Get updates from The Crescat delivered straight to your inbox
“All Creatures Great and Small” chasuble.
Please tell me that’s a joke… please. Please. Please.
Nope. But tankfully, it’s not a Catholic chasuble. Its those bat shit crazy prots this time. This time. ;-P
Oh thank God.*sigh of relief*
Argggggh! It burns!
Glad I havn’t had supper yet.
What are they celebrating, the decent of the holy parrot?
archangel – good one – holy parrot LOLMy first reaction? What the hell is that!!!???
Wow, I didn’t know the wrestler “Koko B. Ware” became a priest! Is that his mascot “Frankie” on the back.(Yes, I just showed my age right there.) LOL.
It’s a crucified bird! Good grief…
This chasuble was made for a Protestant blessing of the animals service, a service which has been held by both Protestant and Catholic people of faith. (Had the readers of this blog gone to the link and read about the chasuble, it would have been self explanatory.) No disrespect was intended. When the painting was created, the macaw which was the model, had its wings spread–it was that simple. Christ preached tolerance especially for those who are different from us. It is a tennant of the faith. The artist who created this honors all faiths. Protestant or Catholic we all strive to walk the path of Christ and all worship the same creator. Both Protestants and Catholics have requested the liturgical stole with this painting on it.
While I’m sure you meant well in creating the chasuble, I find it hard to believe that an artist was oblivious to the Christ-like symbolism of the final image. It displays a sense of cultural insensitivity and disrespect, if not outright mockery. If you truly stand behind your art, then you really shouldn’t use the “Christ taught tolerance” cliche to shield yourself from criticism.
You know, if you’re going to post something like that couldn’t you save all of us a case of heartburn by hinting that at least it’s not a Catholic chasuble? Zoiks. Just because someone had good intentions doesn’t mean the end result is necessarily good.
Im not sure what ‘Christ’s tolernace’ has to do with tacky horribly gawd aweful chasubles, but anyway. It does have a mocking nature in the posture of the bird… that it’s just ugly. period. So I’m intolerant. whaterver. As for heartburn; just follow the link before commenting and take a tums. ;-PJill- my prayers are for the poorly catechisized Catholics that you claim requested this chasuble. As for the ‘artist’; the term liturgical terrorist comes to mind.
Like I always say to my kids…”just because you CAN, doesn’t mean you SHOULD!”If there’s going to be a face on a chasuble it needs to be a being that has a soul…and animals, birds, etc. DO NOT.
The mackaw on this chasuble is beautifully created and I applaude your contribution in the “light” you intended it to be taken!While, I’m a little confused about the reactions from people who’d do well to remember; “Judge not, lest you be judged, for … “whatever””!And, before anyone wants to comment on my “handle” .. I believe God loves the “light” it was created in as well.Sincerely,me.*BIG HUGS* .. all around.
Julie, I mean, thellord, perhaps you should have named yourself ‘thytroll’.Don’t be a simpering troll, the chasuble is ugly. This doesn’t mean we need to remember ‘judge not’, it means you have bad taste…and are possibly illiterate for even bringing up that Bible verse in this context. Now, have a nice day and don’t come back.
well I don’t think the chasuble will be my infinite judger, so I am free to ridicule it’s ugliness. The ‘Judge not’ cliche doesn’t even apply in this instance, nor does it even mean what you think you intend it to mean.
Let me also point out that if Roman Catholic rubrics are properly followed a chasuble is worn ONLY for the celebration of Mass. Otherwise, the stole is the proper attire (this is true for deacons & dalmatics I believe). I haven’t studied thee rubrics for bishops so don’t ask me about their vestments!
Well, you may not belive this but I am not the person who posted as “Thellord Thighgod.” I post with my name only. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether you can’t stand my art or you love it. There is art that I do not like also. I just hope people disagree respectfully. Also remeber that the Spirit of God is often respresented in the Catholic church with a bird, a dove with wings extended.
the holy spirit is not a macaw! That is heresy and blasphemy.
It is I; Robert Dach, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Sincerely,on behalf of, The Lord Thy God,me.
CC,I blogged this very chasuble back in April of 2007.Stop stealing my material.;)(By the way, I also blogged a couple of other beauties from the same site. My eyes still ache.)http://wardweb.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
I hope my appearance isn’t taken as intrusive, since I’m new to this site and didn’t at first realize I was commenting in someone’s entry (my first entry was for Julie ) but I’d like to add another thought ..Through the ages people have been designing clothes, while some people like the fashion and others critisize; and if it weren’t for “change” and people being able to express their individuality … we’d all be wearing leaves according to Genesis .. LOLOf course, some people prefer to keep things as they are, but I won’t assume a position on behalf of the Catholic faith regarding what they perceive as “fashionable”.
