The Responsorial Psalm is from the Graduale Simplex.
It is great to see the Pope wearing the Roman fiddleback! oWish more priests would follow him in wearing those beauty fiddlebacks!
Its great to see the Pope vested thus. I imagine that quite a few people's dreams have come true - its hard to imagine just how unthinkable this would have been just a short time ago.
Is the pallium not worn on Good Friday as a pentitential sign, or has it simply been decided that it would not match the vestments?
It was good to see the Prophecy tone for the 1st reading from Isaiah. Seems like a lot of the readings lately and the Prayer of the Faithful have been by male lectors in amice and alb and many sung.
And the mitre! Evidently there was one left that Archbishop Marini didn't get rid of.
What happened to the pallium?
Next step is the fanon 
I believe the Pallium is not worn on Good Friday. The Pope did not wear it in previous years either. I have found pictures of Pope John Paul wearing it, but not in all the years.
Incidentally, you might see here what I mean by the Pope intentionally varying styles. You'll note that this appears to be the chasuble that matches the cope he wore on Palm Sunday. He chose to wear a different chasuble then and wear this one now.
There certainly seems to be a program underway to do this sort of thing.
The one exception in this regard has been his use of the Lenten purple vestments which came from the same set.
Whilst I heartily approve of lace, I do wonder whether or not on occasions like Good Friday and Requiems it would not be better for Mons. Marini and his MCs and the cardinals/bishops in choir to wear plain white surplices/rochets. If they wear large amounts of lace today, how do they signify the joy of Easter Sunday?
Yes, the staff (for bishops the crozier) is not used and the pallium and RING are not worn on Good Friday.
What a dreadful performance of the reproaches! Our dog is in a frenzy.
Seriously? The commentator is bugging me so much. Chatting over the Ave verum corpus? "The pope is now receiving communion.." Err..yeah. We kind of figured that out.
Beautiful celebration. I just got back from a 2 hour service at Westminster Cathedral to make it in time for the Bidding Prayers/General Intercessions and I cried when I saw our Holy Father, barefoot, lovingly venerating the cross - such simplicy and humility. He's such an inspiration to us all.
This is so wonderful (by which I do not mean to start that boring old Roman vs. Gothic debate again, but just that it is possible again for the pope to wear this old and beautiful planeta).
Also wonderful the position of the throne (as long as the old position is still impeded by the new altar of the Chair). An urgent next step (I know we cannot expect everything at once, but just as a suggestion) would be to remove that bridge which is covering the confessio. It just does not do, it destroys the composition.
Fr Selvester, thanks for clearing up the question of the pallium etc. Is that also why the pope doesn't wear the dalmatic? Of course traditionally, this makes sense since the dalmatic is a garment of joy, which is why no dalmatics were worn in Lent. But since the 1960 codex rubricarum changed this, and the very deacons serving at the actio liturgica are wearing dalmatics, I do wonder why the Holy Father doesn't.
Although my preference is for a conical-shaped chasuble (!), I think the Holy Father looks wonderful today - the fiddleback suits St Peter's baroque splendour.
One might note that Mgr Marini wore a rather more subdued lace surplice today!
Either way, the liturgy today in St Peter's looked solemn and seemed to have the dignity befitting a papal liturgy. Deo gratias!
Neither the pallium (both for the Pope and for Metropolitans), nor the Fisherman's Ring (or, in the case of other Bishops, the episcopal ring), nor the Pastoral Staff (or crozier, in the case of other Bishops), are worn on Good Friday. That is the longstanding pratctice.
The late John Paul II, however, made use of the pallium sometimes on Good Friday, but not always, and it wasn't worn by Benedict XVI last year.
Note that, because it is Good Friday, the use of a pontifical dalmatic underneath the chasuble is also omitted per custom, and accordingly the Pope, who has been making use of a pontifical dalmatic, wore a Roman chasuble today, but with no dalmatic.
Just FYI, the pictures on this series are closed from my part as the Good Friday Service is now finished in Rome. So there will be no further updates to this post.
