Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Splendid! Now this further step has been taken, just think of all the treasures of the Vatican Sacristy which can now again be used. Of course, as Shawn said, this simply cries for the fanon.
The throne is very nice, and it is a huge improvement over the other position. However:
1) What a pity that this opportunity was not ceased to remove once and for all that hideous platform which covers the greater part of the Confessio and completely destroys its visual unity with the papal altar, so important smybolically (after all, this is why the Vatican Basilica was built in the first place), and ruins the sublime work of art of Bernini.
2) While this arrangement is definitely an improvement over the other one, it is to be hoped that ultimately the throne returns to its traditional position in the apse, beneath the Cathedra Petri. It has often been said that the distance between that position and the altar is too great, or that the Pope wouldn't be visible enough. Well, as we have seen at Sunday's papal Mass at St. Paul Outside-the-Walls, where the arrangement is similar, it is not a problem at all and works perfectly (and lets face it, very few people in the Basilica can see something more than a distant figure anyway over the enormous distances within the Basilica, wherever the throne may be). It allows for dignified processions with the Gospel etc., and also permits the concelebrants (and please don't tell me that no one needs concelebration anyway, because concelebration is here to stay as ordered by the Council, whatever your personal opinion might be) to be in the choir with the main celebrant, instead of more or less forming part of the congregation as they do at present.
Lastly, this ambo is a very interesting solution. While it isn't, perhaps, perfect, and I don't expect it to be the final solution, I think it is absolutely preferable over the flimsy lectern used heretofore, which was entirely out of proportion to the vastness of the Basilica.
Interesting times indeed. It certainly would be quite something to see the throne return to its former position. Perhaps all things in due time.
Regardless, it is quite something to consider how things have continued to develop.
Beautiful! I'm so happy to see the throne and platform setup used in a mass.
It always struck me as odd that most, if not all bishops have a large ornate throne constructed for them in their Cathedrals, while the holy father at S.Peters (While not a cathedral) uses only a chair.
A second development is that they chose to place the ambo and throne opposite and facing each other, a position not mentioned by the GIRM, but which, in m opinion, helps to focus attention on the altar, and not on the celebrant.
Very nice indeed!
But I'm pretty sure some rubric (or other authoritative instruction) says that the readings (and everything else read by laymen) are supposed to be read from a different place than the gospel. Here it looks as if they are read from the same place. Could someone who knows better comment on this?
I also would like to take the opportunity to join in the call for a return of the fanon.
/Symeon
Is there a special "Pius XII" significance to this chasuble?
Also I think that it is interesting that the new lecturn is placed dirrectly and symetrically opposite of the Holy Father's Throne. Not in a sort of angled position facing diagonally down the apse.
I also agree that this opens up a whole new possibility of Roman chausbles from the Vatican collection being used. And yes, the fanon would also be a logical step especially considering the pallium that the Holy Father has settled on.
Splendid ! Deo Gratias.
However; as a very minor point, I don't think, from looking carefully at the pavement, that the papal throne is opposite the ambo : it appears to be directly opposite the statue of S. Peter - which perhaps gives it an added resonance !
Thank you for this post. I agree with Gregor: nowadys television can offer the so-needed-pictures of the pope, even if his chair is put back in the proper and most significant place. This will also permit a more dignified concelebration.
Much of this looks absolutely splendid. The image of the four deacons kneeling behind the Holy Father during the Canon is particularly striking.
It would seem obvious that Monsignor Marini chose this chasuble to be worn today by Pope Benedict because it was also used by Pius XII.
That is indeed quite possible, though of course, we should avoid any temptation (which some might have) to reduce this purely to that level. Clearly this is also part of Benedict's programme of continuity, and as noted, the same chasuble was also worn by this Pope on Good Friday which has no relationship to the issue of Pius XII.
It is encouraging indeed to see the Benedictine reform once again carrying on. The throne is nice but I still prefer the big throne of Leo XIII. Maybe this Sunday for the Canonozations?
Gregor: You almost repeated each word of my commentary on the post of the Mass for the opening of the Synod, regarding the throne at the apse! ;)
Regarding the chasuble, I would say: Don't hold your breath for an immediate use of all the Vatican fiddlebacks. It is obvious that he wore this chasuble because it is somewhat related to Pius XII. But remember the words of Msgr. Marini, who said that he would alternate between historical and new vestments. So I don't think we will never see the Holy Father wear gothic chasubles again. I do think we will start to see fiddlebacks more often. And yes: I also think the fanon is the next logical step.
