Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Yesterday I visited your blog and liked it very much! I have found a lot of really interesting and useful information there! The time I have spent reading was wonderful and I may say that you’ve done a great job! There are also wonderful photos! I’ve immediately added your blog to my favorite links and will enter it any time when in need of something positive. Thanks a lot!
Is that Archbishop Piero Marini on the other side of H.H to Msgr Guido Marini?
Perhaps it is just the colour quality of the photos, but this Requiem appears to have been conducted in red not violet. I understand the strange rule that the Pope mourns and is mourned in red, but does this rule apply to Requiem masses said by persons other than the Pope?
Figlio di Pippo Buone:
No, that is Msgr. Franco Camaldo, a cerimoniere pontificio.
Looks very impressive! Great to see the "Benedictine" candle arrangement again! I was in St. Peter's lately and witnessed oriental dancers on this altar dancing to a CD as part of a para-liturgy. Was NOT impressed, I can assure you... Anyhow, that day may soon be over... Viva il papa!
attendte,
the pictures are screen captures I took from the webstream of Centro Televisivo Vaticano (you will note the CTV logo in the bottom left corner), and I actually think considering this the quality is quite ok. Anyway, the vestments were indeed red (and I am not sure what you mean by "strange"); the reason being, I suppose, that this was still considered a papal liturgy since His Holiness performed the final rites.
The most striking thing I notice is that although the Holy Father is not the celebrant of the Mass, the arrangement on the altar remains.
Mick-
Was this really recently, or a few years ago?
I would believe the oriental dancers etc. during the time of JP II, but hard to believe it would be permitted under Benedict XVI.
I often wondered where did the Catholic Church adopt the practice of "Liturgical Dance"...where were it's roots. I thought for a long time that it was just a fabrication dreamed up by alot of liturgical lunatics (and it seems mostly women are into this nonsense so alot of really radical femminist USA nuns and others have pushed it into acceptability over the last 30+ years).
BUt I did a little research....and it was originally copied from the more liberal USA Episcopalian "parishes" . Having found the roots of this stuff, I'm not in the least surprised.
Indeed, Father Bartoloma's observation is a good one, do take note of it.
'The most striking thing I notice is that although the Holy Father is not the celebrant of the Mass, the arrangement on the altar remains.'
Agreed. Even since the advent of Marini II, other non-Benedict liturgies in St Peter's have until now retained the previous altar arrangements.
(example from Feb 2008: http://fotografiafelici.com/
inde...nguage=ITA#foto )
This is an excellent step; recently the crucifix on the altar has tended to be seen as a 'papal custom'. Not so of course, as this Mass demonstrates.
Dan, that's one way to put it I guess... Shame the original altar was removed!
Yes, Father Bartoloma. Also, something which I had seen, but not captured, is now corroborated by the official photographs which I am adding just now: the papal altar was also arranged in the Benedictine manner and the candles were lit.
Can anyone please answer this question? I always understood that it was ONLY the Holy Father that could celebrate Mass on the High Altar in the Vatican Basilica? Prior to the pontificate of JPII this used to be the case, didn't it?
No, a cardinal could celebrate Mass there with the Pope's permission. I'm not sure they need the permission of the Pope anymore or if they even have to be a cardinal.
The first thing I wanted to do was to thank the author for making such a beautiful blog! No one could have done it better! Thank you very much for the pictures which are on the page. They are splendid! I will surely add your blog to my links and will always visit the web page you’ve created!
Kenjiro Shoda , it was actually 2005 so I guess that would no longer happen... AND His Holiness was in Castlegondolfo at the time...
well there is a photograph somewhere of that airplane hanger of a Cathedral in Los Angeles with a group of nuns positioned around the slab holding bowls of insense in some sort of vestal virgin pose......
Presumably Msgr Marini will eventually find out where Archbishop Marini hid the unbleached candles ...
Why could the Holy Father have not worn these nice vestments and mitre in D.C. and New York, I'am still recovering from dizziness looking at the New York mitre. Please your holiness celebrate the TLM soon!!!
is their a collar or tassels on the back of the deacons' dalmatics?
Figlio di Pippo Buone,
Archbishop Marini is the fourth from the right in the first row in the first photo above by Fotografia Felici.
Do the torchbearers and other servers at the Vatican customarily wear violet cassocks? I'd never noticed.
Wolf W., as I understand it, Msgr. Marini's response is still that he hasn't heard anything about the Holy Father celebrating the TLM when asked about it. My guess is that they are studying the matter and determining both the best way to celebrate it and the best time to have this happen. I trust in the Holy Father's wisdom to determine when he will celebrate the EF. Oremus.
