Google "Office of Papal Liturgical Celebrations," and you'll find the Vatican site with photos of prior papal ceremonies.
Never, from the pictures I've seen, has the crucifix been in the center of the altar when the Pope has celebrated mass at the "altar of the chair," so-to-say. It has always been to the side. In addition, the candlesticks in that photo are a change. In older photos, they have been much smaller, less ornate.
This is, imho, a huge development, and I fully expect that the Holy Father will continue this when he celebrates his next solemn mass at the main altar.
Incidently, the (unfortunately ugly) altar in that picture is the primary stumbling block to the Holy Father celebrating a mass in the Extraordinary Form in St. Peter's Basilica. In the Extraordinary Form, the Pope's Throne is set exactly where the Pope is sitting in the photo on display. The Pope then has to walk all the way from his throne to the main altar. It's a setup identical to the arrangement in St. John Lateran. The problem is that that hideous altar makes this setup absolutely impossible to do. Hopefully, some day this will be corrected.
But that aside, this is a fantastic development. I would say it's the second-most important development in the liturgy that the Holy Father has done since the release of Summorum Pontificum.
Not to be too picky, but Msgr Marini is wearing a surplice, not a rochet.
The excellent blog creer en México has a very good comparison of this occasion over the last years: http://creerenmexico.org/2007/11...apasymarinis-2/
Please note the candlesticks mentioned by ThomasMore1535.
I second your sentiments: a very promising beginning!
A detail: the cuffs of the Pope's alb seems to have some kind of gold lace - is this something particularly papal, or just especially precious?
Those ugly black candlesticks that were used on the "altar of the chair" and sometimes at St. Peters main altar date from Paul VI, who banished the huge golden candlesticks in favor of these. Poor taste of course.
Never have the candlesticks (since Vatican II), been straight across the altar before. They've always been grouped in two's or set of three on the corner. And the altar cross was never in the middle, but on the side.
With this new arrangement today, it mooks much more like a Catholic altar, and a Papal Altar. The Pope's vestments were not ugly. His alb was very ornate. Msgr. Marini wore a lace surplice much like the late, great Cardinal Enrico Dante used to use. The red chasubles for the concelebrants were of a more traditional look....not those horrible red chasubles with the African design on the front we've seen for years...as if that's the only set of red chasubles they had. I think this red set used today date from shortly before the close of Vatican II, when Paul VI started concelebration. So they're pretty old.
All told, an excellent start for Msgr. Guido Marini.
As a note, does anyone know what the color of Msgr. Marini's cassock worn today is called. I know it's the color for a rank of monsignor, but when Piero Marini wore the cassock and surpllice(even when just a monsigor) the color of his cassock was much more rosy. Guido Marini's is a rich, deep color...almost maroon. Are there different ranks of Monsignor, and different colors of reddish/purple to signify each rank? I know that Protonotaries-Apostolic used to have very dark, almost maroon monsignorial cassocks, while other ranks had either a reddish or rose tint.
It's hard to make out the details in these photos. In any case, it's great to see immediate changes taking place!
I hope at some point that altar will be taken out and a more suitable/beautiful one installed...
Kenjiro: I think in theory all prelates wear the samo colour, which in Italian is called "paonazzo", and in Latin "violaceus".
Wouldn't all the lace at the bottom that we see Marini in and the smaller sleeves make it a "rochet"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochet
How does one formally tell the difference between a "surplice", a "rochet" and "cotta" and so on?
Wow! Didn't take long for things to change, did it?
Isn't a cotta something usually seen only in the Anglican Church, and especially in boys-choirs. It's a surplice with a ruffled high collar in the style of 16th century Elizabethan England if I'm not mistaken.
RR:
The surplice and the cotta are the same vestment. Sometimes very short surplices, specifically, are called cottas - particularly by Anglicans - but there is no real distinction. The surplice has wide sleeves and is worn in the administration of the sacraments, in serving at the altar, and as choir dress by non-prelatial secular clerics.
The rochet has tight-fitting sleeves, like an alb, and was originally street wear that later become the choir dress of prelates. It is never worn in the administration of the sacraments or, at least by itself, in serving at the altar.
I write "at least by itself" because a former custom for those prelates serving the Pope was to wear the surplice over the rochet. You can see Msgr Dante dressed in this style in this picture: note the wide sleeves of the surplice around his elbows and the tighter-fitting cuffs of the rochet at his wrists. You can also see the two distinct hems.
If I'm not mistaken, Cardinal Castrillon was seen in recent years - perhaps at one of the Urbi et orbi addresses? - dressed in this style.
I believe the main difference between a surplice and a rochet is that the rochet is cut fuller and has the sleeves gathered and restrained by elastic bands at the wrists.
A cotta is a short surplice often used by altar boys and singers. The fancy collar of anglican choirboys is not part of the cotta.
Hi Scott,
Please do take a look at this picture of Msgr. Marini: link
I should say though, the important point of discussion here is ultimately that altar arrangement.