The lectern is very interesting indeed. That is a development I didn't expect at all!
Finally, I think it is fair to remember that the one who suggested this position for the papal throne was Archbishop Piero Marini.
it is indeed very beautiful
two interesting things:
1) the setting of the throne and the ambo is more or less the same as that of the easter vigil according to Pius XII/Bugnini's ceremonies
2) the seatings of the members of the capella pontificale (look at picture 2) starts to get back to the old arrangements of the Sistine Chapel
Next step: the whole nave converted into a choir, and everybody sitting facing each other liturgically?
Ad multos annos
I agree that the revival of the fanon would have been particularly poignant today, as the Pope celebrated Mass on the anniversary of the death of this other great "liturgical" Pope (mindful of his encyclical Mediator Dei and his Holy Week reforms). I don't think that reviving the use of the fanon would be too much of a concern for Msgr. Marini - since Pope John Paul II had already worn it, if only once, along with a very beautiful Roman style chasuble, for his now famous visit to the Basilica of St. Cecilia early in his pontificate. If the Office of Lit. Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff was bold enough to replace the 2005 pallium for Pope Benedict, I don't think the revival of the fanon (if the Pope is indeed interested in reviving this vestment) is a big deal for them at all. Who knows what considerations are involved with regards to this, and where the matter stands now.
Lettner, Gustavo,
while this is very well possible, do you know for a fact that this chasuble has a link to Pius XII? Have you any proof, possibly photographic?
(BTW, Lettner, formerly chancel screen, has your change of nick any relation to my recent post on the Halberstadt Lettner? Gustavo, I am sorry, I hadn't read that comment of yours you refer to.)
Gustavo,
Nor should we really think against the gothic form of chasuble -- which is a beautiful, dignified, traditional form -- let alone intermediate renaissance forms.
From my own perspective, that isn't the issue. What is more interesting in all this is to see the (still quite maligned) baroque or "Roman" form come into some usage again and how that relates to the programme for liturgical and ecclesial continuity.
But as I pointed out to Lettner, I don't think it is to correct to merely reduce this to a matter of symbolic connection to Pius XII, particularly since this is not its first use. Clearly it also relates to precisely what Marini said, which you noted.
One other thing to note in this regard however: excepting for the possibility of new commissions, the historical forms of the Roman style for a Pope will likely be limited red and gold/white given the former papal liturgical tradition as regards liturgical colours.
Many of the other colours they have may well bear the arms of cardinals and so on, which make them unlikely to be used by a Pope. Certainly those that I have seen did at any rate.
It is good to see people remembering Pius XII on this 50th anniversary of his death. In Washington, D.C., there will be a traditional Latin Requiem Mass said for him. Other priests may wish to do the same today -- a 3rd class, black vestment Requiem Mass on the anniversary of death, which is the 1st Mass of All Souls Day with the Epistle and Gospel of the 2nd Mass of All Souls Day with a proper Collect, Secret and Postcommunion for the anniversary.
Shawn, thanks for posting these magnificent photos! By the way, do you have any idea of what the musical reportoire was for this Mass? Tom
BONA TEMPORA VENIUNT!
This is wonderful. The photos testify to the beauty of the occasion.
Doing it like this was the greatest tribute Pope Benedict could offer, liturgically, to the memory of the great Pius XII.
Deo Gratias.
The fanon, hopefully, but why not maniples for all (or for the Pope and deacons) at papal masses?
Did anyone notice how Pope Benedict did the incensations of the oblata? Just asking (no, I didn't see it).
Just FYI, replay/encore at noon Eastern time.
Viva Il Papa! May he live to be 100!
I've read in a german blog, that the incensing of the Altar was done by the assisting deacons, both of them with their own thurible. Has any one noticed this?
As to the ambo:
In the ordinary form there should be only one ambo, from which all the scripture-readings are to be proclaimed, including the gospel.
The division of the places from where the gospel and the non-gospel parts are proclaimed is a distinct feature of the extraordinary form.
re incensation, the video can be seen on www.ktotv.com, at anytime
first incensations were done by 2 deacons indeed.
there is a curious thing also, both at this mass at the one on Sunday at St Paul's:
when incense is put in the thurible at the altar, the thurible itself is hold by the MC and not the deacon. Nothing essentially wrong but slightly different from UA.
