Rorate Caeli

Papal Vestments

In the Mass [of Paul VI] he will celebrate in Paris on September 13, the Holy Father will don vestments which belong to the Abbey of Sainte-Madeleine du Barroux, the most famous Traditional Catholic abbey in France. (Source: Yves Daoudal)

Tip: Le Forum Catholique

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Indeed and will he offer the Sacrifice according to the Rite for which they were made.

In other words the Usus Antiquior or ExtraOrd. Use or plain old TLM.

Let's hope and pray that the Holy Father will soon offer a TLM in public soon.

In caritate Xp.,

Bryan Dunne
Harrow UK

Joe of St. Thérèse said...

I would not be suprised if he offers the TLM in France...where the Faith has been kept alive by Tradition

Fr. Steve said...

Yes he will.
The Roman Rite as expressed in its ordinary form.
Deo Gratias.
Don't get me wrong.
I do still pray that he regularly offer the extraordinary form.
But never the less it is still the very same Roman rite.
This is the mind of the Church.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting symbolism. Taking on the mantle of traditionalism, literally.

Alexander said...

Yes hopefully he will offer a public TLM soon.. My dream is that he would offer them on a regular basis more so than the Novus Ordo.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have pictures of said vestments?

Anonymous said...

It would be a revolution if the pope was breaking away from the carefully negotiated program to celebrate a TLM.
There is no TLM scheduled in the papal visit so far. Moreover a papal TLM implies a considerable preparation so there is no remote possibility that a "happening" like that could occur.

The message in the liturgical field will have to be looked at for the Ordinary Form. That's the point in this visit in a country where many bishops are in a favor of the Bugnini theories and more or less, it depends who, opposed to the Ratzingerian views. The "Adoremus" like people in France are nearly ... invisible. Mr Crouan's Pro Liturgia association has nearly no influence so far.

Some readers need to get back to earth...
nb. Incidentally, the cold relationships between SSPX and the Pope could be warmed up if there is some positive initiative from the SSPX clergy/faithful during the visit. Who knows ? we can pray for this anyway.

Paul Haley said...

As to the Novus Ordo being the same Catholic rite as the Usus Antiquior, I beg to disagree citing the words of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to Pope Paul VI:

..."if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."

This is at the heart of the dispute between Traditional Catholics and others - when the form, i.e., the words of the canon and the consecration are changed, the meaning appears to be different, the intent called into question, and that is simply not something that can easily be dismissed.

Now, I know the hierarchy says the meaning is the same and the intent is the same but that begs the question which is: then, why are they (the forms) different?

Anonymous said...

One can see pictures of vestments used at Barroux on their website, I believe, under documents. I visited there once. One of my favorite places I have ever been. They use the gothic form of chasuble, as is common among even traditional monastics. They are rather unique. Personally, I like them. However, if people are unaware of Barroux, they would not suspect that they came from traditionalists (unless he wears the maniple). I guess this might be a rather ingenious statement. One which would be known to the bishops of France, but overlooked by the rest of the world? http://www.barroux.org

Fr. Steve said...

If the ordinary form is indeed a departure from the theology of the Councile of Trent, as many claim, then it would be a heretical understanding, and if it is a heretical "lex orandi" then those who hold this must be claiming that the Church is defectable. As a traditional Roman Catholic I cannot hold that position. The fact is that the Holy Mass has taken on many forms in both east and west. Some forms may possess more sacrafical language than others, but the dual consecration of the elements with the words of institution effect the Holy
Sacrifice as the Church has ever intended. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Paul Haley said...

In response to Fr. Steve, allow me to repeat the question I asked earlier: Now, I know the hierarchy says the meaning is the same and the intent is the same but that begs the question which is: then, why are they (the forms) different?

Fr, Steve wrote: "If the ordinary form is indeed a departure from the theology of the Councile of Trent, as many claim, then it would be a heretical understanding, and if it is a heretical "lex orandi" then those who hold this must be claiming that the Church is defectable." My response is that it was Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci that said that. Are they therefore heretics?

My suggestion is we let this matter lie and go no further with the discussion since I am sure Fr. Steve is well-intended. I only wish to point out that there is a different point of view and one held, apparently, by the former Head of the Holy Office, now the CDF. That would be, of course, Cardinal Ottaviani who was treated shamefully at Vatican II when they shut off his microphome as he tried to defend his position.