Why was it not like this when he was in the USA!
Michael C. - Indeed both requirements are still in place - the celebrant at the papal altar is ordinarily a cardinal, and must have the Pope's permission to celebrate there, and at the Papal altars of the four patriarchal basilicas. I say ordinarily because, with the exception of St. Peter's, I myself have witnessed some exceptions.
Mr. Hunter - I really fail to grasp your need to be so utterly provocative and confrontational with those comments. Lately I open the commboxes here followed by a spoonful of sugar, per Mary Poppins.
Notitiae:
The pope traditionally wears what's given to him when "on the road" unless it is particularly awful. Remember, as someone who knows quite a bit about vestments and vesture, the more it moves around (ie, travels) the more worn it becomes. I don't think we'd want these "on the road"
Remember the previous Altar of the Chair wasn't that old, only about 100 years or a bit more. SO, while I'd love it's restoration, it's not as anicent as the Basilica itself.
Mr. Hunter,
I think speaking ill of altars is fine, I think it's the personal attacks which are unchristian.
To celebrate Mass on a privileged altar (the major basilicas), permission of the archpriest of the basilica is necessary. (In the case of St. Paul outside the wall, permission to use the church is granted by the abbot, then permission to use the altar is granted by the archpriest. Under the new arrangement with St. Paul Outside the Wall now having an archipriest for the very first time, it is a complicated arrangement. The abbot of St. Paul's himself told me this.)
I kinda like that Piero Marini is getting a front row seat for all the new changes. I presume he is a good man and well meaning, but I want him to see the success of a different direction.
Lastly: I still find the word "Benedictine altar arrangement" disturbing. It is entirely inaccurate, as it is a "traditional Roman arrangement", done long before Pope Benedict and 'Benedictine' has a venerable reference to the great monastic order which has been around before 2005.
Great post Gregor!
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think there are celebrant restrictions on the altar of the Chair since it is not the high altar of St. Peter's.
Does anyone know about the server's cassocks? Surely, they are not all extremely young monsignors. Is there a tradition where servers wear violet cassocks for funerals?
There is a tradition whereby all of those serving in papal liturgies, and indeed, in the papal church of the Vatican wear purple cassocks. This is because they are in papal livery. Such a custom used to also be extended to those who served for any bishop in his cathedral (i.e. they could wear episcopal livery). This custom is maintained at St. Peter's. All the servers wear purple there.
Keep in mind this is why bishops and archbishops took to wearing purple. The members of the papal court (now called the pontifical household) wore purple as livery. Hence all the monsignori were allowed to wear purple cassocks, etc. Originally bishops and archbishops wore green. This is why the galero in their coats of arms is still green to this day and why green is considered the "episcopal" color. Eventually, bishops and archbishops adopted the Roman practice of dressing like the members of the Pope's household and switched to wearing purple. This is good to keep in mind the next time you hear someone saying that "monsignors dress like bishops". Actually, it is the other way around and bishops dress like monsignori.
I'm not ready to get excited yet about the traditional Roman arrangement of the altar in St. Peter's. While the Pope wasn't the celebrant he was present and that does make a difference. As recently as January (after Mons. Marini had become MC) when I was in Rome they did not use the traditional Roman arrangement of the altar in St. Peter's when the Pope was not there. I think it is premature to assume it is always being used now. When we see photos of a liturgy at St. Peter's when the Holy Father is nowhere near the place and the altar is arranged this way then we can say the change has been permanently made. I'd liek to see how the altar looks every Sunday at the Capitular Mass. When I was last there it still had three low candles grouped together in two bunches at each corner of the altar and the altar cross was standing next to, not on, the altar.
Interesting, too, that they switched the chairs from the one Cardinal Sodano sat in to the one the Pope used.
J Basil Damukaitis, "Lastly: I still find the word "Benedictine altar arrangement" disturbing. It is entirely inaccurate, as it is a "traditional Roman arrangement", done long before Pope Benedict and 'Benedictine' has a venerable reference to the great monastic order which has been around before 2005." Thank You!!! Last time I wrote something along these lines about the term “Benedictine arrangement” I was subject to a wave of criticism! I couldn't agree more. Also, I am almost positive the Altar of the Chair is much older, where did you hear it was only about 100 years or so? I want to think the Holy Father and new Marini are capable of trashing the ironing board freestanding eyesore and reinstalling the old altar, do you believe there is a reasonable chance this could happen?
