When I was ordained, the members of the Gregorian chant schola I directed wanted to give me a vestment. Since they were of modest means, I didn’t want them to spend too much money. But since they wanted the chasuble to be special, I chose a historic cut of vestment, rather than try to get very expensive fabric or embroidery. I got a "taglio filipino", which is like the chasuble you see on images of St. Philip Neri… thus the Italian nickname.
Over at NLM we see some great images of paintings of St. Philip and St. Ignatius in this vestment.
This style was the first real organic development of vestments from the full cloak style to the smaller and square modern Roman vestments. It is sort of half way in between.
Here are some of the shots from NLM.
This is an great development and in keeping with the Marshall Plan.
Benedict’s education of the Church continues.
As I have been saying, liturgy is …
Loading ...
Guy standing to the Holy Father’s right: “Eh, Holy Father, nice duds…”
Viva Il Papa!
Today the Baroque Chasuble; tomorrow the Maniple returns: so a save your pre-Vatican vestments for the Maniple will rise again.
Let’s hope and pray that Msgr. Marini packs some of these classic vestments (in white and gold, of course) in the Holy Father’s suitcase when he comes to the United States for his April visit. Otherwise, he’ll be in one of those couch cover chasubles with matching mitre.
hieromonk Gregory; took the words out of my mouth. The Maniple is conspicuous by its absence here.
The music during this service was fabulous!! Reminds me so much when I was a girl…great stuff. No accompaniement, very austere and beautiful. I long for it everywhere!
jane in memphis
Allelu— er, I mean, Gloria tibi, Rex aeternae gloriae
Fr. Z., I’m sure you are right about the “tip of the spear…” Why do I have this urge to yell Rome’s Way: “HURRY UP!!! There’s lots to get done…”?
Fr. Philip, OP
The tip of the spear???
Hmm. Shades of Parsifal.
Who is the guy on the Pope’s right-hand side? He was right beside him through the whole Mass, along with Msgr Marini
Now, if only the Pope could ditch that John-Pauline bent-crucifix staff, the picture would be complete.
PNP, OP: Because, perhaps, there is a lot to get done?
I noticed the tall mitre. Another sign of the return to glory?
Whilst liturgical vestment development a la nuovo Marini are now taking place at
a rather rapid rate, it would be good if we could all concentrate on what ought be the
real focus of all things liturgical. It is not the vestment shape, size or whatever.
It is not the number of candles, their position on the altar or whatever.
It is not the lace surplices, lace albs or whatever.It is not the language be it
latin, english or whatever.
I suggest it ought be the very act of the eucharisitc sacrifice. In all these
debates that are raging on the blogs at present with all the nice pretty pictures
of priests in lace and facing east, west or north, the central issue of the
gospel message and that of the sacrifice of Christ seems to be always missing.
There are loads of comments and suggestions verging on the heretical and disloyal
which foucs only on language, direction of the altar and other, day I say, non-gospel
issues.
It is about time that the focus of the debate returned to the gospel message.
I have not heard people in the catholic street debtaing these issues – rather it
is the seminarian / priest class that is waging this war on the liturgical tradition of
the last 40 years. Much of it verges as I say on disloyalty to Pope Paul VI, John Paul II
and John XXIII. This negative selectivity of who is best or what is best is
a direct attack on the very authenticity of the faith as it is focused on the
successor of Peter.
The academics ought just take stock, stop and look and see what they are doing
and saying. I would suggets they get out of their seats and into the
streets and byways and get close to the fatithful, where they will find the
real suffering and witness that makes Jesus present.
Too much has been said on the matter of latin in the Mass. Too much has been
said of lace and candles. Get real and focus on Christ.
Well that is my contibution to this debate.
Oh – and yes the pope looked good at MAss Ash wednesday and yes the candles did
look weird. But who cares? That is just the appearance and not the substance.
Is that really why Christ suffered and died on the cross?
Semper fidelis.
Adam: You are falling into the trap of pitting the “Sacrifice of Christ” as you put it (as if that were somehow a separate issue) against the external signs which are being changed so as to communicate something about the Church’s understanding of that Sacrifice. It is a common chestnut to pit the “man in the street” against “high” expressions of the Church’s liturgy and precise definitions of doctrine. You very blithely toss out what “academics” ought to do, and offer rather imprecise admonitions about “focus on Christ”. What I fear you might not understand is that interest in the poor, etc., and interest in a faithful expression of the Church’s liturgy and doctrine are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary: destroy authentic Catholic liturgy and you will also destroy an authentic apostolate on behalf of the poor. For a little healthy corrective reading go back and study the first part of Deus caritas est in conjunction with Sacramentum caritatis, and you might start to get it.
Adam: I think you are missing the point. Look at it this way; when the details were changed so that everyone would feel that they were being “included”, and the Gospel was proclaimed in the venacular (so that ostensibly everyone can focus more on the Message) the opposite was achieved, and everyone went running for the door.
Now a new generation wants their experience of Eucharistic Sacrifice as Holy Mother Church had experieced it for two millenia. If you want people to live the Gospel, They need to actually go to a Church. And the details do have meaning, because things that are pleasing to the senses help make people more receptive to the message being proclaimed.
I’m sorry that I don’t express this as well as others here, but I hope it helps.