I noticed the interesting detail that two well known unfriendly-to-the-extraordinary-form cardinals, i.e. Carinar Re (Prefect of the Bishops) and Cardinal De Giorgi (emeritus of Palermo) insisted , while taking Communion from the Pope, to take the Host in the hand. (Just thereafter, also Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, took Communion in hand, however, suprisingly, Card. Hummes did not!)
The former papal master of ceremonies must be in deep mourning today. All his hard work undone so quickly! Tom
A beautiful and holy Good Friday liturgy. Every papal liturgy seems to be full of wonderful surprises in giving public witness to the restoration of sacred tradition.
I hope Mons. Marini (who used to adopt systematically such Roman vestments for the pontificals in Genoa) will try soon to find a way to use Roman vestments also in presence of the pallium (maybe replacing the pallium itself, with a a smaller one -with red crosses...)
A little ornate for Good Friday...
OLSp asked:
"If they wear large amounts of lace today, how do they signify the joy of Easter Sunday?"
Easy - EVEN MORE lace!
Friends;
For give me, but as my interests have primarily been in music and architecture, I have not really paid attention to posts regarding who is wearing what during Mass. Can you please tell me why there is this great interest in the vestments...lace, fiddlebacks and otherwise. They are indeed beautiful to behold, but was the wearing of such vestments forbidden or discouraged before now. If so, why?
Naz,
When you think of it, the interest in music, the interest in vestments, the interests in architecture all are of the same theme: the ornaments of the sacred rites.
In the case of these, one of the things that we have seen in many places was, just as chant and polyphony had effectively disappeared following the Council, so did more ornate forms of vestments in many places. So seeing the restoration of these things in the papal liturgy in a more regular way is similar to seeing chant and polyhpony, Latin, etc. turn up more frequently.
Richard:
I like the way you think!
The chausable is only worn during Mass. Today, there is no Mass, therefore, the priests shouldn't be wearing a chausable. Is this statement correct? If this is correct, why did the Vatican mandate red chausable on a day when no Mass is being offered. Shouldn't they keep with tradition and use black or purple cope and stole only? Hopefully, someone will explain this confusion?
Many thanks for your explanation, Shawn. It is indeed a joy to see the beauty of the liturgy restored and reflected in all these forms.
Matthaus, chasubles have always been used on Good Friday for what was called the "mass of the presanctified." It was black until 1962, then purple until 1969, then red.
I'm not so sure about the accuracy of Shawn's comment that Pope Benedict was doing it to intentionally vary styles. I would rather bet that the size of his pallium is the chief reason the Holy Father didn't wear this beautiful chasuble on Palm Sunday.
Aesthetically, I think it's too bad that he couldn't wear the pontifical dalmatic today, because - imho- fiddlebacks always look so much better and less "sandwich board" with the dalmatic under them. Alternatively, it's too bad that the pallium couldn't be further shortened so that it would sit on this chasuble as it did on the chasuble the Pope wore on Ash Wednesday, which I thought looked quite noble.
Speaking of dalmatics, I notice that one of the "deacons" - the one shown kissing the Cross - is in fact Fr Pierre Paul, the director of music at St Peter's Basilica. Is it now allowed in the Novus Ordo for priests to vest as deacons when performing the role of deacons? That would apparently seem to be the case (first from the appearance of the cardinal deacons and now this) but I'm wondering if this has explicitly been allowed in the rubrics. I've often been told that it was forbidden in the modern form of the Roman Rite for priests to vest as deacons, although I've never seen documentation of that either.
Kim, my comment is indeed speculative and your thought is certainly interesting as well.
I should note that I am also bearing in mind what Msgr. Guido Marini said in an interview about the vestment selection of the recent Christmas period:
"Above all, it must be underscored that the vestments chosen, like some details of the rites themselves, are meant to underscore the continuity of the present liturgy with that which characterized the traditional liturgy of the Church.
"The hermeneutic of continuity is always the right criterion for interpreting the course of the Church in time. This goes for the liturgy as well.