Also, more interesting, (and a bit sad, actually), the Pope sadly did not seem to have incensed a non freestanding altar for a long time, nor his MCs:
I am raising this point, because of the post about how to incense a free standing altar...it seems that it would be good also for us to relearn the complex way of incensing a non freestanding altar.
The throne was really an improvement
sorry - forgot to mention that the incensing "mistake" took place at St Paul's on Sunday
I heartily agree with Gregor's first comment. Let the hideous platform which obscures the confessio be removed, so that the visual unity with Bernini's great altar is restored.
A beautiful event, but were there really no instituted readers available to proclaim the readings? Meanwhile, there were how many deacons?
I've lent my Ratzinger "Spirit of the Liturgy" to someone. Am I right in remembering that the subject of the chair in early synagogues was essentially within the congregation, and this practice was used in the early church. Could the new placement of the throne be reflecting that?
Splendid.
And agreed with Gregor in everything but concelebration. The Throne's place is beneath the Cathedra Petri, with the Cardinals, etc. sitting in rows on the two sides of the space between the Cathedra Petri and the Confessio, just like the arrangement at the Lateran.
If there is anything needed to demonstrate the liturgical advances that have been made in a short time by the Holy Father it is this Mass and these photographs. Nothing like it could have been imagined before his accession and I hope they will become a source of profound gratitude that his reforms are bearing fruit.
On other websites some poisonous posts and comments have been made in recent days criticizing the Holy Father for not publicly celebrating the classic Roman Rite and stirring up disaffection among groups who like nothing more than being disaffected. I wish these people would realize that events like these are likely to do more to embolden priests to celebrate the classic rite (if they are able to do so) and improve their celebration of the Novus Ordo more powerfully than any other liturgical example.
"What a pity that this opportunity was not ceased to remove once and for all that hideous platform which covers the greater part of the Confessio and completely destroys its visual unity with the papal altar, so important symbolically (after all, this is why the Vatican Basilica was built in the first place), and ruins the sublime work of art of Bernini."
I could not agree more with your comment. Words cannot express how much I despise the platform. The hideous addition is second only to the horrid new altar of the chair and it is on the same par with the modern mosaic of Saint Joseph above the left transept altar. It completely destroys the architectural and artistic unity of the basilica.
Fr Symondson,
I entirely agree.
Does anyone not know what deacons don't read the intentions during the Prex Fidelium at papal masses? I suspect it's in order to include more of the laity and is "liturgically correct". My parish has a deacon, but the intentions are always read by the lector.
I am surprised no one noticed that at the elevation of the Host the Holy Father seemingly attempted to elevate the Host in at least three directions similar to the old fashion.
I have a few answers to some of the ambo questions (being definitely an ambonophile) and hope to post something in the combox here soon. Watch this space.
Regarding the platform over the Confessio, I think they left it because they still intend to use it for some ceremonies (liturgical and non liturgical). I also would like it banished, but it seems the Holy Father and Don Guido don't like to discard things so quickly.
On another point, why is the Holy Father wearing again that short mitra simplex?!! What happened to the nice tall one we saw for the first time on Ash Wednesday and again on Good Friday?
Father Symondson, the voice of reason. I agree with you wholeheartedly. All the best, Tom
I really love the throne. It's so much more powerful visually than sitting in front of the altar. As for whether or not it will, or should, be moved into the apse, I don't have strong opinions either way, but I do think it looks wonderful directly opposite the statue of St. Peter. It really underscores that the Pope is Peter's succesor. One could say that that is the ultimate sign of continuity. I imagine it must also be very moving for the Pope himself to be looking over at the statue (It's such a wonderfully hieratic statue as well. I always think of it as the 'teaching Peter' and the statue outside in the piazza as the 'pastoral Peter', as the latter has, in my opinion, one of the kindest and gentlest faces you could hope to see on a statue).
God bless our Pope, long may he reign!
Scott
Many in the orthodox world of the Catholic Church don't have the least interest in the classical Roman Rite, not any desire to celebrate Mass in that form. Consider, for instance, many of the new movements and some orthodox American universities. It is possible that the Holy Father might celebrate it one day in St Peter's and possible, too, (though less likely) that he might also celebrate some of the Orthodox uniate rites there, but he is not obliged to do so. His prime concern is to celebrate the Novus Ordo as well as possible and this he does in exemplary terms which have the potential of transforming Catholic worship on a universal basis. The classical Roman Rite is not necessarily an acid test of orthodoxy and nobody is required to attend it nor celebrate it. I know many agnostics and some atheists who enjoy attending it for purely aesthetic reasons that have nothing to do with faith. It is a good and legitimate option, not an absolute requirement. Praise God that its use has been emancipated.