The big six in line and Cross in the center. This is an ENORMOUS development. I think it was last seen around 1966 at Paul VI's Easter Mass in the piazza. Let's hope we see it next at the altar of the confession or the altar in the piazza for the consistory (Nov. 24?). Next steps: get rid of the Chair of Peter 'altar' (nicknamed the Ironing Board - it would make a wonderful addition to the Vatican Museums commemorating the 1970s) and restore the marble altar on top of the steps to allow celebration 'ad (liturgical) orientem' (yes I know it would really face WEST)....
Please do take a look at this picture of Msgr. Marini:
It is a nicely cut surplice, isn't it? And although I am no great lover of ecclesiastical lace, I do prefer this sort of surplice to the type usually worn by the other Msgr Marini, the same type that is partly visible in the picture you link to.
But you are correct: the improvement in altar arrangement is of greater importance than the improvement is surplice tailoring.
Bravo to the Pope and our new Mgr Marini for tackling this! Fantastic!Not to go off topic here, but re the prelatical purple, there *is* only one such color--however, different fabrics do take the dyes differently--woolens usually come out plum, while polyester (horresco referens!) can come out magenta, fuchsia (the ideal), or even hot pink! But there are no gradations of color among the various grades of monsignori, bishops, archbishops, etc. It's all supposed to be the identical color. In the 1930's, the (now-defunct) S. Congregation of the Ceremonial printed up a card to illustrate the correct color.
Can anyone tell us why the original high altar is no longer where Bernini intended it to be?
I must say that this black monolithic looking trapezoid of a 2001 derelict prop is as ugly as they come.
Why can't the original ad orientem altar make a reapearence?
God bless you.
The original Altar of the Chair (not the 'high' altar or Papal Altar which is called the 'Altar of the Confession') was removed sometime in the late 1990s by order of the archpriest of St. Peter's (and former papal MC - Piero Marini's mentor and predessor) Cardinal Vergilio Noe. Its footpace or platform was made the dais for the 'president's chair' and the infamous Ironing Board altar was installed on a temporary wooden platform in front of it. This act of vandalism was reportedly done in one of JP2's many absences from the Vatican, to ease the blow...
With full charity to everyone commenting, could we PLEASE stop talking about what color/style the alb, rochet, or whatever is, PLEASE? I say this very tongue-in-cheek, but seriously--finally, two-and-a-half years into his papacy, the Holy Father is taking what he himself described as one of the most important steps in the Reform of the Reform, and all people can talk about are whether the MC's vestments are the proper hue of purple! Give me a break!
Go to Creer en Mexico to get a sense of the shift with Guido Marini. He has pictures of this Mass from the JPII-Piero Marini era, the Benedict-Piero Marini era, and today's Mass, the first of the Benedict-Guido Marini era. The candlesticks are also a positive development; they look a lot nicer than what Piero Marini would use.
I notice that the potted ferns which (hotel-lobby-like) still deck the sanctuarty, but I guess all can't be done in a day. If Benedict and Marini want true Roman style, the flower and fern contractor to the Vatican would go out of business...
But what an improvement over the post-election Sistine Chapel masses, where the tiny-table altar was decked - in the usual Euro style - with a cluster of sweet multi-height candles in one corner, and a cunning bowl of flowers in the other, sort of like the Fab Five (queer eye) guys would decorate your coffee table...
Agree, Thomas More, discussions of lace are ...
Also, Msgr. Marini in not entitled to wear the rochet unless he is a P. A. de numero participantium (which he's not as far as I know). Also, it is proper even for one who is entitled to the rochet (as was ARCHBISHOP Marini) to lay it aside and wear the surplice (which is a LITURGICAL garment as the rochet is NOT), when performing a liturgical function. In the old days (a la E. Dante) the surplice (because liturgical) was worn OVER the rochet, but I always though that was pretty hideous.
I agree Thomas More. What are we?? Anglo-Catholics or something?? :)
Well, you might not be but I am (and I reuse to wear lace) but I was always under the impression that a cotta was a square necked surplice, worn in choir and by servers, whereas a rochet is a mark of jurisdiction, worn by the parish priest or prelate, again in choir, which is longer and may have lace on the bottom and the sleeves. It is also tied at the neck rather than being square. A surplice is something which certain orders wear (my Benedictine friends make use of them) and also has a wide, round neck. These can go from mid-thigh length to the huge 'old english' style, with the triangular arms which my friend at the neighbouring parish favours for funerals. I have a plain, pleated cotta which I find perfectly acceptable for everything, however. It is good in choir, under a cope or dalmatic (if there be a Bishop) and for funerals.
I attended Solemn Mass at the Altar of the Chair on Sunday 30 September and the arrangement consisted of the six short/fat candles on either side. The Altar cross was the processional cross placed at the corner of the Altar.
Funny thing was that I was sitting there thinking how an arrangement with the Altar Cross in the middle would look so much better and lo 5 weeks later its happened.
