Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Wonderful first article Gregor, I look foward to many, many more.
Gregor, I completely agree. The whole thing reeks of antiquariansim, and I'm surprised the Holy Father has kept it around after Marini left. What's even stranger is that the pallium he added to his coat of arms when he abandoned the tiara uses the old design, not the new one.
A fascinating history from Berolinensis. Thank you very much.
Amazing. Last evening I was trying to explain palliums to some orthodox buddies over some orthodox beer, and today we get this wonderful post to clarify what I and the beer muddled up.
Good job, Gregor, and welcome.
When I first saw the Holy Father wearing the older form of pallium the reaction it provoked was not antiquarianism but a powerful emblem of the theory of ressourcement which marks his theological methodology and work. I imagine that the choice was his. In a flash it took me back to the most positive elements of pre-Vatican II theology which periti like him brought into the Council but which did not clearly emerge afterwards. It also suggested not only theological continuity by linking the present with the Church of the Fathers but renewal (in the best sense). In my opinion, this impression has been vindioated in his encyclicals and his recent liturgical decisions and example. I hope I have not misread the signs but the choice of the older form of pallium symbolises something far deeper than antiquarianism, appearances and personal preference.
This modern pallium looks too much like the Byzantine omophorion. The Byzantine Catholics often complain about how much their liturgy has been Latinized. Perhaps we shouldn't make the same mistake.
Dear Fr Symondson,
thank you for your comment. I was of course not implying - I hope I made a sufficient caveat - that this old-new pallium cannot suggest these positive notions you mention. And of course it is difficult to draw the line between objectionable antiquarianism and legitimate ressourcement. However, readopting an "early form" after a long process of organic development, in this case going back at least 1300 years seems problematic to me, especially considering the inconsistencies I have tried to point out. To put it a bit plainer, according to the evidence we have, there has never before been such a pallium as we now see. We should turn to the theology of the Fathers, not to a hypothetical and therefore inauthentic idea of what they wore.
As for this pallium being the personal choice of the Pope, I am afraid I have to disappoint you. As a monk of Heiligenkreuz Abbey (which the Holy Father visited last year) told us in these very comboxes: "Archbishop Marini told one of my confreres that Pope Benedict on his election wanted to reintroduce the papal fanon, and that it took him (Archbishop Marini) a long time to persuade him (the Holy Father) to introduce the new style of pallium instead." Needless to say, I would have preferred it had the archbishop not prevailed.
For anyone who hasn't read this article, it explains a lot about why the old pallium was abandoned.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0603590.htm
I don't think the new pallium is meant to symbolize ressourcement. It's not like anything is being recovered by adopting an older looking design. The new design is not more effective, and it certainly isn't aesthetically pleasing. I can see why it was dropped. The vestments and rituals of the Roman Rite are always characterized by symmetry.
I also don't believe it was Benedict's decision, since JPII wore the same thing once. For those who have come to think of it as an ecumenical gesture, most forms of the omophorion I've seen have more in common with the old pallium than the new one:
http://www.byzantines.net/
morein...shop_george.jpg
I don't think there's any way to explain this besides archaeologism. Marini liked his Pope's to look like they had just climbed out of the catacombs and would stand for nothing medieval or baroque. That is an error.
I like the Holy Father's Pallium. I would have no objection to it being worn with a fiddleback either.
The fanon too....
I think the fuller pallium is more aesthetically pleasing. There is something more than a little sad about the cut-down quality of the present-day pallium. I'm all in favor of development, but I see nothing wrong with occasionally preventing things from becoming *too* vestigial. I would say the pins and the like (representing the nails, yes?) actually are good as the prevent the new pallium from being a merely archaelogical exercise. Though as a distinctive papal emblem, it is a little bit strange and novel.
That being said, I'd also be glad to see the fanon back, too.
Folks look at some of the more ancient ikons of sainted bishops. It isn't rocket science to figure out what the pope had in mind: preeminently he is the Bishop of Rome, very much like his predecessors. Personally I think it is a rather good touch.
Several points regarding Matthew's and Hieromonk's comments:
1) The problem with the design, which I have tried to point out, is that it is anachronistic - a pallium combining these features did never exist at any point in time.