Re: violet cassocks
Yes, Fr Selvester, that is the correct explanation, thank you for giving it. However, you have to admit that Patrick's idea of child-monsignori has its charm, too...
Re: "Benedictine" altar arrangement:
Dear Basil, you will notice that I was very careful to put the term in scare quotes for the more sensitive among us. You (and others) have several times explained why you don't like the term, and I (and others) have explained several times why we do like it. I really don't think there will be any new insights at this point, so I suggest, on this question, we just agree to disagree. All right?
Wasan't the whole altar of the Chair designed by Bernini and executed 1647-1653, making it at least some 350 years old?
Re: altar of the Chair:
Bernini only made the monument of the Chair itself, without a permanent altar. Since for Solemn papal Masses, the throne was erected in front of the Cathedra, there was no fixed altar there, but a portable altar was used there when needed. The permanent altar which was unfortunately removed by Cardinal Noé was only built in the pontificate of Pius XI, if I remember correctly.
Ricardo:
It was smashed to bits by the archpriest Virgilio Noe.
If a Bernini altar was ripped out, that would be a shocking bit of vandalism, no matter who authorized it. Tom
Mr. Hunter, making derogatory comments is never acceptable.
Being derogatory is much different than being critical.
Tom (TJM): I would still consider it a shocking act of vandalism (especially considering it only happened in the 1990s), but as I said, it was not a Bernini altar. This is a myth.
Well, vandalism is a dramatic word misused here. Vandalism presumes the act of destruction or defacement was done without the approval of the owner or custodian. Not the case here or in any other church in the world that was destroyed. It was done with tacit approval. We think of it as vandalism, but it really isn't. Tragic, yes.
J Basil - true that Noe was indeed the "custodian," but the intrepid Fr. Zuhlsdorf once had a long post over at his blog and reminisced once about the details of this altar's "removal." It was apparently done without the express approval of Pope John Paul II, in a rather hurried manner, when the Pope was travelling outside Italy. Another unfortunate example of someone abusing the confidence that the late pope entrusted to him, to further an agenda.
Quibbling today, are we? Evidently I was not using the word in any technical sense (if there even is a technical sense for this word).
Thank you for this post. I am once again disturbed by the praise that is received when mixing rubrics. The novus ordo does not have the rubric for making the sign of the cross with the host --- so why are we transplanting rubrics from the EF into the novus ordo? I don't see that as reform, I see it as confusion that cannot be justified.
Where is the Hunter-y comment everyone is making reference to?
DC,
may I refer you to Fr Kocik's recent post and the corresponding combox discussion.
That's the trouble with blogging. It's sometimes hard to contextualize. As far as the rubrics for incensing, they have been revised since 1970. I believe the celebrant may now make the signs of the cross, or do the three circles, but not both.
Emilio:
Interesting story. Sort of pardigmatic for the whole Conciliar reform movement in general, no?
Gregor:
You're talking to a former Benedictine (monk,not pope) so my sensibilities were heightened.
New surplice Msgr. Marini is wearing. More restrained.
AV,
I think it's because this is a funeral.
AV,
If you remember the Good Friday Liturgy, there Msgr. Marini also wore a more restrained surplice. Perhaps not the same one but the idea remains.
Looking at the photos, I'm pretty sure the altar has been moved closer to the wall than it used to be. I hope it stays like that, but maybe it was just a temporary move to accomodate the coffin.
BTW I actually like that altar! If you look at the fourth photo from the top, you can see how will it harmonises with Bernini's sculpture.
Regarding the colour of the servers' cassocks, I think it's generally violet for the ordinary liturgies like Sunday Mass, but whenever seminarians are brought in for big Papal events they wear their own cassocks which are black.
Apparently the young acolyte knows much better how to greet a pope than many clergymen.
Anyone notice the celebrant is wearing real lace?! Seems to be a trend developing in Rome.
You've got good posts Gregor!
Forgive me for being contentious, but I have to agree with Basil and Seb about the neologism, peculiar to the NLM website, of a 'Benedictine' altar arrangement. Simply because Mgr Marini decided to implement the rubrics properly does not make a cross and candlesticks on the altar 'Benedictine' when they are Roman.
If you have to use papal terminology surely it should be 'Pauline', as it was during the reign of Pope Paul VI that it was introduced for westward-facing altars. Until recently I have not noticed liturgical developments attributed to specific papal reigns. Should we call St Pius X's reform of the Roman Breviary, or Pope Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week ceremonies 'Pian' Or the development of devotion to the Prisoner of the Tabernacle during the reign of Pope Pius IX the same? If so, historical chaos will reign and few will know what is being described.