Jordanes said...

Father Steve said: If the ordinary form is indeed a departure from the theology of the Councile of Trent, as many claim, then it would be a heretical understanding, and if it is a heretical "lex orandi" then those who hold this must be claiming that the Church is defectable.

I beg to differ, Father, but if it is a departure from the "theology" of the Mass as enunciated by Trent, then it would not necessarily be heretical nor necessarily even erroneous. If it is a departure from Trent's "doctrine" of the Mass, however, then yes, it would be heretical and the Church would have defected contrary to Christ's promise. The Pauline Missal of 1970 and of later years (as opposed to the 1969 edition) does depart from Tridentine theology, though not entirely, but it does not depart from Tridentine doctrine.

Paul asked: Now, I know the hierarchy says the meaning is the same and the intent is the same but that begs the question which is: then, why are they (the forms) different?

Why is the form of the Roman Rite different from the forms of the Byzantine or Maronite or Ambrosian or Melkite, etc.?

Also, it's not just "the hierarchy" that says the meaning and intent is the same, it's the Catholic Church that says that.

Paul Haley said...

Jordanes said:
Why is the form of the Roman Rite different from the forms of the Byzantine or Maronite or Ambrosian or Melkite, etc.?

True enough, but are there two different forms in those other rites? I would submit that there is not and my question stands as to why there are now, after nearly 1500 years, two forms to the Roman rite?

It seems to me that St. Pius V acting in accord with the directions of the Council of Trent was consolidating and codifying the Roman Rite of Mass for all time. Why did the one form become two and why did the Missal of St. Pius V fall out of use? Or, perhaps a better question would be why was it withheld from the faithful in a de facto abrogation by nearly the entire Roman Church?

schoolman said...

I think we need to distinguish between "theology" and "dogma". The same dogma can be expressed differently according to a variety of legitimate schools of theology -- and the mystery involved can't be completely unveiled by any single theological school. But at the same time, there can be a legitimate need to recover various theological aspects -- without denying the intrinsic value of the New Mass. In fact, Cardinal Castrillon recently stated that the Holy Father wants the recovery of the TLM partly for "theological reasons".

Jordanes said...

True enough, but are there two different forms in those other rites? I would submit that there is not and my question stands as to why there are now, after nearly 1500 years, two forms to the Roman rite?

The proper term is "use" (usus), not "form." But no, to my knowledge, the other Rites do not include more than one Use.

Why does the Roman Rite now have two chief Uses? Because of the botched liturgical reform of the 1960s which produced the Pauline Missal and the attempted abrogation of the Johannine Missal. Since the reform has been a liturgical and pastoral failure, the Holy See now must take measures to repair the damage done to the Roman Rite. Part of that means restoring the never-abrogated Johannine Missal, to help heal and bring balance back to the Roman liturgy.

It seems to me that St. Pius V acting in accord with the directions of the Council of Trent was consolidating and codifying the Roman Rite of Mass for all time.

Consolidating and codifying, certainly. For all time? That's not so clear.

Why did the one form become two and why did the Missal of St. Pius V fall out of use? Or, perhaps a better question would be why was it withheld from the faithful in a de facto abrogation by nearly the entire Roman Church?

Paul VI and the Consilium could not have conceived of a multiple-use Roman Rite. For them, the reform of the Roman Rite would naturally require the suppression of prior editions of the Missal. That very effectively established the Pauline Missal throughout the dioceses of the Latin Church. But many Catholics continued to adhere to the pre-Vatican II liturgy, until at last Benedict XVI stated what many had long held, that the old liturgy had never been abrogated. However, it would be pastorally disastrous to attempt to suppress the Pauline liturgy. The solution was to recognise both Johannine and Pauline Missals as two uses of one Rite. This had the juridical advantage of recognising that all Latin Rite priests have a right to celebrate according to either use: no indult is needed to celebrate the Extraordinary Use, which would be the case if the Johannine Missal were not the same Rite as the Pauline Missal, which undeniably is an approved missal of the Roman Rite.

Roy Bailey said...