I’m sorry, CC, but a man gots to do what a man gots to do.Hey Proddies, take your blasphemous chasuble and and shove it where the sun don’t shine. You don’t know what the Mass is, you don’t believe Jesus Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament, so you have no idea why we worship the way we worship.This devilish creation cannot be used in a Catholic Mass (and if it is someone needs to be canonically dealt with). The Holy Spirit cannot be portrayed as a parrot! So, that silly argument can be tossed into the embers with this sad wrestling cape.
I think the idea of someone who doesn’t believe in the mystery of transubstanciation, or the existance of the ontologigal mark of holy orders, pretending to celebrate the Mass in any way shape or form is heretical and sacriligious.We are told not to fall for false teachers, or teachings, and to avoid them.So they always quote “judge not…”, but they seem to fail to notice that in so doing they are themselves judging.The Chasuble is ugly, and devoid of chritian symbolism–it reverts to an upper middle class outergarment, called the amplissima, from which the sacred vestment called the chasbule is derived.And, if one were to read the rubrics for the blessing of animals–it’s for live stock, not pets, in theri capacity as a source of lifes work and employment.
I will clarify: The chasuble was created for a Protestant service, not a Catholic one. The image only represents the animals being brought by the congregation for a blessing–nothing deeper, nothing more. It was within the context of the Protestant faith that it was created. The chasuble is not for sale to anyone.I have created garments for other faiths also. Would you criticize a Jewish garment that did not fall within the spectrum of the Catholic faith? Why criticize a Protestant garment? By the way, here is what americancatholic.org says about the Blessing of the Animals: http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/francis/blessing.aspI am disappointed to see my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ writing hateful words about Protestants. We all worship the same God and all believe that Christ is the Savior, even though how we worship may be different. With deepest respect…
Well…. I was raised a Catholic and made a change to a different denomination. So having some knowledge about Catholocism and Protestantism I can say that I see nothing blasphemous about this macaw and also that was never meant to irritate or disrespect anyone, in particular Jesus Christ. Whatever anyone may think, this was created for good purpose and not harm. I am amazed at my Catholic equals at this attack. Guess I will get it next. Go for it. My obedience is to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who told the truth in love and got angered as He knew the the good and bad motives of our hearts. There was no bad intent in this creation. But from what I see on this page, quite a bit of hatred undeservedly.
Didn’t St. John Vianney say that if there are no priests the people will worship animals?
It seems a lot of people think they have the capacity to speak on behalf people who have influence within the Catholic faith.Let’s let the Pope have a say, too, why don’t we? I have an idea who’ll be open-minded about that. Anyone here a “somebody” whose “word” is worth more than that of another? .. or are we all just posturing with futility?
Just to add to the fray, here’s a link to a supposedly Orthodox skete (monastery). I say “supposedly Orthodox”, as many of their practices are, er, dubious, to put it mildly.http://holytrinityorthodox.org/photos/new_skete.htmApart from the dodgy iconography in their church (no time to comment on that right now), check out the chasuble worn by one of the priests. How groovy-touchy-feely is THAT?? Apparently this “vestment” was made by the children of the priest’s parish (the one wearing the chasuble), and it apparently depicts scenes from scripture. It was a gesture of the love the youngsters had for their priest. All very sweet and good, but clerical vestments are NOT vehicles of emotional and artistic expression, no matter how “honourable” the intention. SHEESH!!Surely the Metropolitan should have bailed up this priest and made him change into a more appropriate vestment.
There’s absolutely nothing dubious about the monks at New Skete. Very holy men.Doesn’t the sniping ever get old?
“I will clarify: The chasuble was created for a Protestant service, not a Catholic one. The image only represents the animals being brought by the congregation for a blessing–nothing deeper, nothing more. It was within the context of the Protestant faith that it was created. The chasuble is not for sale to anyone.” THIS IS NOT A CATHOLIC CHASUBLE. There IS a difference. The meaning is different. It is what in a man’s heart that will be judged by the Lord. Would Jesus have bailed up the priest. I don’t think so! He said let the little children come unto me because they had pure hearts unlike the Pharisees who thought they knew it all and judged everyone and everything! I believe He would have loved this garment.