Just a reminder: in St. Peter's, as in a number of other significant churches in Rome, 'versus populum' is also 'ad orientem' -- facing dead east.
Priests: are any of you now more likely to consider the same move as regards altar cross and candles on your altars?
ThomasMore1535: I think we all agree that the arrangement of the altar Cross and candles in the true "spirit of the liturgy" is the most important thing here. However (unless Shawn tells us otherwise) I don’t see why those people who are interested in such things (which anyone os obviously free not to be) cannot discuss the liturgical vestments. They are part of the liturgy. Whole scholarly books have been written about them, e.g. the classic by Fr. Braun. If this doesn’t interest you, skip those comments. I might not be too much interested in the finer points of, say, the different styles of singing chant (just to give an example, actually I don’t think I’ve ever read soemthing on the NLM I wasn’t in-terested in at all) – fine, so I simply don’t read the comments on those.
As for the always inexplicably controversial topic of *gasp* lace (much like Roman style vestments), let me make two brief remarks without wanting to start a discussion on this in general (which wouldn’t belong here because it would be o/t).
1) We (at least I) did not draw attention to the lace alb and surplice because lace is somehow superior to other dignified materials (had the Pope worn a beautiful apparelled alb and amice, I would have welcomed it the same way). What's important is that is was very common, almost universal, before the liturgical reforms, and that is chiefly why it is avoided today. By wearing lace, Benedict is reestablis-hing continuity with the pre-VII liturgy by adopting a practice so closely associated with it that it is despised by most of today's priests and prelates. They might not be ideal, but their use carries with it important symbolism.
2) It is, as has happened before, implied that wearing lace is somehow unmanly. Frankly, I have no pa-tience for this. As observed above, lace on albs and surplices was practically universal until the 1960s. It cannot in earnest be suggested that St. Pius X, the Spanish martyrs, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Padre Pio etc. etc. were unmanly. I hope not to sound as offensive as to me sounds the suggestion that wea-ring lace is effeminate, but please think about whether the repulsion some seem to feel towards lace might not be influenced by the American-western-hero-John-Wayne culture. I don’t mean to ridicule that culture (although you can’t maintain that it is very Catholic), but please don’t imply that it is uni-versal and that this is the only type of manly man there is. No on eis required to like lace, but it is i-nadmissible to declare it taboo. (Oh, and to add some humour, I can’t help being reminded of Stephen Colbert: "These baby carrots are trying to turn me gay!")
Shawn, I think you didn't get Scott's meaning: it can't be a rochet, because a rochet is only worn as choir dress by prelates (and not even all of them, I believe), and not when serving at the altar as the MC does. Also, the surplice of Msgr. Marini, unlike a rochet, clearly has wide sleeves.
[Thanks for the clarification. I had been thinking simply of the cut, and indeed, the sleeves which I had thought looked narrow. I bow to the collective wisdom!]
Restoring a sense of proper orientation can begin with small steps: Reverencing (with a kiss) the altar from the front rather than going behind it first; returning to the front again, and bowing there, when going to read the Gospel; placing the chair (where possible) in such a way that the priest is not facing the congregation directly, and so may easily turn and face the altar or crucifix when praying.
Shawn:
You wrote that the substantial proportions of the cross and candles are key to this arrangement, "for it is precisely not concerned with 'obstructing the view' of the priest at the altar..."
I understand very much your concern, and personally I like this arrangement quite a bit. However, one does need, in the OF, to be mindful of GIRM 307: " The candles, which are required at every liturgical service out of reverence and on account of the festiveness of the celebration, are to be appropriately placed either on or around the altar in a way suited to the design of the altar and the sanctuary so that the whole may be well balanced and not interfere with the faithful's clear view of what takes place at the altar or what is placed on it."
I don't think the arrangement shown here does interfere too much, but it seems that we should avoid deliberately making the candles so large that the faithful can't see.
I believe this is the Mass one of our diocesan seminarians served for. (From http://saintpetercatholicteens.b....blogspot.com/)
Greetings in Christ!
Well, I served for the Pope today!! The Mass was for the deceased Cardinals
of the past year, so not only was the Pope there, but all of the Cardinals
in the area were also there. On the other hand it was a much smaller Mass
than usual in St. Peter's as it was not open to the general public and it
was at the Altar of the Chair(however, our classmates were able to attend
and were pretty close). About 2,000 were in attendence.
The 10 of us seminarians here in Rome from SJV were the only servers today,
so we all got some job of importance. My job was with the incense and I had
the boat with the incense (while John Norman had the thurbile with the
charcoals).
A couple of Monsignors were the MCs and directed us before Mass on what to
do. One of them was American and helped one half of us, while Monsignor
Stefano, who knows very little English, told us what to do. It actually
went quite smoothly after a few practice runs before Mass. During Mass
there were no major mistakes that anyone could notice, so it went well.
