Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Is this common, or a recent development following the Pope's examples?
The cardinal in the last picture looks like Cardinal José Saraiva Martins rather than Cardinal Tettamanzi.
Theodrus,
I know of what you speak. When I first saw it, it seemed to me it wasn't Tettamanzi, but then I looked at photos of him and thought, its possible it is but only if he occasionally wears glasses.
Now I admit to having never seen the Cardinal wear eyeglasses but the image, which came from the Archdiocese of Milan website, unfortunately has no caption that I could easily find.
It is moot to the point ultimately, but perhaps I'll remove the named reference just in case it is not Cardinal Tettamanzi, so as to not distract from the main point.
Jack,
The tradition of some canons having pontificals occurs centuries before our own time. If anything this tradition has been lost in the present days since the time of the Council -- as in the case of the modern Ambrosian rite with regard to the mitre and the pontifical Mass of the canons.
In the Christian East as well there are "Mitred priests" but perhaps one of our Eastern Christian readers can explain more about that from their liturgical side of the pond?
Shawn, although that is interesting, I meant the procession itself. Has it survived through the 70's and 80's, or was it forgotten and revived?
Jack, I cannot comment but to say this:
In Malta, experience has shown that much has survived there all these years that had disappeared elsewhere. They seem fiercely devoted to their traditions.
Shawn,
The use of a Mitre in the East is faily recent development, since the time of Catherine the Great in Russia. Generally it is reserved to Archimandrites (Archabbots), and certain married Archpriests. It is mainly used in churches of the Kievan and Muscovite recension. In the Greek and Arab world the Mitre is reserved to Bishops. In the Ecumenical Patriarchate, even bishops in his presence never wear the Mitre. Bishops tend to drop one degree when in his presence.
"In the Ecumenical Patriarchate, even bishops in his presence never wear the Mitre. Bishops tend to drop one degree when in his presence."
Isn't it that in Greek usage, only the main celebrant of the Divine Liturgy wears a mitre, the others wearing the kamalavkion?
Ah, the Maltese... such magnificent traditions. Do they frequently say or sing the Novus Ordo in Latin?
The use of pontificals (i.e. the mitre) by Canons is no longer permitted. This is not simply a matter of a tradition which has or has not been observed in recent years. On October 30, 1970 the Congregation for the Clergy issued a circular letter entitled "Per Instructionem" which was a follow up to the previous Instruction of the Holy See "Ut Sive Sollicite" of March, 1969. This later letter was to clarify the choral vesture and privileges of other lesser prelates such as canons. It lists several rules to be followed by Conferences of Bishops in carrying out this task.
Rule #1 states: "This Letter abolishes all, even centuries-old and immemorial privileges, in keeping with the directives of the Motu Proprio "Pontificalia Insignia", 21 June 1968, and the Instruction "Ut Sive Sollicite", 31 March, 1969."
Rule #3 states: "Canons, clerics holding benefices, and pastors are also forbidden to use any of the following insignia, which are still in use in some places: the mantelletta, the sash with tassles, red stockings, shoes with buckles, purple cloak, rochet, mitre, staff, ring, pectoral cross."
The Motu Proprio, "Pontificalia Insignia" mentioned above from 1968 says the following in its fourth paragraph quoting "Sacrosanctum Concilium": "...the use of pontifical insignia should be reserved to those ecclesiastical persons who have episcopal rank or some definite jurisdiction". It then goes on to list the categories specifically laid down by Pope Paul VI himself of those who may use pontificals.
#1: "In conformity with the directives of the Constitution on the Liturgy art. #130 we command that from now on besides bishops only those prelates are to use pontifical insignia who although of nonepiscopal rank have actual jurisdiction, namely:
a. papal legates;
b. abbots and prelates with jurisdiction over a territory separate from any diocese;
c. apostolic administrators with a permanent appointment;
d. abbots regular with jurisdiction, after they have received the abbatial blessing."
-AND-
#6. "In view of both of the recent decrees of the Council and of the principles already here explained on preserving the authenticity of signs in the liturgy, prelates named in the future (i.e. post 1968 ) will no longer possess the right to use pontificals; those in nos. 1 & 2 are exceptions"
So, it is very clear that the use of the mitre by canons was definitively abrogated by Pope Paul VI regardless of long-standing customs and privileges. No canons anywhere in the world can claim the right to wear the mitre. In light of these documents from the late 1960s it seems the burden of proof for some kind of permission to do so is on the canons. Appealing to an age-old privilege doesn't really work. In many places these rulings by Pope Paul VI have been ignored. I'm wondering if Malta is one of them or if there is, indeed, some special concession for them? Taking into account the very clear and specific language used by Pope Paul and the clear reasons as to why such a concession would be very, very special indeed!
Does anyone know anything about mitred priests in the USA? My parents maintain that the pastor of their childhood parish (St. Charles Borromeo in Drexel Hill Pennsylvania, Archdiocese of Philadelphia) was allowed to wear a mitre on three occasions throughout the year. I have always been quite curious about this recollection of theirs. Can anyone help in this regard?