Semper Fi,
Adam: Benedict XVI has taught me through his liturgical actions what it means to Turn Towards The Lord.
Adam – Do not doubt for one second that, amidst all the lace albs, Roman chasubles, tall mitres, candles and crucifix on the altar (that just happen to be giving most of us here a tremendous amount of pleasure), the Holy Father’s ONLY motive is to bring more people to Christ.
With Pope Benedict, I see … Card. Castrillon and ….
I read on one of the blogs that the other Cardinal Deacon is Cardinal Farina.
Fr John condescendingly writes that I “might start to get it”. Well let me say that
as a catholic for all my life and having worked in the vatican for some time, I DO
GET IT and above all I understand what the eucharistic sacrifce of Christ is and
always has been donw through the centuries. If you wish to make
‘ad hominem’ arguments as many seem to do these days of late, especially against
Marini mach 1, then I think one needs to focus more on what matters.
The evolution of the mass down the centuries from the apostolic Church of
persecution, through the middle ages and illiteracy, the Reformation and to the
present day, has seen many and varied vestments etc. There were no english speaking
peoples centuries ago, no chinese speaking catholics centuries ago until the gospel came
to them. It strikes me as amazing that the faith continues amidst the
academic debates of certain people who fixate on language, posture, colour and
movement. I am stunned by the comments of people who speak as though
suddenly with Marini mach 2 all will be well again and that the Barque of
Peter will somehow not flounder. Have they forgotten the great and saintly
John Paul II, the much maligned Paul Vi and that Blessed John XXIII – all of whom
were chosen by the cardinals, inspired by the Holy Spirit to be the
successors of Christ and St Peter. Stop for a moment and see that truth and then
we need to take a grip that the theology those popes believed and taught is the
same today.
I grant that many things liturgical have gone way overboard and should have been
a stop to (and that I also tell that to my bishop friends !!). But that fact
around the globe is a matter of lax episcopal discipline which ought have been
exercised regularly. It is not the fault of popes and certainly the liturgy in the
Vatican under JPII and Marini mach I was as valid as ever. It is the truth of
our faith that we have loyalty to Jesus Christ and his successors.
Besides,some bloggers ought be a but more circumspect when they speak of history
and the past. You only have to look at Alexander VI and his life – and he was pope.
Well that’s enough, but with respect, I think some comments ought be wary of
condescending tones against those who may have more theological knowledge than their
critics. Just a thought.
I also agree that the Pope as all popes in the past, does want to bring more people
to Christ. But let’s put the Gospel at the top of that agenda not lace albs
and debates over the shape of chasubles.
Semper fidelis
Adam, do you want to reduce the liturgy to VALIDITY? Of course the liturgy was VALID under JPII and the earlier Marini. It was also distractingly bad on the best days. When you go to the Easter Vigil at St. Peter’s, and right before the “Exultet”, a voice comes over the loud-speaker and says, “Now let us listen to the Exsultet, a joyful and poetic composition that expresses the hope of the Christian people as they await the return of the Risen One, blah, blah, blah”, or some such nonsese, in four or five languages, it is bloody near impossible to think about the Gospel!!!
I see no reason to attck Fr. Z’s readers and others in Catholic blogdom for forgetting “the great and saintly John Paul II, the much maligned Paul VI and that Blessed John XXIII”. It seems to me that they are praising Pope Benedict for remembering Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV, St. Pius X, Leo XIII, B. Pius IX, Gregory XVI…St. Pius V, Pius IV, Paul IV…St. Gregory VII, Alexander II, Nicolas II…
Adam, do you want to reduce the liturgy to VALIDITY? Of course the liturgy was VALID under JPII and the earlier Marini. It was also distractingly bad on the best days. When you go to the Easter Vigil at St. Peter’s, and right before the “Exultet”, a voice comes over the loud-speaker and says, “Now let us listen to the Exsultet, a joyful and poetic composition that expresses the hope of the Christian people as they await the return of the Risen One, blah, blah, blah”, or some such nonsense, in four or five languages, it is bloody near impossible to think about the Gospel!!!
I see no reason to attck Fr. Z’s readers and others in Catholic blogdom for forgetting “the great and saintly John Paul II, the much maligned Paul VI and that Blessed John XXIII”. It seems to me that they are praising Pope Benedict for remembering Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV, St. Pius X, Leo XIII, B. Pius IX, Gregory XVI…St. Pius V, Pius IV, Paul IV…St. Gregory VII, Alexander II, Nicolas II…
Adam: Fr John condescendingly writes
Hardly condescending, hough now I am surprised that I responded.
that I “might start to get it”.
And clearly you still don’t, which is too bad. That is not a moral judgement. It is an observation.
Well let me say that as a catholic for all my life and having worked in the vatican for some time,
Uh huh. Well.. of course you did. However, I think we all know that just because a person is “catholic for all his life”, that doesn’t mean he understands anything.
If you wish to make ‘ad hominem’ arguments as many seem to do these days of late, especially against Marini mach 1, then I think one needs to focus more on what matters.
There was nothing ad hominem in my remarks to you. I observed that you didn’t seem to understand some important points, I stuck to the issues making no moral judgments about you, and offered some suggestions.
And with that we draw this part of the thread to its conclusion.
Do you think that the triregnum could return?