Before Mass, we all were waiting in this one room off to the side, and then
we realised, with the vestments laid out, that this was the Pope's vestry
and he was going to come in. So he walked in (he is quite short) and his
first thing was to put incense in the thurible, so I needed to open the boat
and he then spooned out the incense and then we left. During Mass, I had to
kneel down immediately before the Holy Father at one point before the
Gospel, where he put more incense in the thurible. And then again I had to
come right up next to him at the altar where he did the same. During the
consecration, we all were in front of the altar and myself and John were
directly in front of the Pope's view, watching him the whole time of the
Eucharistic Prayer. Then finally we all recieved Holy Communion from the
Holy Father.
I have posted some pictures below on my flickr account which our fellow
students took of us during Mass. There were also professional photographers
taking pictures which we can order, and also a DVD which we can buy. That
will be later on, however.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pakosloski/
Also, you can check out the official photos on: www.fotografiafelici.it
After Mass, a few of the guys who were serving got the chance to be in the
vestry where the Pope took of his vestments. He then turned to them and
asked them why they were in Rome (in English). The four guys were dumb
struck that the Pope talked to them, but eventually stammered out that we
are studying for a semester here in Rome. Then they got the chance to kiss
his ring.
Wow, what a day!!!!!
Pax Christi,
Phil
Michael,
Let me clarify my meaning:
What I am thinking of here is that the altar cross, and even candles, are of a vertical height (ie. substantial enough) that the priest can look up at eye level and fix his gaze upon it during the liturgy of the Eucharist. This as opposed to a way of thinking that would consider that it rather must be short enough so that the priest can "dialogue" with the people (as though the altar were a podium) without the altar cross "being in the way" of his line of sight. (i.e. "obstruction"... of line of sight).
Does that make my meaning more clear?
That rubric of course references something other than the idea of a "self-enclosed circle" between the priest and people focusing upon one another, relating rather to the sacrificial action taking place upon the altar. We see in the arrangement pictured a very good balance of this I think which is what I intend to promote of course.
My thinking is that some might be tempted to think that if you are going to put candles and cross on the altar in this way, that they must be "short" and not have any real vertical height and presence on the altar in that way. (ie. imagine that altar cross being only about one foot in height).
I think that would be a mistake to think that way and that the altar arrangement that we see here, where there is some vertical height and presence, will accomplish what the Pope was thinking of (as Cardinal) as regards this re-orientation, in a way that the other way probably wouldn't.
Shawn, I absolutely agree. I think it is also fair to say that this is one of the more unfortunate rubrics of the Novus Ordo, and I think there is nothing wrong with doing what the Pope Himself did here, as long as the rubric isn't actually violated by constructing a wall of candles which completely obstructs the view. After all, remember that the Holy Father wrote in the "Spirit of the Liturgy": "Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord?"
In addition to the comments made linking this with the Spirit of the Liturgy, doesn't this imply that the Pope in this way has returned to ad orientem celebrations? The corpus of the crucifix faces him, as opposed to facing the people and he is facing actual East, isn't he?
At our parish, our priest has been using an altar crucifix, centered in the middle of the altar, for about two years now. The altar candles are on either end of the altar, much like the papal arrangement pictured above.
We've also been chanting the ordinaries at every Mass (with one or two, usually) in Latin. This is just another part of a slow but steady push to restore solemnity and beauty to the Mass in our parish. This is no easy task as ours is a parish which, from c. 1970 on, HEAVILY embraced all the liturgical "freedoms" of the "spirit of Vatican II," if you catch my drift. Every once in a while, it's nice for someone to positively note the changes. After Mass this past Sunday, a gentleman from out West who's travelling throughout the South, complimented our priest, saying that he has been attending Mass in a different parish every Sunday throughout the past few months ("from Atlanta to Texas, Tennessee to Florida") and that our parish's Mass is the "most authentically Catholic" that he's witnessed. He thanked our priest for this.
There is hope for the reform of the reforms ---- this picture is just one more assurance! ;-)
The rubric, I believe implies more about the proportion of the bases of the objects to the altar than to their arrangement. That is, a crucifix and candle set with very wide bases (I've seen them) on a smaller altar would not be in keeping with the rubric. What is presented in the photo does not raise that concern. I don't think it's a big mystery.
I've never been a fan of the candles-grouped-to-one side theory of arranging; it's struck me as affected and an example of someone who thought things through too much and thus not enough - interestingly, I've never heard the provision in the GIRM cited as a justification for it.
Some time ago, I dusted off an old altar cross and placed it on the center axis, facing the priest, on our free-standing altar. The trouble is, that this cross is not very tall. and to "look at it" actually requires that I gaze downward at the altar (though it works great at the High Altar (on top of the tabernacle) when I offer the Mass ad-orientem (privately)
One thought I had was to position the processional cross in the center of the front of the altar, but many said the pole (not the cross itself) would be a bit distracting in front of the tableau of the Last Supper.
As far as other things done to "re-orient" I do not reverence the front of the altar because of the precipice, but I do walk in front of it, and bow (which also allows me to include the tabernacle) as I am moving to the ambo/pulpit to read the Holy Gospel. Finally, when I offer the orations from the sedile, I turn slightly toward the (liturgically) "east" wall.