Perhaps tye-dye chasubles should be described as 'Johanine-Pauline'. Or should the entire caboodle be called 'Bugninian'?
Thank you, Basil, now there's a good chap ;-) BTW, if you want to drop me a line it's gregor [dot] kollmorgen [at] t-online [dot] de
But Fr Symondson,
indeed references to the "Pian commission" (for liturgical reform under Pius XII) or the "abito Piano" or the "ordine Piano" (both referring to Pio Nono) are common. But as I said to Basil before: Both sides have expressed their views on the term "Benedictine", and that's that. I for my part will continue using it, and while I understand that some may prefer other terms, I do not think it is very profitable to note this dislike every time the term appears. All arguments have been expressed, several times, by several commenters, and there's really nothing more to say. Cannot we just civilly agree to disagree - surely this is a question where differing opinions can be tolerated?
The rediscovery and use of these splendid papal vestments is very interesting--the message it sends is not one of excess gilt and ermine, but of a stately and ancient heritage.
When a young man of reduced estates but of an ancient Scottish name dons a kilt for his wedding day is it "too much"? or is it indicative of his pride in his heritage?
The cope the Holy Father is wearing is actually not papale. Papal copes were much longer and called mantles. Nevertheless, nice to see something that took such craftsmanship to make.
I'm a young man of reduced estates and an ancient Scottish name who, along with the other men of the family, did indeed wear a kilt on my wedding day! Here's the thing: I don't even have a drop of Scottish blood because I'm adopted, but I'm part of the clan all the same :D
And so it is with priests and other ministers of God. We're all His adopted sons, and it would probably be nice to dress as if we're part of the family, don't you think?
Would I have dared to approach the altar in a technicolor kilt? Heck no! Why do priests feel it's alright to don a technicolor chasuble?
Gregor
If you want to be dogmatic and idiosyncratically 'Killmorgenian' about the misuse of the term 'Benedictine' all well and good, that's your funeral, but nothing you say makes it mandatory. Roman is good enough for the rest of us, as in Roman Rite and Roman Catholic. There will always be something to say about this neologism; of its nature it remains an open question, and a source of irritation to many. As far as I recall, the only general term, understood by a diminishing band, associated with a papal innovation are the Leonine prayers after Mass. If you want to be 'organic' (what a slogan that term has become, used by many as a substitute for thought) recognize the Roman source.
Michael,
I must demur, while there is indeed a papal cope which is substantially longer , mantum. The Pope also properly wears an "ordinary" cope for liturgies.
Dear Fr Symondson,
are you trying to be offensive? I can really not understand why; I have always treated you with the greatest respect. I have never said that anyone has to use the term who doesn't like to, in fact I have expressly said the contrary. Moreover, Shawn (who coined the term) as well as myself and others using the term are obviously aware that this is no more than the traditional Roman arrangement used for versus populum celebration, and we have repeatedly stated as much. To imply that "Roman is not good enough" for us is a slight for which I can really see no justification. I would really hope that such kinds of unnecessary personal attacks could be avoided. Also, might I ask what "Killmorgenian" is referring to? I really do not want any hard feelings to ensue; I continue to harbour great respect for you; and I think that it it is almost comical that such a minor question of terminology should lead to such exchanges.
Was Pope Paul VI the last pope to wear this magnificent cope? There is a dramatic photograph of him wearing it in front of the papal altar in St Peter's Basilica during one of the plenary meetings of the Second Vatican Council. By the time it was taken the magnificent Baroque candlesticks had been removed, replaced by shallow ones in the form of brass saucers, but there is an equally magnificent red antependium, heavily embroidered in gold thread. He stands before the chair of Pope Leo XIII and is still attended by members of the Papal Court which should date it to about 1963-4. If I knew how to I would send a copy through the wires to Shawn. It is reproduced on p227 of 'An Illustrated History of the Popes', by Michael Walsh, New York, St Martin's Press, 1980 if anybody can track it down and send it on.
Mgr Camaldo, the 2nd MC, performed the osculum when he handed the aspergillum to the Pope for the Commendation.
To close this off hopefully for once and all, the reference to "Benedictine" is a particular kind of historical reference, just as it is in the case of the "Pian Missal".
The Pian Missal, the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, these are, at the end of the day, the Roman Missal and are not original to those popes. The references to them relate to reforms those popes put in place, or actions they otherwise took in relation to the liturgy. This doesn't derogate its "Romanitas" or the fact that it maintains an over-arching historical relation that goes well beyond this or that specific pope. Nor is it changed if the reforms in question were restoring something that was already part of the tradition.