With luck those who are counter-productively holding their breath for manipulative reasons will soon expire of oxygen failure, their remains incarcerated in SSPX charnel houses situated among the edelweiss and cow bells of Econe. Summorum Pontificum is not an insistent, mandatory document but one that enables legitimate options to be made.
That if you don't mind me saying so - is a rather narrow minded appreciation and simplistic understanding of liturgical life in the Catholic Church today. It very sadly reflects those whose ignorance of all that went before the second Vatican Council still inflicts so much damage on the liturgical life of the Church. If a "trad" version of the Novus Ordo is your highest aspiration - then let ii be so. However, your missing out more than you know. Dismayed. Scott
Dismayed Scott
Are you Dismayed Episcopalian Scott of Chicago, or another?
Far from not knowing the liturgical life of the Church before Vatican II, I not only knew and experienced it but lived through the liturgical results of the aftermath. The Holy Father's liturgical objectives can, for the time being, only be confined publicly to a perfected celebration of the Novus Ordo which brings out its inherent richness, clarity and application as the Ordinary Rite of the Catholic Church. He has authorized the celebration of the classical Roman Rite without limit or censure and reposed its implementation in the hands of priests and religious universally, independently of episcopal control and the control of major religious superiors. The onus of implementation rests with them and it will take time for the option to be taken up on a broad basis. In time there will be many who will celebrate the classical Roman Rite but it will not be achieved overnight. It needs time, careful training and catechesis of the faithful, the majority of whom do not know how the pray the Mass in the traditional form. But the fact remains that nobody is obliged to celebrate it, nor are Catholics obliged to attend it.
The reason for adopting this stance has been caused by recent attacks on the integrity of the Holy Father made by one who has never experienced worship in the pre-conciliar Church because he is too young and who is pursuing an ulterior motive in causing strife harmful to the Church. This has unleashed a small torrent of abuse against the Holy Father from ultra-Tridentinists whose attitudes and demands have recently provoked criticism from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. Far from being friends of Summorum Pontificum, these people are becoming enemies of its authority and potential. At best their understanding of Catholicism is sectarian, at worst malignant. When people pose as supporters and defenders of tradition but turn against the highest source of authority in the Church when they don't get their way they become protestants and their views have no value. But they are pernicious and the last thing they want is to see a liturgically healthy Church which the Holy Father is intent on bringing into being.
The harsh reality of many of these dissidents is that they occupy the realm of the psycho-pathology of religion and act like a cancer in the Church.
Dismayed Scott,
You're not making many friends here by attacking a beloved commentator like Father Symondson, who has far more knowledge and range of experience in these matters than you do or possibly will ever have. To call his views simplistic, is really over the top and I, for one, insist you apologize and withdraw your remarks.
Tom
Love what the Holy Father's doing, but...
1. I do not like seeing Eastern Catholic Patriarchs set aside like they're nobodies. They're equal in dignity with the Pope and if concelebration is going to happen, it might as well be with the Pope's brother Patriarchs, not the Cardinals.
2. Would it have killed them to bring out the fanon, Leonine throne, and a taller mitra simplex? I know Pius IX used shorter mitres as well, but, this one just looks bad. And it's high time the fanon was resurrected. Is a striped mozzetta really going to scandalize the progressives that much? (It's not really that important to me, I would just like to see the Pope vested like something other than a normal metropolitan) Jeese, it's not like it's the tiara.
3. The more I see the new pallium, the less I like it. I mean, I realize we're stuck with it now, it's just, it looks so untidy. It's supposed to lay flat, but it doesn't. Oh well, something else ruined that was better off left alone in the first place.
4. I think it's time to retire the VII dalmatics. They're so...glitzy.
Currently praying for the beatification and canonization of Ven. Pius XII.
Marvellous ! Viva il Santo Padre !
Ad multos annos !
Actually , a very beautiful liturgy and a very good homily !
DEO GRATIAS !
I wish there were someway to identify the Eastern Catholic prelates. I'm familiar with some like Ukrainians, Melkites etc. but some I had no idea what rite they represented. I thought I noticed some Orthodox bishops at least present during the opening of the Synod of bishops
What a mixed bag of comments we have here.