If I can find pictures (of the altar cross, etc.), I will post them on my blog!
It's interesting the way the crucifix and candles were placed. It reminds me precisely how it was done at my parish when versus populum all began. Too bad if we were going to not retain ad orientem celebration that priests did not stick with this arrangement because I believe it would help significantly in restoring a greater sense of the sacred because the priests and the congregations' gaze would be on Our Lord instead of the priest . Tom
I use a crucifix on the altar for Mass every Sunday at the hospital. I'm looking for six matching brass candlesticks for a very very cheap price. I'm trying my best to do my small part in the reform of the reform.
Shawn,
I agree with your assessment. There could be very wide candles, I suppose, that could totally block the view, but an arrangement like this is certainly fine.
I just wanted to clarify that there is a bit of a limit (i.e., one isn't supposed to use the candles to create a sort of iconostasis!).
Michael,
Maybe more like a rood screen. ;)
So it seems the changes Msgr. Guido has made so far are five: candlesticks and altar cross (by far the most important liturgically speaking and also the most evident), lace surplice for Don Guido, lace alb for the Holy Father, pontifical dalmatic for the Holy Father and (no one commented about this) the much more beautiful Missal stand used on the altar (check it on www.fotografiafelici.it).
Regarding what it seems to be an improvement in red chasubles for the concelebrants, which Kenjiro mentioned, I must say this is the same set used every year for this precise Mass, so there is no change in this.
I'm thinking how this arrangement would look in St. Peter's high altar, with those big candlesticks and cross we usually see there. I'm afraid they are too massive to arrange them this way. This time it would clearly be against GIRM 307. I personally don't mind at all, but I am not the MC.
Finally, a question: the arrangement looks great but, to keep with tradition, shouldn't the six candlesticks and the cross be at equal distances from one another, instead of leaving the cross somewhat alone in the middle? I think this has to do with the idea of the Crucified being the true seventh light of the menorah of the Old Testament, or something like that. Could someone please clarify this?
GIRM 307 is a dead letter, now. The Pope could easily order the removal of that rubric. He called it 'truly absurd.'
Actually GIRM 307 is quite alive and well unless and until a Pope authorizes a change in it. The Pope never called it "truly absurd" - Cardinal Ratzinger did. An important distinction not lost in the Roman context.
If we start interpreting the GIRM in light of the non-legislative comments of folks, even highly ranked Curial folks, we ratify a lot of what might like to criticise. Be careful what you ask for.
Liam and Charles A.,
Cardinal Ratzinger never called GIRM 307 something "truly absurd". He was referring to the fact of setting ASIDE the cross for it to "not obstruct" the view of the priest. That is an absurd thought indeed, but GIRM 307 doesn't say that. It says that the candlesticks and cross should be arranged in such a way as to not obstruct the view of what is happening at the altar. That doesn't mean setting it aside. The proof is Don Guido's intelligent solution, which is both in consonance with Ratzinger's "The Spirit of the Liturgy" AND GIRM 307.
CharlesA, just as a small aside, the Prefect of Pontifical Ceremonies, as a member of the Papal Household, is entitled to wear a rochet over his cassock.
In recent years, we have noticed that fewer and fewer prelates understand the distinction between a rochet and a surplice. As has been mentioned in earlier comments, it is the tight-fitting sleeve which denotes a rochet.
ThomasMore1535, in these ComBoxes people will readily be diverted from the main topic to talk about minutiae.
Wow! All this debate about the minutiae of clerical garb leaves me torn between satisfaction that tradition is being taken seriously and fear that we're in danger of concentrating too much on the inconsequential. I guess it was like this in Constantinople when they couldn't work out how many angels would fit on the head of a pin; or in Jerusalem, when they weren't sure which liberation front to give their allegiance to.
I suppose the tipping point is how seriously we take it all ...
Actually, no intelligent Christian in the middle ages wondered about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin because the issue was a tautology - angels have no corporeal substance by nature and therefore take up no space by nature....
It's only modern folks who've pondered the question as a troublesome one because they are ignorant.
I am possitive that the alter arrangement (on the main alter) was the same this summer when I visited Rome. I have to look back on my pictures to see and I'll send them to you. However I did not see a Papal Mass just the Wednesday Blessing.
Did Popes ever use boys as servers?
It's great for seminarians and other adults to be servers for the Popes, but being an "altar boy" was the first step that thousands took on the way to priesthood.
Might not thousands of boys, viewing someone their own age being able to "serve" the Pope himself, also take that first step?
I strongly believe that one of the (many) great defects of the N.O. Mass is that the servers don't have that much to do.
Ben,
One thing to keep in mind is that while Mass is not going on, its common to see the arrangement of the 6 candles and central cross arranged as they traditionally are arranged, but those have then been moved for Mass.
So it depends upon whether you were seeing this outside or Mass I think, becuase if it was outside, that won't say too much.