"Just as a Pope cites his predecessors in his documents, to show the continuity of the magisterium, a Pope also does the same in the liturgical sense when he uses the vestments and sacred accessories that previous Popes have used, to indicate the same continuity in the lex orandi.
Thus during the Christmas season liturgies, Pope Benedict XVI will be wearing miters that belonged to Benedict XVI, John XXIII, John Paul I and John Paul II."
This works two ways of course. Using styles used by John XXIII, Pius XII and his predecessors and so on, and also using styles from the JP2 era.
Still, I think your thought is interesting and may have definite merit as well.
The chasuble is worn because the Triduum is considered one celebration--from Holy Thursday (why isn't it Maundy?) to the end of the Great Vigil. The liturgical colors may change but this is also why there are no formal introductory rites to GF or the vigil.
There was a moment in the liturgy today which serves as a good reminder to all of us: when you make a mistake in the midst of the liturgy, as the troubled passion deacon (Jesus) did on a couple of entrances, do not let your face give it away!
Shawn
Thank you for posting these magnificent photographs so quickly.
Will you explain, please, why you describe the Holy Father's chasuble as a 'fiddleback'? In the past these were known as Latin or Roman vestments. Fiddlebacks resemble what they describe: violins, cellos, and violas. These don't.
Having said that, it is wonderful to see Latin vestments back in use in St Peter's. They are altogether congruous with the architecture and belong.
The old rule was: use Latin vestments, furniture and ornaments in a Gothic building as, mysteriously, they fit in an evolutionary sense. In a Classical building don't use Gothic or Modern vestments or ornaments because they don't. The ancient Byzantine pictures of Mary in some of the Roman basilicas and churches fit because they are in Classical frames and their antiquity is absorbed.
Thanks for posting the photos. As someone who only wears fiddleback vestments for both forms of the Roman rite, it's wonderful to see the Holy Father in such a magnificent chasuble.
Fr. Symondson,
I referred to it as "fiddleback" in the title mainly because, at least in North America, this is how that style is usually referred to and so, typing quickly and trying to keep up with the video events as they happened, that custom took over.
As you probably know, I typically will refer to the "baroque form" of Roman chasuble, though that doesn't have a great flow in a title.
Mind you, part of me wonders about the designation of "Roman" since I consider the more ample form as Roman as the baroque form -- but I digress!
Of all days to appear in a "Roman" chasuble, highly decorated with gold, Good Friday was not the day. Leave aside the issue of "Gothic vs Roman": one should focus on "festal" versus "penitential".
According to regulations of the past for the Extraordinary Form, on Penitential days (Funerals also) lace was forbidden. On such occasions, everything was to be characterised by sobriety. There were and are good reasons for this.
Seeing this makes me wonder just what liturgical aesthetic the new Monsignor Marini embraces, or whether the aim is simply to reject the aesthetic of post-Vatican II Rome.
If the pendulum swings to the other direction, we are not necessarily in the ideal place.
I'm sorry, Shawn, I should have been clear that I absolutely agree with your general thesis that the Holy Father and Msgr Marini are intentionally trying to use various styles of vestments as a way to counter the hermeneutic of rupture. My speculation was that vestments for Palm Sunday may not have been specifically chosen for this reason. Thank you for keeping us updated on the encouraging developments from Rome and around the world!
Chancel Screen,
Given the variety we have seen just in this past week between Baroque style vestments and those we would have regularly seen under Piero Marini in the JP2 era, I don't think one can intimate the pendulum swing you are speaking of, let alone rejection. That seems rather absurd to even suggest.
For my part, I have little worry or concern over Msgr. Marini and nothing but praise.
Further, in the context of the Vatican basilica as well, the rites still came across as quite sober.
I am glad to see the Holy Father dressed in a fiddleback... if only it were a more common occurrence! Now that the Pope and Msgr. Marini have incorporated many traditional elements back into the liturgy, I can tell by the pictures posted that the Basilica needs a restoration as well. The Altar of the Chair should be promptly restored and those disturbing temporary steps taken down from the Papal Altar. The cheap steps ruin the effect of Bernini's baldaccino and Maderno's confessio.