The problem I see here is that people seem to think it must be utterly new to warrant a designation of "Pian", "Benedictine" or otherwise.
To speak then of the "Benedictine altar arrangement" doesn't suggest it is utterly novel to Benedict, nor that it isn't Roman.
What is refers to is a notable liturgical activity and initiative taking place under this pope, one which he has clearly identified with a liturgical purpose (re-orienting the liturgy).
The arrangement of cross and candles in this fashion on an altar otherwise used "versus populum" saw historical precedent in Roman Basilicas, and it was also temporarily employed by the liturgical movement in "turning altars around" toward versus populum. But it is in its use as a tool to re-orient the liturgy in the context of the present liturgical climate (where versus populum is nearly de rigeur), to recommend it to parishes for that purpose (as a Cardinal; see Fontgombault); in his desire to effect this kind of liturgical re-climitization and re-emphasis; it is in this historical relation that it becomes "Benedictine", in the same way that St. Pius V's matters became "Pian" in the historical context of the liturgical and theological challenges of his day.
At the end of the day, what was "Pian" in that localized historical context was still entirely "Roman" and likewise with this arrangement.
Yes it is essentially Roman, but it is "Benedictine" -- of Benedict XVI -- because it is an acknowledgement of the fact that it is an
important liturgical task and reform he is trying to effect in his pontificate.
Gregor
I was teasing you because of your earnestness. But I stick to my point. To call this altar arrangement 'Benedictine' suggests that it is new. It is not, but simply a revival of what is ordered and was allowed to drop for pastoral reasons. It was early deemed to provide an obstruction between priest and people. I remember the discussion at the time
If we accept the Holy Father at his word when he talks and writes of continuity this restoration (like the revived use of fine vestments and papal insignia) is part of his programme, potently illustrated by usage. When people use the silly word 'organic' they really mean continuous. I wish Alcuin Read had never coined it because people use it carelessly to baptize what they like. The Roman arrangement is continuous and surely should be seen for what it is? 'Benedictine' makes it seem like a break rather than a restoration of what is ordered.
When I first read Shawn's use of 'Benedictine' as a description I immediately thought, as Basil implied, of a monastic usage and was nonplussed. When I realized that it referred to Mgr Marini's restoration of correct usage I knew that it would cause misunderstanding on many levels.
Our mutual admiration is taken as read, but I cannot see that accuracy is served by the continued use of this word as an adjective. Honestly, I really do mean that. Shawn meant no mischief in coining it because I suspect he thought he was elucidating a development (only he can say, and I hope he will). But I think it misleads as much as it tries to illuminate.
Fr Symondson,
as for "Benedictine", see Shawn's reply above. The notion that the term implies newness is on your part, not on ours.
Regarding the cope: Was this then originally a mantum? Or was it always a cope, also on the photograph you refer to? If so, was Paul VI the first pope to wear a normal cope instead of a mantum?
Shawn
I note that you were writing your defense while I was writing mine, but you posted yours first. I concede your point about re-orientating the celebration of Mass but, obstinate
though this sounds, I am not entirely convinced that 'Benedictine' describes this adequately. This is not intended to be a back to the wall response because I believed the argument is fluid, not decided.
Looking back to Trent the most convincing use of associative adjectives lies in 'Borromean'. Though Roman in essence, St Charles opened up an entirely revised concept of church planning. Is the Holy Father set on the same mission?
Don't think I am putting my fingers to my nose, but could you imagine Fortescue & O'Connell publishing 'The Ceremonies of the Benedictine Rite Described', or Bishop Elliott publishing 'Ceremonies of the Modern Benedictine Rite' without people thinking of Benedictine abbeys and monastic choirs?
One other thing I should note. The only reason I originated this expression (which I always put in quotes incidentally so as to note it was by no means a definitive term) is because it gave an easy way to make reference to the action of a priest setting up his altar with the 6 candlesticks (or even 2) and cross as a means of trying to help effect re-orientation, in the context of an otherwise versus populum celebration.
It becomes a way to reference an action without having to describe it everytime, while also rightly linking it to the liturgical-theological teaching the Pope is trying to effect.
Moreover, by referencing it this way, it can also help preserve the fact that this is a means to an end: ad orientem liturgicum.
For myself, to speak of the Roman arrangement, it would be very difficult to think of that aside from ad orientem as usually expressed outside Roman basilicas.
Shawn
That is reasonable
Gregor
Don't be pert.