All I can say is that I feel truly privileged to have lived through the last year as the papal liturgies have been progressively finding their feet once more after their years in the wilderness.
For the first time, the poor, beleaguered novus ordo feels like it may have a future.
To me any reason not to sing the readings versus populum are good reasons indeed. I am therefore thrilled.
However, I utterly disagree with Gregor on one issue. I am convinced that modern sacramental concelebration will disappear with time. And I hope I live to see the day. - The last council ordered a lot of things, one might argue. Well...
Tom wrote:
"Dismayed Scott,
You're not making many friends here by attacking a beloved commentator like Father Symondson, who has far more knowledge and range of experience in these matters than you do or possibly will ever have. To call his views simplistic, is really over the top and I, for one, insist you apologize and withdraw your remarks."
I didn´t know that TNLM was a private club for Admirers of Father S. I do not share Dismayed Scott´s views, but at least I can understand them. Father Jesuit´s anser to him, in contrats, I can´t even begin to understand. I guess it must be christian and priestly charity on a level only a Jesuit can grasp.
After watching parts of the video I am, somehow, a bit torn. First of all, it is clear that Pope Benedict did a wonderful job to bring back dignity and beauty to papal liturgies. Having the great candlesticks, dignified vestments and the fitting chant ordinary mark great progress. However, I fail to understand the significance of some innovations. At the beginning, the Holy Father blessed incense in two thuribles and then went immediately to the throne, without kissing the altar. I do not know of any traditional reason for doing so. Had I heard about such an idea, I would actually have suspected that it came from radical progressists who regard the altar as merely the 'table of the meal' that only becomes important at the Offertory and should be ignored in favour of the 'table of the word' beforehand. I certainly know that this is not at all the reason here, but I fail to find a rational.
As it has been observed, the position of the throne is that of a bishop's throne in the EF, but only in relation to an altar facing East - it is supposed to be at the right-hand side as seen from the front of the altar. In St Peter's, this would actually mean a position diagonally opposite, towards the cathedra end. On the long term, a return to the Cathedra for the throne seems to be the most sensible option because this is even the more ancient place for an episcopal throne, and so should be used where possible. It would mean a great logistic change - today the choir takes up much of the crossing, and they would have to be moved into the stalls, freeing more space for the congregation (the arrangement seen today takes much space and may thus not be suitable for very full Masses). The throne is far away from the altar, but the Holy Father would probably the first to say that a papal Mass is not about seeing the pope but attending Mass.
I also did not understand what happened to the practice of having people chosen for the one or the other reason to bring the ciborium and the cruets to the pope. As it is not their offering but merely something given to them just beforehand I would regard that as a liturgical 'fake' that should be dropped. Today, some families and nuns came up to the papal throne and kissed his ring, but apparently with no ciboria. I could not see if they brought them to the altar after leaving the Pope. If this is the case, why should they then have a chat with the Pope beforehand? It just seems to have become quite pointless. I'd like to stress again that these are all small details that in no way reduce my delight in the great improvements seen in the last year.
"I do not like seeing Eastern Catholic Patriarchs set aside like they're nobodies. They're equal in dignity with the Pope and if concelebration is going to happen, it might as well be with the Pope's brother Patriarchs, not the Cardinals."
While there are few Latins with greater respect for the Eastern Patriarchs than I, equal in dignity with the Pope seems to go a bit far... The Holy Father is after all, even in Eastern estimation, *first* among equals.
"Would it have killed them to bring out the fanon"
The resurrection of the fanon would quite possibly be a "story". And with it's possibly reactionary overtones, it would not make sense to resurrect it's use during a celebration of the death of Pope Pius XII, especially one falling on Yom Kippur.
"a taller mitra simplex"
As Matthew will testify, I can empathize with many liturgical obsessions. This one I don't get. I realize that proper proportionality makes mitres look better, but of all the things to get worked up about... this one seems to get emphasized out of all, well, proportion.
"The more I see the new pallium, the less I like it. I mean, I realize we're stuck with it now"
The "old new old pallium was replaced" no reason to think this one won't be as well in time.
Why is it that everything must always devolve into a "dress-up" game?
Why is the fiddle-back so sacrosanct? Why not the conical (which is far more ancient)? What's the fascination with the maniple (does anybody really know its purpose -- aside from being a sweat-band)?
