Loading ...
For the many fans of Ambrosius who read this blog, I do promise that he will be back eventually, and to speed this happy day, if you would pray for him that he and Catharina Senensis would soon receive their furniture, he would be much obliged. But in the meantime, if he’ll pardon me, I want to share some of his treasures from Rome, spiritual treasures, not the kind you can bring back in your carry-on, or if the Mohammedans are extra aggressive that week, in your stowed bag.
Rome, from the Church of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer:
The identity of these most precious relics:
As a priest, could you imagine saying Mass in this stole and maniple?
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
And to think we threw away this saintly and holy heritage of 2000 years of clerical dress for the flowing robes and the rest of the Novus Ordo…
At least traditional priests are still wearing the same vestments that the saints wore.
The “flowing” robes of the “Novus Ordo” is actually a return to the traditional shape of the Chasuble.
As a “staunch” Catholic, am sure you’re famiLiar with at least the basic history of Liturgical Vestments.
St. Charles Borromeo, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, seeking to curtail the cutting back of the vestments laid down legislation on matters such as the minimum dimensions of the chasuble which declared that it should be at least 54 inches in width, from side to side, and should reach nearly to the heels of the priest. Likewise, the apparels on the alb and amice were also insisted upon, at least for solemn occasions. Further resistance to this development of the narrower, fiddleback style of chasuble can be seen in the words of the 17th century Bishop of Toul (which also gives us some clues as to the variances in form):
“So cut down is the chasuble… that at the sides it hardly covers the shoulders, much less reaches to the elbows; and this cutting-down has been effected without any sort of warrant of the Holy See or ecclesiastical law, but entirely through the private judgement of individuals … Not only have they deformed the priestly garment itself until it bears no further resemblance whatever to its ancient shape, but they have also deprived it of its mystical reason for being the topmost vestment…”
The Bishop goes on to suggest that some relaxing of the ampleness of the form is reasonable, within limits, so as to not overburden the wearer. Still further opposition can be found in the likes of Cardinal Bona, who likewise asserts a lack of authority in the making of these changes. A French writer of the time, De Vert, commented as such on vestment makers of his day: “who are allowed the liberty of nibbling, clipping, cutting, slashing, shortening, just as the whim may take them, chasubles, dalmatics, tunicles, and other priestly garments or ornaments… in a word, they gives these vestments what shape they would like, without consulting the bishop…”
As a footnote to this matter, the shortening that occurred to the chasuble in its length and breadth also occurred with the surplice. In the midde ages the surplice reached only a few inches from the ground and had very full sleeves. At this time, it had no lace, just as the alb had no lace
Arguably, the use of lace also dates from the same period of the 17th century onwards and took the place of ornamented panels of the cuffs and base of the alb.
Good luck, Miguel. For some reason, Joe Six Pack says that albs (I mean full white, albs with a cincture) look pagan.
But surely the fact that bishops and Popes wore the fiddleback show that it came to be approved. And the antiquarian preference for really old style chasubles is often associated with the willy-nilly antiquarianism of the people who designed the Novus Ordo.
Whoops, I didn’t mean the fiddleback. I meant the style with a rectangular back and a “fiddle-front.” I’ve heard it called a Roman chasuble.
Please note that fiddle-backs are so called not because the back of them looks like a fiddle, but because the front of them looks like the back of a fiddle!
Well, thank you, corrector! I’ve always wondered why people called them fiddle-back then the back of the chasuble is supposed to be rectangular.