How poor looks the new (and also ugly) altar of the Chair. It should be replaced as soon as posible by the traditional one.
I don't remember the name of the type of cope, but is there any truth to the rumor I read on another blog, that some of these copes that Pope Benedict XVI is wearing (like the one in these photos) are not new, but they were originally very elaborate copes 2x longer than they are now, and belonging to previous Popes, and they have been hacked apart/altered/shortened for Benedict XVI's use as well as to be "updated" according to Vatican II.
If so, I think it's appalling to ruin Papal copes just to shorten them to meet the updated "look" of Vatican II vestments.
Regardless though, the cope Benedict XVI wore today was awesome.. so was his mitre.
Didn't the Popes (at least in the past) also have a similar mitre which was the same plain design, but just cloth of gold? I think I remember John XXIII wearing one like that all the time.
Now, really, Monsignor Camaldo and the osculum... during a Requiem!
Kenjiro,
the word you are looking for is "mantum", which I mentioned above. At least the cope mantum of John XXIII, which pope Benedict wore on New Year's eve (I think) was shortened in this way, but I believe it was already shortened under Paul VI.
The mitre which you mean is the auriphrygiata, which is one of the three different kinds of mitres which traditionally exist. It is different from the white mitra simplex.
Ugh, I'd hate to think that they are butchering old Papal mantums by shortening them, which makes me think, if the weather had permitted, would the Holy Father have worn a mantum of Benedict XV on Easter, or did they shorten the cope?
I certainly hope there wasn't a solita oscula at a Requiem!
When Paul VI wore this cope it trailed on the ground so it might have been shortened. But so long as it was turned up, rather than cut, at the hem it is reversible.
The Cope on Easter was a mutilated Mantum. I do not think it was cut during Paul VI's times because there are many pictures in which he is wearing that (white) Mantum and it was still a Mantum.
It is this Pope who either does not like or does not want to "scare" people by wearing a real Mantum. All the Copes he has worn are very short: they do not even touch the ground.
Mgr. Guido had already worn that surplice before either for Good Friday or Ash Wednesday. It's not new.
I do not think there are "oscula" during Requiem Masses or other liturgical services related to someone's death. Why was it done at this Requiem?
Magnificent cope.
Do we know when the homily will be made available online?
When looking at what the Pope is wearing, they may not be the original at all. I read that he has been commissioning the remaking of old vestments of his choice. The old ones remain in tact and in storage, while he wears the new remakes.
I'm interested in the way the deacons are holding the Pope's cope. Is this the traditional manner? I've always disliked what I call the "batman" effect that comes from having the cope held way up with all the insides exposed.
Hi,I keep hearing about this Altar of the Chair that was torn out at the Vatican.Shawn would u possibly have a picture of it that you could post?Btw I too hate the practice of having the caskets containing the dead placed on the ground.Lets hope that ends soon.One thing I rarely hear mentioned was Paul VI's stupid abolition of the Noble and Palatine Guards If I win the Lotto I will offer the Pope a few million to reestablish them.Ha Ha I loved their uniforms and they added much splendor to the Papal Court.Thanks for the great site Shawn Ryan in NYC
Really, the comments here do sometimes bring me to an appreciation of the position of (if not agreement with) the evangelical fundamentalists: may I ask, in all respect, where Our Lord Jesus Christ comes into all this impassioned discussion of ecclesiastical millinery? As a liturgical musician, I appreciate that the minutiae have meaning, we musicians certainly are capable of waxing voluble upon the porrectus and the torculus, but I do think all of us should be careful lest the trees obstruct our view of the forest. At the end of the day, it is about the salvation of souls, and if His Holiness chooses to appear in a cope that is not to our taste, the imminent fall of Christian civilization is not thereby signified. I think this is worth bearing in mind.
John,
Beauty is very much a part of the deposit of the faith and as such magnificent vestments, altar furnishings and a resplendent liturgy quite effectively, to our six senses, move those same senses in the direction of transendance in Christ.
God bless you.
That is five senses.
Ryan, I thought you might find this link interesting: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com...peters-
how.html
"One thing I rarely hear mentioned was Paul VI's stupid abolition of the Noble and Palatine Guards" I couldn't agree with you more- The abolition was completely wrong! He abolished so much of what once made the Papal Court truly splendid. Along the same line, I just recently read how the old Roman nobility such a the Borgheses and Collonas has been becoming more linked to the Vatican once again... maybe we're on the right track. It's nice to know others support a restoration of the old Papal Court- it really would be great!