As far as the ambo goes, a worthy piece of furniture ought to be used, rather than a little music stand, especially during a synod devoted to the centrality of the Word in the life and mission of the Church.
Ah, one more point: I would have thought that on a website committed to Catholic orthodoxy, no one would ever suggest that any Patriarch is "equal in dignity" to the "universal pastor," as Vatican II has taught us.
Fr. Peter,
Why is it that to you (and people who think the way you do), whenever people try to talk about pieces of vestments used before Vatican II, everything is a "dress-up" game? But then you go a little farther and want "older" forms of the vestments... but why is it that that is *not* a "dress-up" game?
Just because you don't like the maniple and the traditional Mass does not mean that wanting everything related to it brought back is a "game."
Regarding the Maniple, if you read the prayer that is said when putting it on, you would know that it is more than just a "sweat-band."
"Universal Pastor" - I think that if do our homework, waaaay before Vatican II that was mentioned in the Church. Let us remember that the Church existed before Vatican II and that the Vat II documents are not the only ones that exist in the Church. In fact, there are some older documents who may talk about the same thing in a much clearer and definitive sense.
Fr. Stravinskas,
I'm not sure who you are addressing so let me speak to the basic point which I tried to speak to in the post.
As you would know, there has tended to be a strong reaction against the baroque form of vestment, not so much for stylistic reasons usually (ie. the Roulin school approach) but for more symbolic reasons.
In some ways, because it was so pre-eminent in the pre-conciliar era, its rejection has become something of a symbol of the rejection or rupture from that same era. It is viewed by many -- quite wrongly of course -- as "pre-conciliar" or "Tridentine", which it isn't at all of course.
The Pope's use of this style, as Marini made clear previously, intends to speak to continuity. In that sense, there is likewise a recognition of this symbolic dimension.
Therefore, the issue really isn't one of the cut of vestment; its more important on the symbolic and substantial level of continuity.
In terms of vestments qua vestments, what really matters is that they are simply beautiful and dignified. But of course, that is another reason to be interested in this. Many of these older vestments were of incredible beauty and craftsmanship. In that sense, seeing them pulled out is rather like the edification that comes from hearing a beautiful polyphonic setting of Palestrina used.
Fr Peter, what is wrong with drawing on the rich heritage of the Church and using it to glorify God?
Why must anything that predates Vatican 2 be viewed as somehow worthless?
Given the immense decline in all aspects of Catholic Church life since the "reforms" (although most of these have no authority from that Council) do you not think that perhaps an error was made that needs a little rectification?
And as this site is dedicated to the Liturgy, why would people here not post on such matters as maniples?
In a basilican plan church, the normal place of the throne is on the center of the apse with the free standing altar in front of it.
I think part of the problem about the palcement of the throne in St. Peter's is that there was no permanent throne in the first place as opposed to the other papal/patriarchal basilicas. Had there been a permanent throne in the apse, none of this experimentation would not have happened.
I just wonder why the builders of the new St. Peter's never built one.
Gio;
my understanding - although I read it years ago and can't now remember where - was that the intention was that the papal throne should be placed under the Cathedra Petri : not only for obvious symbolical reasons, but also because that is (as you rightly say) the liturgically and historically normal place.
However, the absence of a permanent throne was (apparently) on the basis that you can only have one throne for a ruler, and if it's in a permanent place that has to be the seat of government; which clearly would not be appropriate for a church. (The same principle actually applies in the UK, of course; the only 'throne' the Queen has is the one in the House of Lords - all the rest are just upmarket chairs !)
One other note, I'm not certain why the maniple must have a practical purpose now to have value as a vestment today. There can be symoblic value in vestments, let alone the aspect of maintaining aspects of our tradition.
We don't have to absolutize them, but let's also not belittle liturgical aspects of our tradition that have been in use for so long.
Let's also remember where those ways of thinking have gotten us.
My mentioning the conical style of chasuble was not to glorify "more ancient forms," thus engaging in antiquarianism. It was only to demonstrate the rather one-sided approach to "tradition" often exhibited. If we want to re-capture liturgical tradition, let's apply this across the board, no? And surely one can't object to the chasubles worn in the Middle Ages.
I was ordained in a conical chasuble, but I grant that they are rather impractical. Which is undoubtedly why they went the way of high-button shoes.