Ian,
I think the key is that while some folks are very interested in this, we must remember that it is not necessarily something people take in isolation.
Someone's interest in those details is not a problem unless in their interest of that they lose the forest for the trees as they saying goes.
But being able to see the forest and then stop and ponder the different variety of individual trees can be a very worthwhile thing; at times it also helps one to better appreciate the forest as a whole as well.
Michael,
My understanding (which may be wrong) is that 1) the rochet is not a LITURGICAL garment; a surplice is, for those serving at the altar, (which is why, in the old days, an MC like Dante wore a surplice OVER his rochet); and 2) the rochet is used only by cardinals, bishops, and protonotories apostolic de numero participantium (and not by the lower ranks of monsignori). Since the Papal chapel is just about the only instance in the world where a man who is entitled to the rochet would also serve at the altar, it seems reasonable that the awkward combination of rochet and over it surplice has been reasonably changed to surplice over cassock. Piero Marini also omitted zuchetto (to which he was entitled as Abp.). So did Dante. But Marini retained the pectoral cross (suspended from CHAIN), whereas Dante used the same cross suspened from CORD).
re: rochet
In the old days I believe (correct me if I'm wrong anyone) that the Rochet ALWAYS had to be covered - whether by a cappa, mozzetta, mantelletta, or surplice. Wearing it alone over the cassock was NEVER done.
My one question about this whole business is why didn't the Holy Father instruct the prior Marini that this is the way he wanted things? This pope -- unlike John Paul II -- is a liturgist. And he has been pope for several years. Why was he not instructing Abhp Marini how he wanted things done??
Charles A, we're not talking about the "old days" here: all those regulations concerning the rochet (including the misconception that it is not a liturgical garment) were done away with by Pope Paul VI in his motu proprio Pontificalia Insignia of 1968.
Let's hope that the bizarre practice of covering one flounce of lace with another isn't revived.
Msgr Gaenswein and the Pope's other Secretary both wore lace ROCHETS over their purple cassocks at the open air Mass in Saint Peter's in April, commemorating the Pope's 80th birthday.
I just had a thought that the appearance of the "ironing board" could be immeasurably improved if it were permanently covered with a magnificent altar pall.
Now, I would like to make some remarks about lace, which I hope people will read calmly.
The concept of wearing more ornamental vestments for special occasions is a good way of emphasising different degrees of festivity and has a long tradition. I may not like lace myself, but I do see the point of wearing some decorative on a special occasion.
This seems to have been recognised in the past, because the old ceremonial books specified that plain albs were to be worn for penitential and requiem liturgies, because their character was not festive.
But the Mass that is being discussed in this post is not a festive occasion, it is a requiem liturgy for deceased Cardinals (even though the Pope and Cardinals are wearing their customary Papal red). Was this the occasion to introduce a festal alb and a lace surplice?
I ask you just to think about the point I have raised without regarding it as an attack on the use of lace per se.
Michael.
Some time ago Charles A wrote that the altar used for this Mass was erected in the early nineties, during the reign of Pope John Paul II. It certainly was added during his reign but this took place between 1980-85. In 1980 Bernini's original altar was still in place, furnished with a crucifix and six candlesticks. Before it stood the predecessor of the present, westward-facing altar. The proportions were the same but it had a magnificent, solid metal antependium with raised gilded decoration on a silver ground. It fitted more congruously with Bernini's work behind. Whether these arrangements will return return remains to be seen but the present stark altar is, I think, made of bronze and might be considered by some to be a work of art.
Michael of St Bede's Studio. Altar palls are Anglican in origin and were revived during the 1930s by Stephen Dykes Bower and Martin Travers, following English c17 precedent. Their limited use has crept into a few Catholic sanctuaries, mainly in Britain and her former dependencies, but in Rome the classic antependium, defined by braid, was, and is, the norm.
There has been some reference here and elsewhere to Bernini's original altar. However, I believe that Bernini did not in fact design a permanent altar to be set up at the reliquary of the throne. The marble altar was only set up in the 1930s, whereas in Bernini's day a temporary altar could be set for Masses, but on more solemn occasions the dias would be used for the pope's cathedra. So, I'm wondering, based on Fr Symondson's comments, if the freestanding altar used in the 1980s and 1990s might not have been the original altar, in which case, a stronger case could be made for bringing it back instead of the altar currently used. Certainly, both the 1930s altar and the previous freestanding altar were much nicer than the present monstrosity. In my opinion, it would also be nice, for papal celebrations, to restore the throne to its original place in the apse.
Dear Michael,
it may surprise you, but I completely agree with what you said re: the use of lace. I regard it as one of the many losses that came about with the litrugical and ceremonial reforms under Paul VI that nearly all distinctions between penitential/mourning and festive occasions were abolished. So, indeed, it would have been preferable for this occasion to refrain from using lace. However, under the circumstances, this being the first occasion of Msgr. Guido exercising his new rôle of papal MC, I think it was more important to show that what once was universal is still allowed. Also, ironically, I think it is in keeping with the letter of the litrugical reforms: since mourning choir cassocks etc. were abolished, the rule against lace on these occasions wouldn't apply anymore either.