Beautiful Ceremony. Enjoy seeing the ancient used now. Liberals, the days are numbered.
Chancel, sorry but that is another liturgical urban legend perpetuated by Nainfa. Lace was not forbidden in penitential days or funerals. The cardinals sede vacante used rochets with 2-3 cmts of lace; this restriction in the choral dress of cardinals may be the origin of the legend.
I am pleased to see the papal throne in a much more logical location; perhaps at some point they will re-do the Cathedra Petri so it can be placed below it but for now this is very fine, and let us hope it encourages bishops and priests to rearrange their own furniture similarly.
Those pictures of the Holy Father praying..........I bet he's praying for the conversion of the Jews.
Seriously, the photos are magnificent. I bet everyone there was truly inspired. May our good Pope's example inspire the lower clergy.
St Charles Borromeo's regulations as to the dimensions of vestments should be made binding on the entire Latin church.
There were not, but unfortunately for the Latin church, the St Charles' seminary system was.
Isn't the pope supposed to wear a dalmatic under his chasuble symbolizing the fullness of his priesthood?
I can't understand the love of the Roman Chasuble without Mass ad orientem. It looks strange from the front without a pontifical dalmatic. Conical, Gothic, etc. look much more appropriate.
Staying true to St. John Chrysostom, "God needs golden souls, not golden chalices," it would be great to see pictures of tasteful, simple worship spaces. Baroque is not the only beautiful style.
The pontifical dalmatic is not worn on Good Friday. Also, note the plain dark wood of the faldstool/prie dieu, which is appropriate to the nature of the day.
Anonymous2: Sometimes when soul's behold the beauty of the liturgy being offered for their Lord, they realize how central God must be in one's life and so, through seeing golden chalices, souls are encouraged to become golden themselves. This is what happened for my wife, who returned to the Church and to the Lord through the beauty of worship directed not toward humans but toward God.
St Charles Borromeo's regulations as to the dimensions of vestments should be made binding on the entire Latin church.
It's a pity that some folks want things to be so black and white. And it is antithetical to the kind of work of restoration that the Holy Father is undertaking. He tells us that all of our traditions are to be treasured; what was sacred "then" is sacred "now". Comments like the above make me think that some would just assume reject several hundred years of history in order to go back to some golden standard that never really existed universally.
oh, it existed alright, deacon.
Prior to the counter-reformation, which was an over- and mis-reaction to the so-called refomation, and which was a necessary condition precedent to the current disastrous situation in the church, the worst crisis in all church history.
For: Kim D'Souza
In regards to the question about priests vested as deacons and serving as such:
From the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Presentation Cum, die 1 Ianuarii of the changes introduced into the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 23 December 1972: Not 9 (1973) 34-38.
"On 1 January 1973, a new discipline will become effective regarding first tonsure, minor orders, and subdiaconate, as established by the Moto Proprio Ministeria quaedam of 15 August 1972. Accordingly, the order of subdiaconate will no longer exist in the Latin Church. A reader or acolyte, even one not formally instituted, will perfom the subdeacon's functions. In the celebration of Mass all ministers should do all and only those parts that belong to them on the basis of the order they have received. The ordained ministers at Mass are therefore to take part either by concelebrating if they are priests or by exercising their proper ministries if they are deacons. The function of subdeacon, then, is completely suppressed. If there are several deacons present, they many divide the parts of that ministry among themselves and perform them. It is altogether out of place for a priest vested as a deacon to exercise the deacon's function. Finally, it should be kept in mind that "a liturgical service takes on a more sublime form when the rites celebrated with singing, the ministers of each rank take their parts in them, and the congregation actively participates.""
There has not been any subsequent legislation changing this for the Latin Church.