Regardless of what else Fr. Stravinskas wrote, he is definitely right in correcting the mistake of "anonymous" -- the Pope and the other patriarchs are not equal. They are not equal in dignity, nor in authority. The Pope is not "first among equals," he is their superior. Furthermore, why should the Pope concelebrate with the Cardinals and not with the Patriarchs? Probably because he and most of the Cardinals are of the same, Roman Rite while the different patriarchs are by different definition of different rites. If we saw the patriarchs concelebrating with the Pope in the Roman Rite, I am sure someone would object, "I hate to see Eastern Patriarchs forced to celebrate the Roman Rite. I mean, all the rites are equal in dignity. If concelebration means switching rites for one Mass, I'd just as soon not see it."
It was only to demonstrate the rather one-sided approach to "tradition" often exhibited. If we want to re-capture liturgical tradition, let's apply this across the board, no?
Well, "tradition" is what is handed down and received, not what was practiced centuries ago and subsequently died out. So that could be a reason why traditionalists prefer the Roman chasuble to the gothic or the conical.
dcs,
Was the move (at least in the US) to Gothic vestments such a rupture? In many of the photos that I have seen of Masses in the US in the 50's and early 60's, gothic vestments were very common, perhaps even more so than roman. Perhaps this was the organic development. I mean, when is an action rupture and when is it organic development?
I think the point that the Holy Father is making is that ALL these vestment styles can be good and worthy of use. There is no one style to which people should cling.
Having now watched the full video of this, i would say that the most striking and unhappy thing about it is that the chapel of St Peter's Chair, once the main theatre of the Papal liturgy, was this day completely empty, rows of empty seats behind a barrier. Seen from the television camera, and broadcast around the world, this gives a very strange and unpastoral impression. Certainly neither is it a link with tradition, in conflict with many other good aspects of this Mass.
The move to wider use of gothic chasubles was part of the Liturgical Movement prior to the council, and the beginnings of the change date back, even to the 19th century. This development was at the time the subject of intense debate and led to several decisions of the Sacred Congregation for Rites. The last of these (and I can dig up the citation for you if you need it) left the decision on what shape of vestments to permit in the hands of the local bishop.
Beautiful pictures-I like the different placements of the ambo and the papal throne.
At first I didn't realize I was looking at the inside of St. Peter's Basilica!
I wonder if the Holy Father will have this all the time (I only get to see the Christmas Midnight Mass on TV-no EWTN) ?
Fr. Anthony Symondson, S.J. said: With luck those who are counter-productively holding their breath for manipulative reasons will soon expire of oxygen failure, their remains incarcerated in SSPX charnel houses situated among the edelweiss and cow bells of Econe. Summorum Pontificum is not an insistent, mandatory document but one that enables legitimate options to be made.
One of the things I most look forward to on this blog is reading Fr. Symondson's comments! The voice of reason, and very witty!
Quentin,
All the other Papal Basilicas have permanent thrones/chairs, whatever you call them, though only the Lateran's can properly be called a chathedra.
In St. Peter's back in the old days, they just set up a temporary throne in front of the Cathedra Petri whenever there is a solemn papal mass.
Now my question that remain unanswered is, why was there no permanent throne/chair in the St. Peter's?
(Message en français)
Comme le mentionne par un lecteur ci-dessus, le premier encensement de l'autel (début de la messe) a été fait pas deux diacres ayant chacun un encensoir.
Auriez-vous quelque explication à cet usage?
Merci en tout cas pour votre site si intéressant. Cordialement, Paul.
" With luck those who are counter-productively holding their breath for manipulative reasons will soon expire of oxygen failure, their remains incarcerated in SSPX charnel houses situated among the edelweiss and cow bells of Econe. Summorum Pontificum is not an insistent, mandatory document but one that enables legitimate options to be made."
This is an extremely rude and uncharitable remark. It is simply uncalled for.
One cannot be rude without an object. To whom exactly is Fr Symondson rude? Anyone contributing to this blog? Surely not?
Indeed Fr Symondson is exactly what we need, a man whose heart is correctly and firmly placed within the continuing ecclesial tradition, but who is most certainly not to be counted among those whose aesthetic or sentimental preferences place them with even a toe outside the threshold of the Church.
If we cannot be traditional within the loyal bosom of our Faith, we would better not be traditional at all. Thus, Fr Symonson is not rude to anyone who has no already cut himself off.