On further thought, I don't believe that Kenjiro's rumour that antique vestments are being modified to fit the Holy Father is true. St Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Pius XI and Pope Paul VI were all short popes and many Italians are the same. There would be enough splendid vestments left in the papal sacristy or elsewhere to fit him. I think these rumours are started by entrenched conservatives who are dismayed to see the liturgical improvements initiated by the Holy Father because they compromise their position in believing that the Church and liturgy are irretrievably wrecked and beyond help. Minority groups hate having their security and exclusiveness undermined.
Correction. Pope Benedict XV was a short pope.
Re: the young purple-cassocked acolytes qua "monsignori"
is it my imagination, or are these young papal altar servers wearing white clerical collars, as those who have received the tonsure/minor orders? is this normal, or is it a peculiarity of the papal court?
latinmass- Yes, he wore it on Good Friday. By "new", I meant, different from his customary one.
Fr Symondson,
indeed these Italian popes you enumerate were short, and would be quite possible for the reigning pontiff to wear vestments of (some of) his predecessors unaltered, and in fact I personally would not object in the least even to some alterations, as this has always been done. The question I asked above, however, remains unanswered: did the popes wear normal copes at all before the liturgical reforms? Because I have onle ever seen the wear the mantum. But I don't know, maybe there were some occasions of minor solemnity on which they indeed would have worn a normal cope.
"is it my imagination, or are these young papal altar servers wearing white clerical collars, as those who have received the tonsure/minor orders? is this normal, or is it a peculiarity of the papal court?"
Wearing the collar is apparently the Roman custom for servers. I've read that not wearing them to divide clerics from non-clerics is an innovation of the English-speaking nations.
There are, or at least were, many many types of linen collar, historically speaking. You find what, when removed, look like proper "dog collars", as part of some military uniforms. But there's nothing clerical about them at all.
The key with clerics is to find out the colour of the rabat, or collare, worn underneath the cassock. The collar is only supposed to protect that, and the inside of the cassock's neck, from sweat, which is why it's detachable - so it can be washed.
This is why, in the Instruction on the Dress of Cardinals, et al, of 1969, the following line was included:
The red "collare" (rabat or rabbi) and the red watered-silk skullcap may be worn, even with the black cassock without red trim.
Even more foolish is the "seminarian's collar" which a certain sort of person tends to get excited about. It's supposedly white with a black line down the middle. It's also nonsensical. Seminarians get a black rabat when they reach the stage of being admitted to the last bit of their training, since they become clerics. No rabat, no white collar.
John M--I understand your point and we should always keep God and the love of Christ in the forefront of what we do. But certainly somebody has to discuss the minutiae, even if it can be a dirty job at times. Doctors must discuss the intricacies of veins, architects their volutes and musicians their notes. If we don't discuss this, then nobody will. At the same time, of course, we should always remind ourselves to keep a clear head and an even tone, if only to edify outsiders who listen in. I imagine our readers consieer the development of their own spiritual lives some of the time, it just doesn't get aired in public.
Oh dear I see the dreaded 'white chair' is back what happened to the Red and Gold Throne and Red backdrop?
Does anyone know exactly when the practice of surrounding the casket with candles ended? What was the precise number of candles? And when could they be used?
Also what is the structure of the old catafalque are there specifications for them.
Minutiae are important, especially when there are a lot of them. There were no major changes in the 1962 Missal, for example, but when you add all the tiny changes up, you get a very long list of abolished feast days, simplified rubrics, and a plethora of options that amount to something big. One paper cut isn't so bad, but a thousand will kill you.
This is a liturgy blog, not a clerical dress blog, so I'll be brief. The "roman collar" is actually the black part or the rabat. The white linen which has taken many forms over the past couple centuries (see St. John Vianney). This has through nomenclature, taken on the term 'roman collar'. It seems that if a cassock is to be worn at all, the white collar of some form should be worn as well,or at least close the front. This would be the most correct in a perfect world.
I'm sure this would cause a kerfuffle among many parishoniers and priests. But I don't think it would hurt on the vocation front! (A lot of vocations stemmed from "invalid" liturgies celebrated in bedrooms and basements by children all over the world!)
Is "splendour" really the appropriate appearance for a funeral?
The Pope, of course, uses red instead of purple or black for Funeral rites, but was it necessary that he be put into a very ornate cope? For surely that cope bespeaks festivity rather than mourning for the dead.
And likewise, the use of lace. Lace is also meant to be festal. In decades past, there was a rule that at Funerals and during the Penitential seasons an unadorned alb of plain linen was to be worn. Yet here we see the Pope appear in a lace alb.