Mister Jordanes, writes:

The proper term is "use" (usus), not "form." But no, to my knowledge....

As someone who knows everything and only ever writes comments here at Rorate Caeli to "correct" others and offer glib magisterial clarifications, I was surprised to read that, once again, Magister Jordanes blunders.

The term used in Summorum Pontificum is correctly translated as extraordinary FORM. Vidi:

Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti FORMAM extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet. (Art 1. Para 2)

Fidelibus seu sacerdotibus id petentibus, parochus celebrationes, hac in FORMA extraordinaria, permittat etiam in adiunctis peculiaribus, uti sunt matrimonia, exsequiae aut celebrationes occasionales, verbi gratia peregrinationes. (Art. 5 § 3)

Fas est Ordinario loci, si opportunum iudicaverit, paroeciam personalem ad normam canonis 518 pro celebrationibus iuxta FORMAM antiquiorem ritus romani erigere aut rectorem vel cappellanum nominare, servatis de iure servandis. (Art. 10)

Paul Haley said...

Jordanes said:
"The solution was to recognise both Johannine and Pauline Missals as two uses of one Rite. This had the juridical advantage of recognising that all Latin Rite priests have a right to celebrate according to either use: no indult is needed to celebrate the Extraordinary Use, which would be the case if the Johannine Missal were not the same Rite as the Pauline Missal, which undeniably is an approved missal of the Roman Rite."

Very well said, Jordanes, but there is still another question and I don’t mean to pester you like a child with interminable questions, especially the “why” question. So, I will ask a question that I think has a tremendous bearing on the future of the Traditional “Use” instead of Form and that is: Do you think that the Holy Father will establish the juridical structure to preserve and protect the Traditional Use for future generations and bring back to full communion groups that are currently not so classified as such by the Curia?

Many would think automatically of the SSPX as in this category but there are others who seem to be in that category as well. This juridical structure, such as a worldwide apostolic administration with its own bishops and power to incardinate, would, I believe, bring the divisions to an end and allow for the two “Uses” to either revitalize the Church or die on the vine. In other words, a world-class match-up of two methods of reaching the goal of salvation of souls would be in effect, as it were, with both competing for the life sustaining grace of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, this presupposes that the Holy Father will vacate any suspensions or excommunications levied against such groups and we are informed by some that this is in the works but have no real method of verifying such claims. One would hope, though, that this will happen and soon for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.

Jordanes said...

Roy Bailey said: As someone who knows everything and only ever writes comments here at Rorate Caeli to "correct" others and offer glib magisterial clarifications

Please mind your manners, Mr. Bailey.

I was surprised to read that, once again, Magister Jordanes blunders.

The term used in Summorum Pontificum is correctly translated as extraordinary FORM.


I'm sorry, you are mistaken. The Latin of Article 1 says:

Hae duae expressiones "legis orandi" Ecclesiae, minime vero inducent in divisionem "legis credendi" Ecclesiae; sunt enim duo USUS unici ritus romani.

These are two uses (or usages) of the one Roman Rite.

"Forma" (form, rendered "expression" in the official English version) appears elsewhere in the motu proprio, as your correctly note, but juridically the 1962 liturgy and the 1970 liturgy (modified subsequently, of course) are "uses," not just "forms."

roy bailey said...

Mister Jordanes writes:

The proper term is "use" (usus), not "form."

And after being corrected, writes:

I'm sorry, you are mistaken...

Mister Jordanes appears to have problems with reading comprehension, which is odd for an authority on all things.

We can all clearly see the use of the term FORMA in reference to the old Mass in Summorum Pontificum. His insistence that, despite this, 'form' is somehow not the "proper" term is confusing for the masses.

As I write, millions of devoted readers who rely on Mister Jordanes for his authoritive pronouncements on anything and everything are suffering collective apoplexy. Who to go with on this matter? The pope, or Jordanes? Who can say...

Jordanes said...

I'm afraid it's you who are having problems with reading comprehension, Mr. Bailey, and with good manners.

Jordanes said...

Paul said: Do you think that the Holy Father will establish the juridical structure to preserve and protect the Traditional Use for future generations and bring back to full communion groups that are currently not so classified as such by the Curia?