Fr. Sylvester,
And it is always a possibility that such indeed exists. We've seen such things time and again. Then again, it could simply be something that wasn't ever implemented here, just as it seems to have been only selectively so elsewhere.
What we do certainly note -- as you note as well -- is that many of the very insignia referred to are yet seen. The Canons of Milan to this very day wear a pectoral cross. So too is the mantelletta seen in Milan and elsewhere.
At any rate, this, like so many things abolished or seemingly abolished this bit of legislation you refer to seems to be yet another good candidate for "review".
Evidently these matters are not so significant as dealing with liturgical rites themselves, and bearing in mind the Church's ability to govern the liturgy, nonetheless, it yet strikes me that there is an uncomfortable tension here when a single act intends to "[abolish] all, even centuries-old and immemorial privileges" -- with the particular emphasis being upon the "immemorial" aspect.
"Does anyone know anything about mitred priests in the USA? My parents maintain that the pastor of their childhood parish (St. Charles Borromeo in Drexel Hill Pennsylvania, Archdiocese of Philadelphia) was allowed to wear a mitre on three occasions throughout the year. I have always been quite curious about this recollection of theirs. Can anyone help in this regard"
A prothonotary apostolic, perhaps?
I remember being shown a photograph from the 1940s of Abp Gonzi(?) on a white ass, under a canopy, preceded by mitred canons, I think carrying reliquries, very splendid!
What about Cardinals such as Avery Dulles? He's not a bishop and i'm pretty sure he doesn't have any jurisdiction(?), but he does wear pontificals.
Carlos Antonio - you might be right.
The Protonotaries Apostolic (I'm told Proto- is the correct spelling, not Protho-, even if the Catholic Encyclopedia has it the other way round) had the use of the Pontificals as per a) tradition and b) St. Pius X' Motu Proprio "Inter multiplices" of 21st Feb 1905, promulgated Acta Sanctae Sedis 37 (1904/1905) 491-512. Father Selvester has pointed out that these privileges were revoked by Paul VI after Vatican II, esp. by the Motu Proprio "Pontificalia Insignia" of 21st June 1968, promulgated Acta Apostolicae Sedis 60 (1968) 374-377. The Motu Proprio was inspired by the Council's Decree on the Bishops. The intention was to reserve the pontificals for bishops and other prelates with ordinary jurisdiction and putting an end to "normal" priests "playing at bishops". The new Caeremoniale Episcoporum has followed this course set by Council and Pope. - Oh, and to make sure that nobody gets smart: Ecclesia Dei has ruled in 2000 that Communities using the 1962 missal have to follow the post-conciliar use re dress, pontificals and so on. - Malta, apparently, has continued to ignore the new rules ... bad from the canonist's point of view, but nice to look at.
Remember that also the canons of the cathedral chapter of Milan are entitled to wear the mitre!
The thrice-yearly privilege of wearing a mitre was confined to protonotaries-apostolic. As Evelyn Waugh records, Mgr Ronald Knox followed this practice throughout his time as chaplain to Oxford University.
Until 1970 the canons of the Capella Paltina in Palermo regularly worse mitres at the capitular Mass and on other occasions.
Jon K
Isn't the answer because the Church is governed by canon law?
It would be much better if canons went back to their original and unique choir-dress, rather than pseudo-episcopal costume that came in around c 17: i.e., the fur almuice and (plain) rochet, reaching well below the knees, and the earlier (soft but square) form of the biretta, no pom-pom, softer and flatter.
This was distinctive.
Beautiful pics, Shawn.
Your network of contacts continues to impress. Please keep up the great work. It's this sort of thing that keeps many of us coming back (amongst much else).
Jon K - without wanting to preempt what Fr. Selvester has to say, I'd like to point out that one of the virtues of a Catholic Christian is obedience towards the Church and its teachings. "Obedience and Peace" is difficult to achieve, but it may help one's spiritual welfare. Paul VI certainly is one of the most tragic Popes - a highly intellectual, pious and noble pope who happened to hold office in the 60ies. Contrary to popular belief, NOT all was well in the church before V II crept in. On the contrary! The 60ies are the decade when all liturgical abuses we abhor and suffer from today were considered new, original and the future of Christianity. Contemporaries seem, however, to have thought that they would succeed in bringing Christ to the 20th century, if only they could get rid of all that boring court dress ...
Jon K,
perhaps you would do well to read the following paragraphs from the Apsotolic Cosntitution Sacræ Disciplinæ Leges, by which the new (1983) Code of Canon Law was promulgated:
"Christ the Lord, indeed, did not in the least wish to destroy the very rich heritage of the law and the prophets which was gradually formed from the history and experience of the people of God in the Old Testament, but he brought it to completion (cf. Mt. 5:17) such that in a new and higher way it became part of the heritage of the New Testament. Therefore, although in expounding the paschal mystery St. Paul teaches that justification is not obtained by the works of the law but by means of faith (cf. Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16), he does not thereby exclude the binding force of the Decalogue (cf. Rom. 13:28; Gal. 5:13-25, 6:2), nor does he deny the importance of discipline in the Church of God (cf. I Cor. 5 and 6).
Thus the writings of the New Testament enable us to understand even better the importance of discipline and make us see better how it is more closely connected with the saving character of the evangelical message itself.