Regarding the rochet: I wonder. Where is decree of Urban VII and the ruling of the SRC of 1852 that the rochet is not a vestis sacra repealed? Pontificalia Insignia is only concerned with who is entitled to the same, it doesn't mention the rochet at all. I am under the impression that the rochet may still not be used for administering sacraments. On what grounds do you say that it is a "misconception that it is not a liturgical garment"?
I personally regret the abolishing of all the distinctions. There may have been to many regulations, but I would have by far preferred to make them optional (e.g. permit poorer prelates to only use one choir cassock etc.) instead of simply abolishing them. In Germany, at the same time, all academic garb was abolished - under the infamous slogan of "Unter den Talaren, der Muff von tausend Jahren" ("Under the academic gowns [Talar can also mean cassock], the fustiness of a thousand years"). Now people long for it to return because everything has become drab and unintersting. I think it is time to recognise that many of the ceremonial "reforms" (which consisted almost always simply of abolishing) were guided by the same spirit of getting rid of traditions which in these days of unrest and malcontent were regarded as stifling, but which would have been well worth preserving in their essence.
Dear Fr Symondson,
Kim D'Souza is repeating here what Fr Selvester said over at Fr Z's: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/11/c.../#comment-
37737 So, I wonder which is true. Assuming that it was as Fr Selvester and Kim D'Souza suggest, I fully support Kim's opinion: Bring back the former altar arrangement, and if there has to be a freestanding altar (which is not necessary at all), make it portable (as the present ironing board is, too, I think) so that the papal throne can be erected at it's proper place, like in St. John Lateran or St. Paul-Outside-the-Walls. However, keep in mind that to have a free-standing altar is certainly not required by Vatican II, and not even by the IGMR. This has been proven many times, and the SCR under (I think) Card. Arinze has issued a responsum. A prominent Church in Vienna (St. Rochus) recently did away with it's versus populum altar and returned to celebrating at the High Altar with the support of Card. von Schönborn.
As I'v just discovered, and as Berolinensis has already indicated the substance of my earlier comments was posted by Fr Guy Selvester on WDTPRS. However his assertions are being disputed in the comboxes over there. So, for the record, I just want to say that I'm only repeating what I heard on a tour in Rome (from someone with a reform of the reform position, so not some modernist agenda). I'm quite open to correction on the historical facts by Fr Symondson or any of the other experts. That said, I still the cathedra Petri in the apse is the most appropriate place for the papal throne in solemn liturgical celebrations.
At one of my two parishes, we have had a small gold crucifix facing the priest for over two years--it went on the altar about a week after I arrived. I've experimented with how to arrange the candles, but they are more or less how you see them on the pope's altar.
At that parish, the celebrant's chair was facing the people; over time, the angle shifted gradually; it now faces the altar. The servers were sitting on the opposite side of the sanctuary (and often got fidgety), now they sit right beside the priest, and sit much more quietly. At that parish, we don't have many choices for altar cloths -- some that are full length, some not, so that alternates. The tabernacle, thankfully, is in the center, where it always was.
Again, when I arrived, I found lots of very nice candlesticks in storage; I got them out, and we use more for various occasions, but we always have six on the high altar, three on either side of the tabernacle. I change them from plain brass to fancy brass-and-onyx for festive occasions. Mary and Joseph have candles on their altars all the time now, as well. And our relic of the patron of the parish always sits before (i.e., "under") the altar. That is my own idea, it just seemed fitting.
At the other parish, the tabernacle was located to one side altar. No longer. Over the summer, we executed a redesign, with a new, beautifully constructed "altar of repose" in the center apse, with the tabernacle set on top; above and behind is a reredos (that was there before), without much adornment, other than a very large and beautiful crucifix which my predecessor installed about five years ago.
We added some gold leaf to this reredos, and in the apse behind and above it, and around the stained glass windows, as well as images of angels and an image of the Holy Spirit over the sanctuary. The angels hold a banner saying, "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus."
In the course of this rearranging, the altar of sacrifice did not move, but the celebrant's chair did; it rotated 90 degrees, out of the apse (replaced by the Lord), to a position facing the altar from the north. My regret is that the image of our patroness, Our Lady, is behind the chair, but given other features, it really couldn't be helped.
At this parish, the altar is smaller, so I have not yet placed any candles on the altar, but we do have four around it, as opposed to two, before. This parish doesn't have as many options in this regard. But we are covering the altar completely, which works very well, and the entire sanctuary looks beautiful--everything fits together well. This is the parish where we've started having a monthly, weekday Mass in Latin (per current missal).
Oh, and we have a schola that is learning and executing chant and polyphony. Last Sunday, it sang "O Bone Jesu" at the other parish, after communion. No complaints, but at least 10 parishioners approached the schola members to say thank you. The other parish has been mo
Only six candle sticks across the Altar? Should it not be seven, given the fact that the Pope is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome? Nevertheless it is a great and welcomed return to the true spirit of Catholic worship.