The following from the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches [Congregation for the Eastern Churches, 6 January 1996] also refers to the practice of priests vested as deacons and serving as such in section 75:
"The minor Orders and the diaconate are not mere formalities in preparation for presbyterial ordination. They provide a specific service in the Church, and as such are to be effectively exercised in a definitive way by those who do not intend to enter the presbyterate, and in a sufficiently ample way by those who are to be ordained presbyters. This is especially valid for the diaconate. In this sense, misgivings should not be had toward conferring minor Orders and even the diaconate on those who comport themselves well, are suitable and appropriately prepared for the responsibility they assume, and declare themselves available for the service of the Church, even if they must continue to live with their families and practice their own trades. Thus, the ministers necessary for a dignified and fitting celebration of the liturgy are obtained, avoiding the practice, different also in this case from the Latin Church in which it is no longer in use, of having ministers of a higher range perform the liturgical functions that should be reserved to those of a lower range (the most frequent case is that of presbyters functioning as deacons), or of permanently appointing to the laity liturgical tasks expected of a minister: practices to be eliminated."
The above is the current liturgical law for both the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches. What takes place in practice does not make law or change it regardless of who is doing it. [ For example, the cut and style of vestments are not prescribed by law. The type of vestments worn are: i.e. the chasuble is to be worn by bishops and priest but the style is not legislated.] This law is reflective of the theology of orders in the Patristic period when the Churches of West and East were united. The Patristic theology of orders remains the paradigm in the Eastern Christian Churches. A somewhat different development took place under Western scholastic theology that focused on "powers" in orders rather than the relationship of one order to the other orders in the ecclesial communion of the Church. In the scholastic paradigm there was an accumulation of "powers" something quite foreign to the Patristic and Eastern Christian ethos. "Power" in the East is always the "power of the Holy Spirit" working in all the orders in distinct and various ways for the building up of the Body of Christ and directed always to a full escatological reality. In the West were "powers" were accumulated by the individual, and the diaconate had already for various complex reasons fallen into a serious decline, it became the practice for priests to serve as deacons. The liturgical functions of the diaconate continued but the diaconate mutated into a transitional "gradus" on the way to the priesthood. The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Churches that remained faithful to the Apostolic and Patristic theology of orders never had priests [let alone bishops] acting liturgically as deacons. From an Orthodox perspective priests and bishops serving as deacons raises very serious questions about the nature of the Church. "Ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" in the words of Prosper of Aquitaine, the law of belief is founded upon the law of worship. The practice of priests serving as deacons touches upon the very working of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Even today in the Apostolic Church of the East a bishop or priest never serves the Divine Liturgy without a deacon assisting. The Eastern Catholic Churches following re-union with Rome came under scholastic theological influence and lost the diaconate and minor orders as permanent orders. They mutated them into transitional orders. Thus when deacons were needed for "solemnity" priests took the diaconal role. The above legislation from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches is to correct this abuse of Uniatism.
This entire matter is worthy of a great deal of further reflection and a scholarly monograph needs to be written on the subject for the implications theologically are much more significant than the desire to have a Solemn High Mass served well. The desire is very good but the basic Catholic moral principal of using a good means to arrive at a good end also appies to liturgy both in East and West.
As beautiful as the vestments are, I think a more important issue is the fact that the Holy Father used a crucifix and not a plain cross for the veneration. Certain "liturgists" claim that the missal states "Veneration of the Cross" and therefore a crucifix cannot be used. Also, in the pictures of the Communion Service for Good Friday the Blessed Sacrament is being brought to the Altar in procession, obviously from the Repository. In my reading of the rubrics that is what is supposed to be done. Why, then, do many churches remove the Blessed Sacrament from the Repository at midnight on Holy Thursday and place It in the sacristy safe or another place apart from the church using the reasoning that the Eucharist cannot be anywhere in the church on Good Friday? This never made sense to me. I believe that is an example of a liturgist's opinion becoming the norm. How can the churches in the United States be convinced that the Blessed Sacrament is to be kept in the Repository until the Communion Service of Good Friday?
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