This being so, it appears sufficiently clear that the Code is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it.
As the Church’s principal legislative document founded on the juridicallegislative heritage of revelation and tradition, the Code is to be regarded as an indispensable instrument to ensure order both in individual and social life, and also in the Church’s own activity. Therefore, besides containing the fundamental elements of the hierarchical and organic structure of the Church as willed by her divine founder or as based upon apostolic, or in any case most ancient, tradition, and besides the fundamental principles which govern the exercise of the threefold of-fice entrusted to the Church itself, the Code must also lay down certain rules and norms of behavior."
We may disagree regarding the opportunity of a disciplinary law of the Church, and even work for a change of it by the competent authority, but we cannot simply ignore it.
You are right, the Diocesan Chapter of Gozo and the Metropolitan Chapter of Malta are protonotaries apostolic, we were told in Malta that only three chapters were thus constituted: Malta, Lisbon and Venice. I never checked that claim. In Malta the metropolitan chapter has fallen in line about 20 years ago and sadly the Monsignori have given up the mitre.
In Gozo they did not and apart from the diocesan chapter some Archpriests are also appointed as Protonotaries apostolic with the right of mitre.
However not all chapters have the right for the pectoral cross. Few do, most were granted by the Holy See a decorative cross or emblem, as you can see in some pictures on your blog. Hope this helps.
No one has celebrated or asked for Mass in the extraordinary form in Malta. It was the laity and a handful of clergy who fought bravely in the 70's and 80's to keep these traditions.
As regards Abp Gonzi and his picture under a canopy and on a white mare, that was 1945 and his ingress in the Metropolitan Cathedral in Malta to take possession. He was not carrying relics. The canopy barers where the civil authorities and the chief justice.
Jon K,
apparently you haven't read the very brief paragraphs I have quoted above, since they explicitly deal with the relation of ecclesiastical law to revelation and tradition. If you have nothing against the law of the Church, I wonder what your intitial question "Why is there always some Catholic to quote from legal texts to settle any question?" was about. If the Church has ruled on a question by enacting a law, surely it is appropriate to quote this law when the question comes up. And as I said, bringing up the underlying aspects (which are taken into consideration by the Church when she enacts laws. Their safeguarding is the reason for the existence of canon law.) is perfectly legitimate, but it doesn't change the fact that as long as the law remains in force it must be obeyed, and thus necessarily be referred to.
Also, your caricature of Jesuits is objectionable.
Jon K
Wait! I don't think I said that 'every matter in the Church OUGHT to be settled by canon law' did I? I said that the Church is governed by canon law, which is an objective fact with which we all have to live. However, it makes a pleasant change these days to see a Jesuit regarded as a guardian of iron discipline. The reverse attitude is usually true.
When Giovanni Battista Montini, later Pope Paul VI, entered the Academy of Noble Ecclesiastics on 27 October 1921, at the age of twenty-four, to study canon law with the Jesuits at the Gregorian University he expressed unhappiness with a canonical approach to life. He wondered if it was possible to translate the Gospel into terms of canon law and wrote: 'The further one is from the external forms of the Gospel, the more one must insist on the SPIRIT but since the practice of the paradoxical Christian virtues is difficult enough, it is almost impossible to practice them by means that are contrary to their very nature.'
He had no desire to be a papal diplomat but was pushed into the Vatican by family influence. All he wanted to be was a simple priest, and that is what he remained at heart all his life. At first, he felt trapped in the Academy and he spent an entire hour one afternoon sewing buttons on his cassock, and joked: 'To be well buttoned up is an essential characteristic of the diplomatic life.'
In photos #3 & #5 there appears to be a sash worn under the mozzetta over the left hip. Can someone please tell me what this is and preferrably cite written sources for the explanation to be given?
With thanks.
"We may disagree regarding the opportunity of a disciplinary law of the Church, and even work for a change of it by the competent authority, but we cannot simply ignore it."
Gregor,
As lawyers, even if not canon lawyers, both of us still realise that an unjust law - even of the church - is not really a law, don't we?
Another lawyer.
Jon K,
"Let the Authority show that it cares about the sacred deposit that is the reason this authority exists at all. Then ask for our trust. And, following, obedience. Not the other way around."
This is not a Catholic attitude. Beware of bitterness. The redressing of the unfortunate developments of the 1960s and after is what the NLM is all about, so you need hardly remind us of those. But bitterness will achieve nothing, and it is harmful to our own souls.
Another lawyer,
certainly, but you are not really arguing that the abolishing of mitres for non-bishops does contravene Divine law, are you?
Fr Symondson,
regarding the anecdote about Paul VI - se non è vero, è ben trovato.
Dear Jesuit Father,
Your previously answered me as to why it might be considered quite normal - in your view - that, in every disputed matter, there should be a Catholic to hammer away with canon law. (For such is, effectively, and alas, the case.) My point was (obviously, given the context) to point out a certain mentality, that of legalism. (Which your point was, I still can´t see, but there you are.) I am, howeverm happy to see that the Gospel has a place in your conception of the Church.