2) Matt, I understand your point that things can become *too* vestigial - but must that mean to go back fully 1300 years to very first form we know about it (and then not even do it right)? Isn't that the other extreme?
3) The symbolism of the pins was (like every symbolism of liturgical vestments) a symbolism that was attached to them after they had come into use for a practical reason - fixing the pallium in a shape - a shape in which it isn't worn in the new design.
4) Hieromonk, as is said in the transaltion from Fr. Braun, the pallium in the West from the beginnig had precisely the opposite meaning -
it was by right only worn by the Pope, not by Bishops, who were only allowed to wear it by papal concession, signifying their bond to the See of Peter. With the metropolitans it symbolised the partaking in the plenitudo pontificalis officii entrusted to them in the name of the pope for their province.
Consider another example. What if the Pope decided to wear a mitre that was based on an earlier form, one where the horns are on the sides instead of front and back. What reason would he have for doing so? And what are the implications of such a move? Are they right, even if it does look nice in the end?
I realize the pallium is anachronistic. The fact it is, that it incorporates elements later added to it after it was cut down, prevents it from being merely an exercise in archaeologism. If it were exactly identical to the way it was when it first appeared, I would consider that actually *more* problematic, because it would lose the various beneficial developments it had undergone, while discarding the less fortunate reduction in size.
I think the difference here from the mitre is the mitre was changed to some degree, but not in a way that reduced it drastically in size, which implies to me a certain ecclesiastical parsimoniousness.
In the interests of the "purification of memory", may I suggest that readers look again at the pallium which Pope Jihn Paul II wore at the Midnight Mass after the opening of the Great Jubilee Holy Door.
There is a pic here: http://hardmanwindow.blogspot.co...llium-
1999.html
A very interesting post, thank you Gregor.
Why is a reduction in size a bad thing? One could make a very cogent argument that the decorated Gothic chasubles made of fine silk isn't an archaeologism. A chasuble made of elaborate materials becomes even more dignified when it's made of more material. But for a pallium? Is one design really objectively any more fitting than another? If we are going to abandon what was handed down to us, there better be a good reason. But there isn't. I guess the argument, "because it isn't traditional," doesn't hold much weight today. If only people responded to departures form traditional vesture the same way they respond to departures from the traditional rubrics. This isn't to say that every type of development is bad, but that certain ones are, even if they are technically organic, because of their underlying principles (ie, pastoral brevity, simplification, archaeologism, etc.)
But just in case anyone still thinks this wasn't principally about abandoning something tradition for something from the "early Church":
"The morning after Pope Benedict was elected last year, Archbishop Piero Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies, presented him with a draft of the new "Rites for the Beginning of the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome."
The book, which included proposed texts for the Masses and prayer services marking the beginning of a pontificate, also included a suggestion for a new -- or rather, very old -- pallium.
For hundreds of years the pope's pallium, like the one still worn by archbishops, was a circular band of wool with a 12-inch-long strip hanging from the center down the front and the back.
The one chosen by Pope Benedict is wider and drapes around his neck; it is more than twice as long as an archbishop's pallium, with the ends hanging down his left side and reaching below his knees.
The pope's advisers did not make up the design, but recovered it from the first millennium of Christianity, said Marianist Father Silvano Maggiani, a liturgist and consultant to Archbishop Marini's office. The prototypes can be seen around the shoulders of archbishops depicted in the sixth-century mosaics in the churches of Ravenna, Italy.
The pallium was shortened over the centuries as the chasuble worn at Mass became heavier and more elaborately decorated, Father Maggiani said.
Especially with the so-called "fiddleback" chasuble common before the Second Vatican Council, a pallium hanging down the side just did not look right, he said.
"It is a matter of aesthetics -- in the original Greek sense of perception, allowing its meaning to be perceived," Father Maggiani said.
The pope and archbishops wear the pallium as a sign of their authority over the Christian community, but it is the Gospel authority of a shepherd called to carry his sheep, to lead them and feed them.