Thom, my comments are not sniping, they point out facts. FYI on New Skete: 1. It is NOT canonical to have icons painted in an Orthodox church of people who are not Orthodox (such as Mother Theresa, Abp Michael Ramsay, Dorothy Day, Pope Paul VI), haloes or no haloes. It is not a matter of whether or not these people led good and pious lives, however, in the same way only those of an Orthodox baptism are permitted to receive Holy Communion in an Orthodox church, therefore the iconography of an Orthodox church must be of saints recognised by that church. Would you find the presence of a painting of, say, Martin Luther gracing the walls of a Roman Catholic church acceptable? Be honest! 2. The monks of New Skete eat meat, something that from the earliest centuries of Orthodox monasticism has been forbidden for monks and nuns. The nuns are bareheaded, which, in turn, is a violation of centuries-old monastic practice.3. The chasuble designed by the kiddies flies in the face of the gravitas expected of the priest serving the Liturgy, as well as the solemnity of the Liturgy itself. The sight of this confection during a service would not exactly be conducive to a prayerful state of mind.for thought, my friend.
yeah but MaBeck, was your com-box dialogue as entertaining as this? lol. Those antique fiddlebacks you posted, Nice!
to clarify; this is not about judgement, love, let the little children come unto Him, Kumbayah and any other irrelavent cliche. It is about it being ugly as hell under whatever context, Catholic or Prot, and my opinion to state it as thus.
It IS relevant. You have all talked here about blasphemy and everything under the sun. So what if you think its ugly. If it was about just being ugly–why all this nastiness being thrown out?In my opinion this is a bunch of LEGALISITC garbage. Its about what would Jesus do? And being obedient and pleasing Him. Obvoiusly that really is NOT relevant here as stated…Enough is enough. I see you don’t have ears to hear. Respectfully-goodbye
I said it was blasphamous to think of the holy spirit as a freakingparrot. And it is. Again, this is not about ‘WWJD’ or in this case WWJWear or even what thellord thinks the Pope might say. You prots got unhinged when I simply pointed out the obvious, its FUGLY. It’s my opinion, you don’t like it… don’t let the door hit ya on the way out.I don’t have ears? Well, you don’t have eyes to READ. You all want to throw around useless, taken out of context cliches and infer more into the post that was intended. If you notice, or comprehend what you read on any basic level, you will see the original post is just a plain title and a link to the site where I saw this. Nothing more. Proving yet once again, bat shit crazy is laughable.
Would it be a sin of detraction or rash judgement to say I enjoyed this banter? 🙂 I’ve been struggling with scruples lately…I agree this vestment is by far the worst I’ve ever seen and Thank you God that it was not created for us in the Catholic Mass.
Jill: I mean no disrespect, as you obviously have far more experience with Orthodoxy than I.The Monks of New Skete have been controversial figures since the Skete’s conception. (As a matter of fact. the Abba who died this summer was previously a Franciscan in the Roman Catholic Church).I don’t doubt that some of their liturgical practices are canonically incorrect. I only took issue with their being described as “dubious.”Perhaps I reacted a little strongly. My apologies. :-)BTW, read “In the Spirit of Happiness” by the Monks. It’s what’s given me such a high opinion of them, as it is one of the best treatments I’ve recently read about the synthesis of religious and secular life… a life that I’m attempting.Pax et bonum.
CC: — oh, my. And Fr. Erik was concerned about a plain white alb.Julie – first let me say this: I do believe you when you say you meant no disrespect. but here is why it is wrong: At Mass Catholics believe that the bread and wine are not mere “symbols” when the priest says the consecration, the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ. [Refer to John 6, wherein Jesus is asked THREE times to clarify what He means – and each time He says it more emphatically “unless you Eat my Flesh and Drink my blood you have no life within you.” We also find out later that Judas did not believe Jesus in this. It is THE core tenant of our faith that Jesus Christ Himself in flesh and blood comes to us Body and Blood at Mass. We ARE the original patent holders of the chasuble. The chasuble represents the seamless garment taken from Christ before he was crucified on the cross. The priest standing “in persona Christi” wears a symbolic garment that Christ wore. The one the soldiers cast lots for. Do you understand the concept of “pulling focus?” Traditionally, a priest’s chasuble has items on it that call to mind heavenly things or the sacrifice. [This parrot, unwittingly in your case, comes off as a mockery of the Holy Spirit, the traditional representation of the third person of the Trinity.]We believe we have CHRIST HIMSELF MADE PRESENT in the Mass — and this macaw/parrot whatever chasuble has NOTHING to do with the intended purpose of the garment — it is “pulling focus” away from what should capture our attention – namely Jesus Christ Himself. Does the leading lady in a play get a mousy brown color while one of the chorines gets a spectacular red gown? NO. Why? Because red “pulls focus.” I can’t imagine an Anglican or Lutheran countenancing this either. This parrot/macaw is a distraction from what should be the best part of your day or week. We ask that you not misuse Catholic symbols. OTHER people use the “old testament” than the Jews – but we would never, say paint Porky the Pig on a scroll of the Torah and say “Never mind Jews, go about your business – we are just showing we no longer have an aversion to pork.” Be VERY careful how you treat things other people have revered for centuries. Last I looked you Protestants are fairly new at this. We are the people you “protested” against!Karen
Why is that guy “thighgod”? Is that like being a “thighmaster”?And sorry, but I love animals, even macaws, but I don’t like the chasuble.