Now, you bring forth all sorts of very edifying sort of details from the life of the once gloriously reigning Paul VI. To prove the man was no legalist. As if legalism could not possibly exist after Vatican II since its more prominent figures always described the Church before the council as being legalistic. But what do you prove? Except inconsistency? (I´d rather not think: dishonesty.) Everytime Paul VI met with resistance to the many times revolutionary changes (I´m only describing how these changes were perceived) that he forced upon the Church, his final appeal was always to obedience. I know that he saw him self as quite the opposite as a man of legalism. But that is not how he in fact acted.
(You made an ironic point about Jesuits, obedience and legalism. Well, if you ask me, I´d say modern Jesuits who like stories about Paul VI`s unlegalistic mind, and then wish to settle matters of tradition with appeal to canon law, are especially distasteful, but that´s me.)
Authority in the Church was instituted for a reason. Throwing "even century-old traditions" out the windows in order to bow to Modern Man (a favorite concept of Paul VI as his dialogues with Jean Guitton show in a shocking way) and then pointing the finger at those who will not join the throwing-out party was not one of them. Therefore, a canonical approach to this matter (Shawn´s report from Malta) horrifies me.
First, trust has to be restored. When love of tradition is once more obvious among Bishops and priests, trust WILL follow. Then, authority, canon law and the "sic volo, sic iubeo" approach will not have to be used at every turn to shove things down the throat of ordinary, pious Catholics.
Jon K
You have made some good points in your last comment which I had not read because I was writing mine. Obedience is one of the most difficult problems in the modern Church a) because the concept has been seriously compromised during the c20 age of dictators in which atrocities were committed in its name with which no good and sane person would want to be associated b) because of the legalistic nature of applying reforms in the Church after the Second Vatican Council that you identify c) because of acts of injustice committed by religious superiors. Younger generations are bound to be affected by these, and other, factors in their attitude.
But, ironically, part of the thinking behind the liturgical reforms was a return not only to the primitive practice of the Church but also to Gospel imperatives. I realize that this statement might lead to the supple hands of youth and the stiff hands of age to race across the computer keyboards of the world, but Pope Paul VI and his advisers really believed that the reforms should be applied in the name of tradition and the Gospel, and canon law was the only way that this could be mandated. The results we know.
In a universal Church that descends practically in the west from a Roman legalistic mentality, canon law is necessary to keep it together and enable it to work. Law and letter kill, as we know, but the best canon lawyers I know, and have been taught by, do not share this cruel mentality but operate with justice. Others do not and long may they suffer in purgatory, or another place, for the suffering they have imposed on others.
In the end the two who redeem obedience from repression and make it a voluntary act of love are Mary and Jesus. Mary is the model of obedience because of her fiat. Jesus, because he endured suffering to the point of death in obedience to the Father for the salvation of the world. Their obedience can help us to understand more positively the principle of obedience. But look at what the world did to them and never forget that we are united with them if we ever become subject to unjust law.
Jon K
Your are becoming a little prolific and it's hard to keep up with your comments. I shall return to them after lunch. However, I am beginning to think that no explanations will satisfy you.
Dear Jesuit father,
Thank you for your last answer - and for your patience. I think it´s safe to say that we had talked past each other. At least I had. I subscribe wholeheartedly to your post. With one exception, though: I do not share your belief in the candor of Paul VI`s entourage. (Nor shall I ever be reconciled to the incredible "suffisance" - I can only find the French word - of Paul VI and his reforms, to the underlying arrogance towards "the Church of Constantine and Trent".) But that is debatable and not a matter of principles.
Yours sincerely,
Dear jesuit Father,
I am not the only one becoming prolific. Anyway, i shalln´t depart from I wrote. With what you wrote in the post before your last one, I agree. Which shows you ought not to presume too much as to what might satisfy me or not. Catholicism, in all its harmony (as opposed to one-sidedness) and humanity usually satisfies me.
"Oh, and to make sure that nobody gets smart: Ecclesia Dei has ruled in 2000 that Communities using the 1962 missal have to follow the post-conciliar use re dress, pontificals and so on. - "
1) What and where is that ruling?
2) If this claim is true, then the vast majority of prelates who have celebrated Pontifical Mass -- including Cardinals Stickler, Medina and Castrillon Hoyos -- have been awfully disobedient to the commands of the PCED (which Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos happens to head). A little disconcerting, I'm sure you'll all agree.
Under the old rules, protonotaries apostolic can wear the miter and pontificate 3 or 4 times a year. When were they allowed to exercise this privilege?
[Shawn: just off topic, but... I'm looking forward to watch the photos from the recent priestly ordinations in Wigratzbad, performed by Cardinal Rodé.. ]
Carlos,
" If this claim is true, then the vast majority of prelates who have celebrated Pontifical Mass -- including Cardinals Stickler, Medina and Castrillon Hoyos -- have been awfully disobedient to the commands of the PCED"
I am not sure what you are referring to? What piece of extraliturgical vesture have they worn that was abolished or restricted?
Is there a difference between a canopeaum and an ombrellino (also seen the spelling umbrellino).