Father Maggiani said the fiddleback chasubles and even the fuller chasubles adopted after the Second Vatican Council often had str
I believe Pope Benedict decided hinself to use this form of pallium,
as a distinctive papal emblem, since popes don't use anymore falda, fanon, etc. So the last 3 popes vested exactly like an archbishop. But I think his coat of arms should be changed too.
Dear Michael,
"I also don't believe it was Benedict's decision, since JPII wore the same thing once. For those who have come to think of it as an ecumenical gesture, most forms of the omophorion I've seen have more in common with the old pallium than the new one..."
It is common for Byzantine Catholic bishops in the US to wear the form of omophorion you depicted, but that is an adaptation of the Byzantine Orthodox style:
http://www.descentoftheholyspiri.../
damaskinos.jpg
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch...s/
2jvanaf_5.jpg
These look most like the pallium the current Pope wears. It is one long piece; it is not sewn together like the Byzantine Catholic form (a simplifying innovation), but it has loops that go around buttons on the sakkos to keep it in place.
All Eastern Christian bishops have some form of this vestment, with the possible exception of the Assyrians.
Some pics of Benedict with old mosaics showing the same style Pallium.http://hallowedground.wordpress.com/2007/
05/06/is-the-4th-century-trad-enough-for-ya/
This has been an interesting thread. What emerges is the power of the papal master of ceremonies. Does the Holy Father have no choice in what he wears and does? Should, for arguments sake, a pope of a different liturgical outlook succeed Pope Benedict XVI how much will he be bound by the present Marini? And, if he does not care for his guidance, won't he also be despatched? I am not throwing in a red herring but I am curious to know how much influence the papal master of ceremonies actually has.
I'm sure the Pope does have some say in these matters, but he also has to pick his battles. If on the day after his election, he's given a ceremonial to approve, and he doesn't care for it, too bad, he has to aprove it because there isn't time to make changes. If he wants a fanon and the papal MC won't give in, he can't spend all day arguing with him until he gets one, evn if it determines what he wears for the rest of his papacy. And if he shows up in the sacristy 30 minutes before a Solemn Mass and sees tie-dye vestments laid out for him, he can't ask the MC to put them away and pull out new ones. He just has to wear them and smile. The Pope can't micromanage the liturgy or anything else for that matter, so he has to find people he can trust to do these things for him. That's not always easy. And I do think that the next pope might very well decide to undo everything Benedict has done by appointing a new MC who shares HIS views on the liturgy. Until tradition is reestablished in the life of the Church, what kind of liturgies we see will reflect the personal views of different Popes, whether they be conservative or liberal.
Great conversation!
I see it is really a question of authentic development.
Here is another senerio: What if it all wasn't so uniform? For instance.
What if on Holy Thursday, the Pope wore a fiddle back, fanon and smaller pallium? On Easter Morning he wears a gothic chas. with the current pallium.
In this senerio we begin to see the "functionality" of the various vestments and how they "work" togeather.
Some say the Roman style chas. is an unfortunate development. Is it really? It is my understanding that it went that route to allow the celebrant more freedom of the arms and hands? To return to gothic would seem the unfortunate thing. At the same time Why can't these things co-exist? Why shouldn't we be exposed to various forms of vesture? It would challange the notion that particular periods in Church history are being "canonized".
I was once at monastery where the monks were wearing damask silk conical chasubles. They were clearly very hard to manage. One priest had to role up the edges of the chasuble over his sleeves so that it wouldn't fall over his hands when he was moving around. It helped me understand why they were abandoned so early on, and why the sides of the chasuble, rather than the bottom, were the first to be trimmed.
Well,
As said many times, the Pope has supreme authority and the Master of Ceremonies is not even a mini-Pope. The Pope does not have to choose his battles; he just has to know what kind of M.C. to choose. And, of course, the Pope can always say no... after Vatican II they have said no to so many things that saying no to a Papal M.C. is not going to kill anyone.
Before Vatican II, the Popes did sort of rely more on the M.C.'s because there were more ceremonies and rules of protocol than today. It was the M.C.'s job to know them by heart and make sure that they were obeyed by everyone.