Would it not be desirable that the Pope's appearance express degrees of Festivity or Mourning? It might have becoming for the Pope to have been vested more somberly for a funeral.
Udienza - 24.4.2008!! Un baldacchino
http://www.fotografiafelici.com/...A&
n_page=1#foto
If I may carry on a bit on the "collar" tangent...
I have seen servers and seminarians wear the rabat with cassock and surplice. What is the rule on laymen (married or single) wearing the rabat with cassock and surplice when serving at the altar? I have heard mixed answers and nothing definitive. Does anyone know???
Thanks!
Friedrich,
That picture is amazing! Thanks! Now if only we could see a canopy over the throne in St. Peter's...
What is the rule on laymen (married or single) wearing the rabat with cassock and surplice when serving at the altar?
As to formal rules, I'm not sure that the S.R.C. ever addressed this, but certainly the traditional Roman (i.e. the city of Rome) usage was that the rabat (and biretta) were a part of the ordinary liturgical dress of clerics, along with the cassock and surplice. So, if the use of clerical dress was conceded to lay servers, this included all four pieces, and not merely the two that are usually seen in the English-speaking world. This is why the various ceremonial manuals written by Roman authors give the rules for the use of the biretta by the torchbearers at Solemn Mass.
Paul:
Are you sure about the biretta? I can't remember the documents, but I thought the biretta was strictly forbidden for servers period. This would seem true since the secular oratorians at the London Oratory assume the entire habit, sans the biretta. I've never met a more liturgically correct place in my life, so I would think that if anyone would employ the biretta for their servers, they would. Just a thought.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/...Bl-
Cathedra.jpg
Go here to see a glorious photo of how it used to be!
I would love it if someone had some documentation on the use of the rabat by laymen in the US. I have had good priests say of course it should be worn. And other good priests say never.
I am of the camp that servers wear clerical garb anyway no matter what their state in life and if they're going to wear a cassock, it might as well have the collar attached rather than an empty rectangle of neck skin.
Does anyone have any sources?
Thanks!
I was just wondering if anyone else had noticed (what appeared to be) the osculum. Whether it is appropriate at a OF requiem is neither here nor there.
I am a bit perplexed, however, that some posts have questioned the propriety of the osculum at a requiem, but at the same time, do not question the propriety of incensing the altar at the beginning of the requiem mass or the use of the pastoral staff, both of which are omitted in the EF.
Are you sure about the biretta? I can't remember the documents, but I thought the biretta was strictly forbidden for servers period.
I am as sure as I think I can be about such things. If there is a document which forbids it I would be quite interested in that, of course. The Oratory is, as you say, usually very correct in all things liturgical, but they may simply be following the usual practice of Anglophone countries. I don't know anyone at the London Oratory, however, so this is purely conjecture on my part. Again, if there is a specific reference I don't know of it, and it doesn't appear to be in my various collections of the decrees of the S.R.C.
Dan and Matthew
Thank you. I see the points you are making. Somebody indeed has to be concerned. This was brought home to me today whilst I was trapped in the waiting room of an auto tire repair facility and the only thing to read was a monthly journal for engineers, with articles like "The Top 10 Questions About Discombobulating Reversible Pneumatic Framistat Bearings". For every human endeavour, there are minutiae for experts to be concerned about. In the end everything we creatures are about is to the glory of God. Thank you again for taking the trouble to reply to my cry in the wilderness.
John--thanks for your charitable reply. I appreciate your understanding; at the same time it is always a good thing for someone "on the outside" to give us a little wake-up to remind us of the bigger picture!
Does anyone know anything about the fine morse worn on this occasion with the cope? I've noticed the Pope wearing the morse with the large pine cones on several occassions but I've not noticed this design being worn before.
Once again I make a reference to my recent guided tour of the papal sacristies during my last visit to Rome. The "mantum" everyone is referencing here was not extra long as a special papal garment. That is to say it was not very long just because it belonged to the Pope as such. It was extra long for a practical reason: to cover the bottom of the sedia. Since this practical reason is no longer in force several of the older vestments are, in fact, being shortened to be worn as normal copes. The one already cited that was used on New year's Day is a good example. This was explained to me by the papal sacristans and I was allowed to see these vestments up close. Of course the oldest ones will not be touched. However, a few dating from the time of John XXIII and onwards are being and have been modified. This is for the sole reason that Popes now walk instead of using the sedia. Given the choice between never seeing these vestments again or seeing them tailored to be used I would choose the latter.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