Fr. Protodeacon David Kennedy,
The sashes are one of at least two forms of the folded cappa magna. When the cappa was conceded to canons, it had to be in this special "folded" or "curtailed" form symbolizing restricted jurisdiction or absence of jurisdiction.
Citations:
Nainfa's Costumes of Prelates of the Catholic Church, 1926, pages 94 and 95. I am sorry I do not have the pages for earlier, I think, online edition.
Berthod and Hardouin-Fugier's Dictionnaire des Artes Liturgiques XIXe-XXe Siecle, Paris, 1996, pages 165 and 166.
Shawn:
You wrote that: "The Canons of Milan to this very day wear a pectoral cross. So too is the mantelletta seen in Milan and elsewhere" and it sounds to me like you are assuming that because it is done there must be official approval for it. That's a bit too "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" I think. I doubt very much that Pope Paul VI did not have the canons of his own former cathedral in mind when he decided to reform the vesture of non-episcopal prelates. Yes, they do wear a mantelletta but they do so incorrectly. In addition, they do not wear "a pectoral cross".That is to say they do not have blanket permission to wear a pectoral cross in the general sense. This may seem like splitting hairs to some but what they wear is a canon's cross or ensign that happens to be in the form of a cross. How is that different from a pectoral cross? Well, they do not have the ability simply to wear any cross that they like as bishops do. Rather, they wear the insignia of the chapter ( as all canons do) and theirs is in the form of a large cross. Some canons' insignia looks like a medallion, some like a decoration and several chapters, including Milan's, wear large matching crosses. The two canons in the photo are indeed wearing matching crosses. Have you read Zdenko Alexy's somehwhat fantastically titled book, "Distinctive Ensigns of Chapters in Formerly Habsburg Dominated Countries"? If you do it will clarify this more.
You also wrote of a tension underlying a single act abolishing privileges and the need for review. Well, actually, these privileges were abolished not by a single act but by four acts at various levels. One was a Conciliar Constitution, another a Motu Proprio by the Pope, another an Instruction of the Secretary of State and one a Letter from the Congregation for Clergy instructing Bishop's Conferences how to proceed. So, this is hardly the unilateral dictum of just one person. I also think it was done via these methods to leave open the possibility for another Pope in the future simply to modify it again as he saw fit. Nevertheless, until some Pope does so these are the rules in place and they should be obeyed. Otherwise we start down the slippery slope of obeying only those directives we like and thinking it is justifiable to ignore those we don't.
Folks,
Despite what one might think of the general ruling -- and again, I think it needs to be prudentially critiqued on a variety of levels -- it is an important part of the question, for we shouldn't just ignore law because we feel like it.
For my part however, I am not convinced there may not be exceptions to this ruling, particularly since they can be seen even in Milan itself -- not with regard to the mitre (which is no longer worn), but with regard to the pectoral cross and mantelletta.
Very often it is the case that indults are issued, even later on, so these are possibly examples of this, though possibly not.
If anyone has any knowledge of this, or information or otherwise (perhaps our Maltese readers?), please do share.
(Incidentally as well, I've added an update to the main post to reflect this discussion.)
Dear oh dear, such lovely pictures and what do we get? a semantic argument about law, and poor Fr Symondson! So patient.
I was going to say, before wading through all that, that in part of Eastern Europe especially, protonotaries and canons with prelatial privileges often, in some places, regularly, pontificate according to ancient custom. It seems "Per Instructionem" is more observed in the breaking.
Fr Dilwyn Lewis, late Archpriest of St Mary Major, often pontificated in the basilica, and this was well know in Rome, though not always entirely approved of, as he was fond of going over the top.
To answer a few other points: the sash thing under the shoulder cape (which is actually the hood of a cappa, not a mozzetta), is probably the vestige of the tied up train of the cappa, Westminster Cathedral chapter still wears this (recently simplified) based upon the cappas of the lateran canons,(now in disuse). The enquirer, Fr Protodeacon David Kennedy, should email the Chapter Office, they all speak good English in Malta, and ask, it would be interesting to get an explanation, please post it here! Since they clearly value all this, they are bound to reply.
Umbella is Latin for the Italian ombrellino, and as ever variants exist, ie umbellino (wrong) and the "r" is also wrong in mediaeval latin. It is the thing carried over the Sanctissimum in church. Quite different form the Conopaeum, which is a portable tent, (always red and yellow, and never more than half-open, as here) and is the symbol of basilicas, and with the cross keys of Vatican, used as the insignia of the cardinal camerlengo during a sede vacante. Its origin is unconnected to the liturgical umbella, but comes from mediaeval court and military sources. In origin it would only be fully opened and held over the Pope when he visited the church. See Achbp Bruno Heim's book "Heraldry in the Catholic Church" (easily available second hand.) A basilica is a papal privilege granted to certain great churches.
Finally, I suspect little of this is restoration (though the copes look newish), Malta is like this. As Vatican II linguists, (but not liturgists) would say – "Enjoy!"
A Monsignor that is Protonotary Apostlic is called "the mitred one" in Polish because they used to wear a mitre.
Thank you to Daniel Gabriele and Josephus Muris Saliensis for taking to time to respond to my quere.