Today, I personally think it is somewhat inexcusable to rely so much on Papal M.C.s like Marini, especially after this Pope saw what he was able and willing to do under the previous pontificate.
After Vat. II there are fewer ceremonies and this Pope (considered a liturgist by many), should know much better than follow the "advice" of an M.C. whose credentials as an M.C. faithful to tradition and the history of vestments is ostensibly doubtful.
If the Pope wants a distinctive emblem, he does not have to have recourse to things in a way in which they never existed before. He has the Tiara. There's no better way to set yourself apart than using the Tiara, which is not even used in the East. [The crown-like mitre that they use, regardless of what people call them, are mitres, *not* tiaras nor crowns!].
However, the fact that he allowed his coat of arms not to display the Tiara hints at the idea that he wants to be seen like any other Bishop (at least externally).
As said before, the Pope has supreme authority and talking about what he wears (or not) is a moot point (in a sense) because he could just get rid of the Pallium completely if he wanted to. However, we can talk about whether it is a good idea or not, but I think that blindly trying to accomodate everything he allows by saying "he knows what he's doing; he knows better, etc., we shouldn't have things that are just vestigial pieces of what they were before...," will not help at all.
@ Berolinensis: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreeing with something the Pope does or changes as long as it is respectfully done. Saying you do not agree with the new pallium will not be a sin nor should it be an offence to anyone. If bloggers do not like it (as it usually happens), that should be their problem.
These people have the strange idea that being faifhtul to the Papacy means accepting everything the Pope says or does blindly. Why would they have done if they had been alive during the time of the Medici or Borjas Popes? I wonder...
Ya'll are of course are the experts in western liturgical things - I'm Greek Orthodox, but it would seem that the Eastern Omophorion worn by bishops in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Shurches and the western Pallium share a common origin. When the present pope chose the "antique" style we all assumed it was to emphasize the "common" element of our traditions. As someone says in another comment, "look at the ancient iconography". One may also add, look at the present Eastern tradition and the Pope's choice. You have a more "universal" look to papal pallium. It would not be simply an antiquarianism ,but return to a fuller tradition, (like a return to facing east in prayer, the historic liturgical forms and chants etc.) which mean a lot to us in the East. Just some thoughts anyway.
I too had assumed that the Pope himself chose the new/old pallium for the purpose of reaching to the East. It's time for the two Churches to reunite. Protestantism is dying. Ecumenism should reach to those who are true Churches. The Tiara was also a roadblock to East/West relations. It's origins are from a Pope and a Holy Roman Emperor arguing like five-year-olds. "Yeah, well I get to wear three crowns, so nyah!" This is not something I consider indispensable.
Additionally, (completely apart from theology) I like the new one. There is a history of the Mass of the Papal Court having elements of East/West, e.g., the Greek and Latin Deacons. Why not a pallium from the East? Besides, it sets him apart in some way from the metropolitans.
The Pope does not need a "special" Pallium to set him apart from the Archbishops at all. The rules of when and where they could wear the Pallium before (as Berolinensis pointed out) was enough.
And in general, reunion with the East will *not* depend on how similar to the Eastern Bishops/Patriarchs the Pope looks. Remember that before Vat. II the Pope said the Mass in a way in which no one should have complained, but the Eastern section in schism found other things to complain about: unleavened bread, no anaphora, Latin exclusively, required celibacy for the West, etc. Wearing a different Pallium will not work magic!
Another good example is when John XXIII celebrated those ordinations in one of the Eastern Rites. It does not seem that people in the East were pleased because the Pope combined Eastern and Western vestments and the Papal M.C. decided to serve wearing the proper attire for M.C.'s in the Roman Rite.
With regards to the Greek Deacon and Subdeacon at a Papal Mass, they were allowed to keep their vestments and traditions (no genuflections, but minor prostrations instead) - why should the Pope be asked to accomodate to Eastern practices/traditions? As M.J. Sandoval said above, if they complained about Latinization of the Eastern Rites, why should there be an Easternization of the Roman Rite?
Finally, as some people have already established and confirmed: The new Pallium does not look exactly like any of the Palliums used in the East. The number of Crosses is not the same, the length and width of the Pallium is not the same and they are not decorated in the same way.
