Seeker]

My preference and belief of course is that the chasuble ought to be a few inches longer and few inches wider if worn by an orthodox WR cleric, everything else is terrific.

You have an opinion about lenght and width of liturgical garments?

How's this for width?  It's the logical evolution.