Fr. Sylvester,
No. The presumption I am making is that there might be an exception or indult to the ruling you refer to, given some evidence of some prominent places doing what would otherwise be contrary to the law (a possibility) and given that we know this is not uncommon to see (the later granting of indults). That is quite different from what you are attributing to me I think you would agree.
On what the canons wear, that they wear the mantelletta is agreed, regardless of the debate about the cross -- though having seen what the canons of Milan wear in this regard up close and personally recently (at their vespers in the Duomo), I can assure you that down to the cord used, the size and materials of the Cross, one would be hard pressed to not call it a form of pectoral cross. Indeed, if you might permit me a bit of levity, it might be like calling the mitre on these Maltese canons a unique variation upon the biretta that happens to look like a mitre!
As well, by "single act", I think you likely get the sense of what I was intending which makes it matter not whether we are referring to one act, two or three or four in a given period. The issue is simply that of taking long-standing, even "immemorial" customs and wiping them out by decree. Benedict has spoken of this problem as it relates to the more important domain of the liturgical rites of the Church. This is a ruling that seems troublesome on this same front, even if of lesser overall importance than the liturgical rites of the Church themselves. This is why I say this needs to be re-evaluated.
Finally, I certainly didn't suggest that the laws of the Church be disobeyed and suggesting these things need to be re-evaluated is not the promotion of disobedience anymore than proposing the need for a reform of the reform is.
Are these canons being disobedient here? Possibly, but possibly not.
Why post the piece since there is a question? Well it is a debatable point, admittedly, but for one, it gives me the opportunity to introduce a bit of this historical tradition; second, it opens up the question of debate that I am proposing here to you about the legislation in question; and three, it certainly opens up the debate about whether this is still allowed in some places, to more or less degrees.
To my knowledge the tradition has survived itact up to the present day.
Traditionally, even the canons of our Metropolitan Chapter, attached to The Cathedral Church of Malta, had the privilige of wearing a white mitre. This was given up only a few years back. However the privilege was preserved intact, in our sister diocese; that of Gozo. I believe that the practice was confirmed by Rome ; through some kind of indult, a few years back ( i'm not 100 per cdent sure), but I'm sure you gozitan readers can confirm this.
"Carlos,
'If this claim is true, then the vast majority of prelates who have celebrated Pontifical Mass -- including Cardinals Stickler, Medina and Castrillon Hoyos -- have been awfully disobedient to the commands of the PCED"
I am not sure what you are referring to? What piece of extraliturgical vesture have they worn that was abolished or restricted?'
Gregor,
Cardinal Medina Estevez once processed at Gricigliano wearing the galero. And there are photos of Cardinals Medina Estevez, Castrillon Hoyos, Stickler, etc. wearing the full-length, pre-Paul VI cappa magna. (Paul VI shortened the cappa)
Not to speak of so many bishops who, in the context of EF celebrations, have worn watered silk choir dress, the mantellata, etc.
My point, of course, is that I find it hard to believe that the PCED has actually ruled AGAINST the use of pre-conciliar prelatial dress, or else we won't be seeing these pictures.
Ironically, it is SSPX that has strictly been using the post-conciliar rules on prelatial dress. Ever seen a picture of Msgr. Fellay in cappa magna or mantellata?
I'm not saying 'everybody, let's disobey current rubrics on prelatial vesture,' but the Pope himself seems to have been a bit lenient on this point himself, given his assumption of the abolished over-sleeves. (And, liturgically, Msgr. Marini has wonderfully reintroduced the infelicitously abolished sacramental umbrella.)
I think in places where such traditions persist I am fairly comfortable to turn a blind eye to them, assuming that a) they may well have an indult--one should always assume the best--and b) if no, it's a victimless crime, though prudence and filial obedience to church law suggests that they ought not to be re-introduced elsewhere except with explicit permission. (And one may pray such old priveledges will be legally given back some day, of course!)
This is not to say this hasn't made for interesting discussion. It is good to know the law of the Church in such matters, and also good to discover the persistence of some colorful (if perhaps possibly contra legem) customs in certain places.
Now, everyone take a deep breath, breathe in, breathe out, and go listen to some Hildegarde of Bingen and have an ice tea.
" . . . what seems at times to be universal and absolute in church law can very often also be found to have later been riddled with legitimate exceptions."
Indeed. For instance, the pontifical privilages of the Franciscan Custos of the Holy Land were reaffirmed by the Holy See in the late '60's out of respect for the seemingly immutable Status Quo, the complicated civil statute that regulates, among other things, liturgical practices at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
It is not of any great interest, I suppose, but there used to be a Priest at Our Lady and Saint John's Church (now St John's) in Chorlton, South Manchester, who would, on occasion, wear a mitre. My grandmother always seemed to know the dates and would have her chapter of the Mother's Union squeeze in her car whilst my grandfather, complaining all the way, drove them the short distance from Withington. She told me, I seem to remember, that the Churh in question was a pro-Cathedral but then she told me many things, which, I hope, I shall have to wait many years to verify or not, as the case may be.