If the East is so protective of tradition and Liturgy as someone already said, then the use of this Pallium should not be something they should rejoice about because this form of the Pallium (in its entirety) is not backed by tradition. The use of such a Pallium does not seem to have been used before in the Roman Liturgy. The only grounds on which we should accept the use of such Pallium is on the fact that the Pope is making use of his supreme and ordinary authority in liturgical matters.
I"m sorry, it is apparent that my comments/ideas are an intrusion. I won't try again.
Given the way that Pope Benedict has been gradually doing things, perhaps we can expect to see him go back to the more recent pallium in June when he confers the pallia on the new archbishops. That would be an opportune time for him to make a switch without it seeming too obviously brutta figura towards oldMarini.
Fr. Nicholas,
I haven't been following this thread closely, but I did notice your comment. I don't see your comment as an intrusion whatsoever.
It is always very good to have an Eastern Christian perspective.
I was shocked by the attitude my comment provoked. Since I have no patience with my own church's narrow minded bigots who see themselves as the only real Christians left in the world, I have no desire to be drawn into Roman triumphalism either. I was only making the point that the omophorion/pallum must have some kind of common origin and this was a sign of unity, of common roots. Whether or not some Catholics or Orthodox welcome such a conclusion is besides the point. I am an iconographer and such things interest me. However, to be drawn into the papal privilege supremecy ideology is simply spiritually unprofitable. While very well written Berolinensis's piece is not exhaustive of the subject. I did some surfing of my won on the net among wikipedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia and several other sites. I also have my own studies in "what bishops have looked like over the centuries." from many primary sources.
I find your blog very informative and know how much work must go into it, and commend you for it. But I think it best to lurk, rather than to participate if "Latinmass" is indicitive of the theological mindset. May God bless you!
Fr. Nicholas,
My comments were not directed at you personally. If you read well, you were not the only person to say what you said. Other people had already said that and that is why I did not mention specific names, except Berolinensis'. Part of my comment referred to his original post.
If you can provide information of a Pallium like the one the Pope wears now that was used in the past, please do so because so far no one has indicated that unquestionably. And in that case, I will gladly change what I said regarding the Pallium and tradition, but not about Papal authority.
I completely disagree with the idea that wearing a different Pallium now is just to get close to the East. There is no theology involved in that. Plus, I do not think I mentioned any sort of "triumphalism" in my comments - although for some reason you seem to see it. Could tell you where you see that?
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: I try to be clear in my comments so people do not misinterprate what I say. If my comment did not include your name, then it was not in response to your message specifically. So, my comment was not provoked directly or solely by your comment, but by what I know or what I think.
What I did mention, and I did it because no matter in what way we look at this point about the Pallium and whether it is a continuation of tradition, is that the Pope, as Supreme Pontiff, can use any type of Pallium or none at all. Since we are talking about the Pallium and the Pope, we cannot get away from the topic on the authority he has with regards to vestments and ceremonies.
If that is what you did not like or made you uncomfortable, then it was not "my" theology that you did not like, but the Church's. I did not make that up. Papal authortiy goes hand in hand with Roman Liturgy as most books on the rubrics specify it and the Pallium is a liturgical vestment even int he New Order.
I dont know whether the pope's intentation was to reach out to the eastern churches in his new choice of pallium upon his election. But from what I have read this choice was largely based upon the instigation of Msgr. Piero Mariani. The main problem I have with it is the pallium lack of simistry I would personaly like the jpii 1999 pallium, or # 2,3 on the image sheet
Fr. Nicholas,
I think you will find there is a great variety here, but do feel free to lurk as well -- which is quite valuable I think.
But do feel free to lurk as well if you prefer.
99.44% of the problems liturgical and vestural was Piero Marini. Thankfully he has been banished to a relatively insignificant post where he can no longer work his mischief. This old "new" pallium borders on archaism and should be withdrawn. Had Don Piero not been around at the time of the Holy Father's election, I doubt we would see so much of the garbage foisted upon Benedict in the early hours and days of his papacy. Marini II will see to the correction.
Commenting by HaloScan