Scott's comment on holding his breath waiting for the Holy Father to celebrate the classical Roman Rite in St Peter's appears to have disappeared and that makes the ensuing comments difficult to understand. I admit to being sarcastic rather than rude in referring to the charnel houses of Econe which I dare say are more elaborately decorated with dead men's bones than the Capuchin labyrinths in the Via Veneto in Rome and at Palermo.
But the source of my annoyance is that for disgruntled traditionalists nothing is ever enough, no matter how far the liturgical life of the Apostolic See has improved. There is scarcely any gratitude shown for what the Holy Father is accomplishing or recognition of the future significance of his reforms. And this betrays a serious lack of respect for the papal office bordering, at times, on contempt. It takes little to unleash such spite from those who regard themselves as integral Catholics. My own conviction is that if you insult the Holy Father you insult Our Lord, whose representative he is. And some of the comments criticizing him on another website are the work of crazed men.
What is remarkable about the programme of papal reforms is that the Holy Father is retaining the confidence of the Church at large and setting an example which is quietly being followed in inconspicuous places far removed from the limelight of websites. And this is supported by his palpable holiness, learning and integrity of life.
Gio,
Another question might be asked, why to basilicas other than the Lateran have permanent thrones? I was actually unaware that there was one at St. Mary Major. My understanding of the reason why there hasn't been one in St. Peters is because traditionally the primary focus of St. Peter's has been on the confessio of St. Peter. At the Lateran basilica, the emphasis was on the Christ's authority as made known through the bishop of Rome, and the cathedra of that basilica needed to underscore that teaching. When the popes came back from Avignon and no longer wished to reside at the Lateran palace, St. Peter's was envisaged not just as a testament to Peter but as a testament to Petrine authority. St. Peter's was never designed to be a cathedral and more and more it is expected to perform like one.
I do wish that the Holy Father used the Lateran basilica more frequently, at least for all major holidays that basilica was the designated stational church, e.g. Palm Sunday and the Easter Vigil, and not only Holy Thursday. Yes, fewer congregants could be accommodated, but I think that the benefits of layout would more than compensate.
My guess as to why two deacons incensed the altar, rather than the Pope himself, is that since the chair was placed where it was, he did not want to ascend and descend the altar of the confession. Having the deacons incense is the importation of a "Byzantinism." But, of course, the Pope is "omni-ritual."
A very beautiful mass, and some wonderful improvements.
Many great improvements on previous celebrations over the last 30 years.
Perhaps the fanon may return. Perhaps greater use of larger precious mitre's.But its hard to fault the huge steps taken so far.
Oh dear.....it was never my itention to offend Fr Symonson or his numerous "followers" on this forum. I had never even heard of the good Father before this spat....so apologies if you were in any way offended. Of course I want to see the Novus Ordo celebrated with as much piety and reverance as possible. As this is the Rite that the vast majority of Catholics now attend that is the most obvious hope at this time. All I was attempting to say was that I HOPE that the Holy Father would openly celebrate the EF in St. Peter's for the first time in over 40 years. End of aspiration! Is this so shocking? Yes, Father Symonson - it is all down to aesthetics. I have attended the Novus Ordo most of my adult life. In many cases it is celebrated reasonably well. Very occasionally it is very well "done". On other occasions - very sadly - it has been a "dog's breakfast". I am sorry to say the Novus Ordo always leaves me somewhat unsatisfied spiritually. For me (and I can ONLY speak for MYSELF!) only the EF - the Classical Roman/Tridentine Rite can meet ALL my spiritual needs. I prefer Ch.Margaux and others desire...well, something else! By the way - the comments about Econe and the FSSPX are quite unnecessary and are out of order. Scott
Scott, you are one lucky guy. I attended Mass both prior to the Council and now, and have rarely, if ever been satisfied with how the Novus Ordo is celebrated. There are the rare exceptions like the Brompton Oratory in London or St. John Cantius in Chicago, but generally, in most parishes, the Novus Ordo is banal, trite, and not very spiritually nourishing. It could be, but until the current liturgical progressives are safely in nursing homes, I don't think much will change. Tom
Has anyone noticed that the "hideous modern altar " in the apse has been replaced with the most magnificent gold & silver Renaissance frontal---cf the Mass for deceased cardinals. This is surely the greatest improvement so far. I for one am amazed by the pace of change in Rome. I never expected to see such things in my lifetime. It has all happened in just over a year.
John Martin Robinson
Commenting by HaloScan