"Ironically, it is SSPX that has strictly been using the post-conciliar rules on prelatial dress. Ever seen a picture of Msgr. Fellay in cappa magna or mantellata?", wrote M. Carlos A. P. Palad.
Now, that is an understatement... I do not agree with fathers Kelly, Sandborn and Cekada, but to understand this matter, one has to read what they have written on the subject (easily found on the Internet), regarding the matter of the Ecônian liturgy. My own experience from within FSSPX seminaries entirely confirms their description and analysis. Alas.
One must also bear in mind that this (the Ecônian liturgy) is part of the legacy still found within the FSSP. Then, all of a sudden, a certain FSSP-FSSPX animosity towards a certain clerical institute near Florence is much easier to understand.
@ Josephus Muris Saliensis
That the cannopeum or ombrellone basilicale, as south of Rome cannopeum is the cover over the tabernacle, is always red and yellow is not exact.
The basilicas in Rome had the privelege of having their cannopeum as gold and red. Yellow and red reserved for those outside Rome.
However, the first basilica outside Rome: St Nicholas in Tolentino has an all white cannopeum, so has basilica number 8 outside Rome which is St Dominic in Valletta, Malta (as it happens the first one in the Maltese Islands). Also the Basilica of Sancta Anna in Altoetting has an all white cannopeum. Remeber that it was only in 1832 that regulations about Basilicas where firmly established with red and yellow (Papal & Roman Colours) and the Tintinabulum.
Another interseting difference is that in the establishing of the Basilica of St Dominic in Valletta, rather than the tintinabulum, the Pope granted them the right to ring the gloria first on Holy Saturday in the city of Valletta, with the exception of the Co-Cathedral. It seems that they used to ring the gloria in some sort of pecking order which caused friction, this solved it nicely. St Dominic became a Basilica on 25th March 1816.
As virtually always, I agree with Matthew (of the Holly Whapping). Legalism, in times as these, will often be the enemy of restauration.
I've come late to the discussion and add my two cents' worth without any intention whatever of being provoking but: perhaps where 'the discussion' is going to (and perhaps--per hypothesim--where his Holiness wants it to go to?)is a consideration of the rights even of 'local tradition' (as differentiated from, in whichever legitimate ways this is possible, from Tradition) vis-a-vis the legitimate authority of Rome. Why is it, e.g., for the universal good of the Church that canons in Gozo cannot wear miters?
Fr. Tucker on his now closed blog 'Dappled Things' had pictures of contemporary canons from all over Europe, and it would appear that none of them conformed to the legislation of Paul VI, which if memory serves, said that if they had the right to a mozzetta it should be gray. I don't think there was a single gray mozzetta in any of the pictures.
This phenomenon of ignoring a certain kind of Roman decree seems to me comparable to Pius X ordering the Universal Church to use the Italian pronunciation of Latin, while German choirs very happily continued (and continue) to sing 'Et as-tsen-dit in tzeu-lum'. Ultramontane sentiments in these matters are very much misplaced.
Also there is a great deal of confusion in the above posts about the right of pre-Conciliar prelates to pontificals. Read the beginning of Fortescue for the substance of Pius X's legislation.
David,
Here is the page that you mentioned:
http://dappledphotos.blogspot.co.../11/
canons.html
For readers who might have misplaced their Fortescue, Nainfa has a section on the "Use of Pontificals by Prelates Not Invested With the Episcopal Character".
Here, I hope, is the link:
http://books.google.com/books?
hl...esult#PPA143,M1
And when you see priests using glass vessels for the Eucharist, or wearing blue for Advent (in the USA) for which there are also ancient precedents and appeals to long-standing traditions (whether you agree with those arguments or not) do you assume they have a proper indult for this? If all or most of the canons in the world obeyed Pope Paul's rulings to the letter and there were a few notable exceptions then I think assuming there is an indult would make sense. However, since there are numerous examples of canons continuing to use insignia and vesture that was explicitly abrogated it is far more logical to conclude that very few chapters took Pope Paul's rulings seriously and simply chose to ignore them.
In this they were, of course, quite wrong.
It is important to note that the circular letter issued by the Congregation for the Clergy was instructing local bishops' conferences to enforce these changes. We all know how little local bishops' conferences enforce anything. In the USA blue for Advent and the use of glass vessels for the Eucharist has been denied by the USCCB but the conference does not make a point of somehow enforcing these rules throughout the USA as we all know. I don't think Rome's silence on the abuse of insignia and vesture by canons means anything pro or con because the local bishops' conferences are supposed to be overseeing this and, clearly, they don't care.
1) I find it curious that many of the people who want the Missal of 1962 not to be "frozen; a fly in amber; etc." think differently when it comes to things like these and want the return of the previous traditions. They also seem to want to find some loophole in the legal documents that Paul VI published, as if he did not know what he was doing. These same people do not see these traditions/privileges, etc., as something that is not "frozen" or that should "develop organically." Why this difference? I wonder why it has to be only the liturgical books the ones that have to "grow and develop"...
2) Paul VI was not the only Pope who wanted to be and remain a simple parish Priest. Saint Pius X and Venerable Pius XII wanted to be simple parish Priests, too. The fact that they did not get this "wish" did not cause them to alter the Liturgy and liturgical vesture in such a way as to make what came after unrecognizable to a great extent. The reforms of Holy Week of Pius XII are nothing compared to the "reforms" of Paul VI!