Far be it for me to be offended by your comments, Thom 🙂 . Many have tried to justify the goings-on at New Skete as an “accommodation” to their former Franciscan roots. The fact remains: Whatever religious persuasion one was before conversion, be it to Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, their past doesn’t matter. That person is “born anew” at baptism. It also means that any beliefs and practices which may have been acceptable in that person’s previous religious life which are contrary to the faith they have now been baptised into are no longer valid. The monks and nuns of New Skete, even more so than layman converts, do not have the prerogative to maintain their old practices where these are contrary to the doctrines or canons of Orthodoxy, any more than, say, a protestant convert to Roman Catholicism who is accepted to serve as a RC priest continues to hold the belief that the Eucharist is symbolic, not the Real Presence, while serving Mass. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t “pick and choose” which bits of your old and new faith you’ll keep. The anomalies at New Skete are, sadly, as much to do with their bishop, who seems to have made some pretty serious errors of judgement. Just as CC and others on this blog defend Roman Catholicism against wayward influences, so do many Orthodox when they come across similar infractions to their faith and its practices. From what I’ve come across in the Orthodox blogosphere, the situation at New Skete is quite a controversy.
“Judge not” and all that other limp-wristed speak aside, I still maintain that it looks like a crucified bird. That can’t be acceptable! It mocks God!
Oh yeah – and it’s downright UGLY to boot.
I am only here for 1 reason, wait 2,.. no 3 .. D’OH! okay 4!1. a friend expressed concern (I came – I saw – we win/you lose)2. People ~not the art on a shirt, or this entry~ were being labelled “bat shit crazy” with that focus on a friend whose site was linked. *flash**flash*free advertising thanks*flash**flash*3.”cliches” WERE wreaking havok on any sense a sane person might be able to make of it all. (scripture isn’t cliche .. btw)4. To respectfully let anyone without this sense already know that; referring to scripture as “cliche” or “limp wristed” or “whatever”, INVALIDATES your own objections about a macaw on a chasuble as blasphemous .. or ..”whatever”.
Now, I can probably get this point across without a “gliche” (typo?)Be carefull who you ask, “Does this (whatever) make me look fat?”.Judge not lest ….
Can you just give it a rest. I am the “idiot” Pastor that wore the chasuble – proudly! Julie Jones is a gifted liturgical artist and blesses our church with her art. If you don’t appreciate her work or misjudge it – why not simply be quit? It makes me sad that the internet is a forum to viciously tear people apart. You don’t know Julie or her intentions. We are not Roman Catholics and are trying to be. At this worship service we were thanking God for our pets. Julie went to each congregates house to take photos of their animals. At one home she caught a snapshot of this beautiful macaw. The bird stretched and spread it’s wings. This is a natural posture for a bird. I find the suggestion that she was attempting to mock the crucified Christ disgusting. She created this image and placed it on a chasuble. Would you all feel more comfortable if I called it a poncho? I wear stoles and albs too. Should I change there names? Or get your permission on content and style? I don’t understand why this criticism started or what benefit there is of people of faith to be so disrespectful. So, if the purpose of this blog is to talk down to or condom protestants – mission accomplished.
As a fellow Catholic I am shocked to see such hatred from those of you who claim to follow our Lord, Jesus Christ. Christ did not intend for you to hate fellow Christians because of the reformation. I may inquire of your local parishes to see if your priests agree that publishing hateful words is how they want their congregations to be represented to the public. Would they want to see that their parishoners are publishing hate? You all should be on your knees this morning. May God forgive you!
Impenguin wrote: “I was raised a Catholic and made a change to a different denomination. “Catholicism is NOT a denomination.
‘Fr.’ Smith-respectfully, my parish priest reads this blog regularly and he got quite a chuckle at out the heinous chasuble. No one mocked Christians, just the ugly drape. Admonishing an ugly chasuble is not a mortal sin, as a priest I am sure you are quite aware of this.Rev. Wren, The purpose of this blog is not to talk down to anyone in particular, I am an equal oppurtunity all inclusive offender.