Well, I hope he will -- or if he does not (if, God forbid, he has a short pontificate) I hope his successor will.

Many would think automatically of the SSPX as in this category but there are others who seem to be in that category as well. This juridical structure, such as a worldwide apostolic administration with its own bishops and power to incardinate, would, I believe, bring the divisions to an end and allow for the two “Uses” to either revitalize the Church or die on the vine. In other words, a world-class match-up of two methods of reaching the goal of salvation of souls would be in effect, as it were, with both competing for the life sustaining grace of the Holy Spirit.

I’ve heard many suggest that kind of arrangement, but practically speaking it seems like it would be the establishment or recognition of (or at least would practically function as) a new Catholic Church alongside the Latin Church, the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Church, etc. Or at least it could soon lead to that. Now the establishment of a “Tridentine Rite” Church distinct from the Latin Church might not necessarily be a bad thing (I don’t have anywhere near enough understanding or foresight regarding these matters to be able to discern whether it would be a positive or negative thing for the Church), but I think it would have the disadvantage of Latin priests requiring permission to become biritual to celebrate according to the extraordinary form. I’m not sure the kind of worldwide apostolic administration that some propose is something the Church has had before, so I imagine it would take some adjustments in canon law, but then neither was a wholesale reform of her primary liturgical rite something the Church had ever done before, so the fact that something is unprecedented wouldn’t make it impossible or improper.

If I had my druthers, of course, we’d rewind to 1964 and start the whole thing over, implementing a much, much, much more modest liturgical reform, but the egg can’t be unbroken. All we can do is try and clean up the mess.

Of course, this presupposes that the Holy Father will vacate any suspensions or excommunications levied against such groups and we are informed by some that this is in the works but have no real method of verifying such claims. One would hope, though, that this will happen and soon for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.

We live in hope, and in prayer.

Joe B said...

I don't see this as a narrow issue of a motu proprio here or a change in canonical status of SSPX there. Those are incidentals. At some point, Rome must seriously answer the questions of what went wrong and why. And the answers will have to be as brutal as was the devastation of the priesthood since that disastrous council (and our monasteries, our seminaries, our pro-abort and religiously indifferent bishops, our loss of Catholic identity, etc.). And if that is done - and nobody should start holding their breath anytime soon - it will have to point significantly to that mass, valid though it is, as the focal point of the problem, because unseating tradition from its throne and replacing it with the pride-filled intellect of men is at the root of it all, and that mass embodies that error. We still don't have an answer as to why we needed a new mass. It was either an exercise in cleverness or a change in orientation, and neither justifies the turmoil.

LeonG said...

Objectively speaking, we can see with our own eyes that the two forms of the alleged same Rite are almost completely contrasting - young children are astounded at the difference, and assuredly so are many of we adults. The effects of both are also totally at odds: the Latin edition has brought liturgical unity and harmony to The Church with strong healthy growth as Pope John XXIII remarked at the outset of his conciliar process.

During the post-conciliar era all we have received is doctrinal disorientation and liturgical abuse led by the "vernacular only" form. This is subversive and it has devastated the vineyard of The Blessed Lord - this is why He is pruning away the dead branches and so many churches, chapels, seminaries, convents and monasteries have closed - almost all Novus Ordo and absolutely dead wood fit merely for burning.

How can anyone seriously believe that Our Blessed Lord is going to be present at a liturgy that treats Him with such irreverence and at times sacrilegiously. Indeed, the "vernacular only" form disobeys the infallible prescriptions of Roman Catholic liturgical processes. As Pope St Pius V admonished in "Quo Primum" - tinker with this Rite of The Holy Mass and the wrath of Almighty God is invoked. But, of course, the neomodernist tendency loves tinkering and above all is addicted to ephemeral novelties and constant change. How can this conform to Our Blessed Lord Who is unchanging?

The indefectability of The Christ's Church exists today in the Latin Mass of All Times and in obedience to the consistent teachings of His Church. The failed novelties and the inconsistencies of postconciliar neomodernism do not conform to this paradigm. Furthermore, there is little to no continuity between them both. The claim it is, empties words of their true meaning and signification. The NO service of Bugnini and its obvious and evident destructive effects reflect this above all.