3) When Paul VI signed and released these documents (Missale Romanum, Ut sive Sollicite, Per instructionem, Pontificalis ritus, etc.), it was because he did not want any of these customs/practices (the ones he was abrogating) to be preserved anywhere; otherwise, he would have said so. These documents are very clear and, to some extent, very "harsh" because of the tone and the words used and what they implied. These documents do not leave any doubt that all these changes were to be applied universally (no exceptions) in the Latin Church.
4) Another "curious" thing I see is that some of the people who advocated/supported the idea that Germany has an indult, which allows Priests to wear blue for Marian feats, now are advocating, implicitly or explicitly, obedience to the current law of the Church. This indult, much, much, much less known that the one Spain has always claimed, would also have to be part of the things "gone with wind" after Paul VI's promulgations. He, with all these "reforms," implicitly said that these privilges, customs, practices, rites, ceremonies, were not needed nor appropriate anymore.
5) If I conclude correctly, the Canons of Milan do not have this privilege anymore, either. Have we proofs that this privilege is used today? From what I gather, Mons. Amodeo celebrates pontifically sometimes, not because he is a Canon of a Cathedral, but because of his age and when he was given the title... whether it can be proven that he was made a minor Prelate before the changes, I do not know.
6) Part of the confusion as to who wears what and when or whether they should (not) is due to the fact that the present Pope released the Motu Proprio without much to back it up in regards to the other things related to traditional Mass. Most people think that the traditional Mass was just about the Latin, the Missal and facing the Altar (East). That is a very wrong conception.
Before, the Church had many rules and regulations regarding vestments, privileges, rubrics, etc. to protect the Mass from confusion and to preserve order and ranks. If the "clarification" that is now overdue does not address these points and many others (Subdeaconate, etc.) and, instead, just says that the 1983 CJC is to be applied, then the confusion will continue.
7) Someone brought up the idea again that the changes were supposed to advocate the return to primitive times: As I asked before, if that is true, then why do we also read that these same people wanted to bring things up to date, so that the modern man would be more comfortable in church and not feel in a time warp in the midst of archaic ceremonies/rites/vestments/practices/languages?? Which one is the truth: going back or going forward? As far as I know, "aggiornamento" has nothing to do with primitive times!
About the umbrella and bell:
The title Basilica carries with it both privileges and obligations. Among the primary privileges are the right to display, both inside and outside, the coat of arms of the Pope who designated the church as a basilica, and the display of the church's own coat of arms, bearing the marks of the Pope.
Two additional symbols rooted in the papal court are used by basilicas: the "tintinnabulum" and "ombrellino." The "tintinnabulum" is a bell which had the practical function of alerting people to the approach of the Holy Father during processions through the streets of Rome. The "ombrellino" is an elaborate umbrella which would protect the Holy Father from inclement weather. The panels of the ombrellino are made of alternating red and yellow fabric (the colors of the Pope). It is always displayed half-way open to signify that the church is ready to welcome the Holy Father.
I would like to add my twopennyworth as a canonist. Some of the observations take too black and white a view. The 30th October 1970 circular letter sets out clear principles, but actually commits reform of choir dress to Episcopal Conferences, and allows them to introduce changes gradually. Secondly, canon 26 allows custom contrary to the law to prevail after thirty years, provided it has not been reprobated, and there is no explicit prohibition on future customs. Since the canons in Malta and Milan appear to enjoy episcopal approval, it is at least arguable that the provisions of the Circular Letter are a dead letter in law as well as in fact in those dioceses, and others where no change has been made.
Mgr Read, those are very good points. I had been wondering about can. 26 as well; of course, I suppose, there is the question of can. 24 § 2, but still, this, as well as your first point, might be a good way to reconcile this apparent discrepancy of law and practice.
BTW, has anyone ever seen Cardinal (Fr.) Dulles pontificate?
I have had the privilage. A rare sight nowadays.
wac
I'm late to this thread, but I think Mons. Read and Gregor make good points. I think we must understand that we come to the table with the mindset of Anglo-Saxon common lawyers who see a law and assume it must be obeyed without exception. The Continental mindset, into which I add canonists, sees things very differently and in shades of grey 99% of the time.
The very concepts of indults, exceptions, suspensions of the law by the legislator for a specific person or circumstance (dispensations), and the like are totally foreign to the common law. And there is no such concept of any custom contrary to a statute ever becoming legitimate. Not so on the Continent and in canon law.
Even though the (misguided) Pauline directives seem absolute, it is evident they were and are not obeyed 100% of the time and, at times, their transgression was and is at least tolerated. Taken long enough, those transgressions eventually become (tolerated) custom contrary to the written law and therefore legitimate.
It is also crystal clear that the powers that be in the various dicasteries of the present pontificate have no interest in calling to heel those ecclesiastics who have gone "off the reservation" relative to the Pauline directives on vesture. There may be no need to technically review those instructions, instead letting them fall into desuetude. Amen and good riddance.
7 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