Shawn,
Thanks for the indulgence :-)
It is a mistake to judge the use of lace at this Mass by the old rubrics. In the new rubrics, nothing is prescribed about the use of lace for festivities or requiem masses (although I am not familiar with them).
So, Bede Studio, there is no such a thing as appropriate or inappropriate in this case. Imagine, some people/priests wear white for requiem Masses, why can't somebody else wear lace then?
Fr. WTC, again, this was a rule that applied before. I do not think that it has force anymore. However, the Pope, not only in Italy, but everywhere he said Mass, had the privilege of using a seventh candle.
Berolinensis wrote:
I am under the impression that the rochet may still not be used for administering sacraments. On what grounds do you say that it is a "misconception that it is not a liturgical garment"?
Because bishops always did wear the rochet when administering sacraments outside of Mass (for example Confirmation, Matrimony) and continue to do so. The only difference between THEN and NOW is that a bishop is no longer required to wear an amice over the rochet before putting on an a stole and cope.
LatinMass1983 wrote:
So, Bede Studio, there is no such a thing as appropriate or inappropriate in this case. Imagine, some people/priests wear white for requiem Masses, why can't somebody else wear lace then?
For the very same reasons as wearing white is not appropriate in terms of our Tradition.
LatinMass1983 has, not surprisingly, completely missed the point.
Fr Symondson wrote:
Altar palls are Anglican in origin and were revived during the 1930s by Stephen Dykes Bower and Martin Travers, following English c17 precedent.
They most assuredly are not of Anglican origin, as is revealed by various illustrations from antiquity of Catholic altars.
Minutiae of minutiae warning: it appears that the seventh candle would not be used in requiem masses and would only be used in pontifical high masses in the EF.
Liam,
did the Popes before celebrate Requiem Masses? I always thought (but I could be wrong) that a Cardinal did this. So, in that case, the seventh candle would not be required at all.
And yes, you are right. It was only for Solemn Papal Masses that the 7th candle was used. For private (Low) Masses, 6 were used.
St. Bede,
You are right, it might not have been the best ocassion to introduce lace, but this is only by seeing things through the lens of the old rubrics - which do not apply anymore to Papal Masses.
To go to the point, there are no rubrics, laws, etc., prohibiting the use of lace in the N.O. So, any ocassion would have been the best ocassion for Mgr. Guido Marini to re-introduce lace. He himself said he would not introduce any "oddities" (go against rubrics).
Also, along the lines of what's suitable for a Requiem Mass, no one has taken notice of the fact that the candles are bleached. They should be unbleached (yellow). But, again, this is if we follow our "Tradition."
Dear Michael,
I hope I don't appear too touchy, but I would have appreciated a less snide response to my comment, which I had at least intended to be obliging. Oh well.
You said:
Because bishops always did wear the rochet when administering sacraments outside of Mass (for example Confirmation, Matrimony) and continue to do so.
Of course you have a far greater experience with what is actually done than I. However, for one thing that doesn't answer the question whether it is right for bishops to do so. You have not addressed the documents I quoted, and that Pontificalia Insignia did not deal with this issue either, contrary to your original statement. Are you then primarily arguing on grounds of contra legem custom?
Furthermore, as far as practice is concerned, I repeat that my practical experience does not compare to yours; however, if I look at the pictures of the recent conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Confirmation by Archbishop Burke, he is clearly wearing an alb beneath the cope, and in an oratory of the ICRSS, who certainly would be the last to object to a rochet, were it permissible.
So, you may very well be right, but from what I have read and seen so far, I still think the rochet is not to be worn when performing a ministry in the sacred liturgy, as opposed to merely attend in choro.
Kind regards,
Gregor.
Re: Rochet
In “Costume of Prelates of the Catholic Church according to Roman etiquette”
by John Abel Nainfa (Baltimore 1926)
the following regarding the rochet can be found:
1. (page 68) /…/The uncovered rochet is a sign of Ordinary
Jurisdiction. Therefore, the Pope and Cardinals
all over the world, Archbishops in their provinces,
Bishops in their dioceses, Abbots in their monist-
eries, alone have the right to wear the rochet un
covered. l Practically the rochet is always partly
covered with some other vestment./…/
2. (page 70) /…/ The Pope, Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbis
hops, and Bishops have by law the full right to use
the rochet. It is the principal part of their choir-
habit. /…/ They may use the rochet for the administ
ration of the sacraments, for the pastoral visitation
and for Confirmation given without solemnity.
According to the Ceremonial of Bishops, they should
also wear the rochet when receiving the Viaticum./…/
Note that the rochet is said to be a sign of jurisdiction when uncovered, that it is a principal part of a prelates choir habit and that it may be used for the administration of the sacraments.
What this means for the use of a rochet after the later reforms I’m not competent to say.
But in light of this it would seem natural that Mgr Dante covered the rochet with a surplice/cotta.
Commenting by HaloScan
