NEWS ABOUT BENEDICT

Tomorrow's issue (6/26/08) of L'Osservatore Romano carries three articles on the liturgy - 1) an interview with Mons. Guido Marini, in which he reiterates many points he has made before about Benedict XVI's preferences and choices in terms of liturgical practice [new is the explanation of why the Pope is reverting to the form of the pallium similar to what his immediate predecessors wore; and that the Pope intends to show the faithful that the traditional way of receiving Communion is preferable - that, in fact, receiving Communion in the hand had begun as an 'indult' [i.e., an exception that is allowed] originally conceded to some dioceses/parishes that had requested it; 2) an article by liturgist Fr. Uwe Lang on the pallium, its history and significance; and 3) the following essay by a Spanish journalist who is also one of Spain's most successful and much-awarded contemporary novelists.

I chose to start with this translation because it lays down several premises necessary to fully appreciate Benedict XVI's attitude to the liturgy and everything that has to do with it.


Liturgical vestments
according to Ratzinger
by Juan Manuel de Prada
Translated from
the 6/26/08 issue of







Not too long ago, some amused perplexity was raised in the journalistic world by the fact that the American magazine Esquire, in its annual recognition of personalities they consider to epitomize elegance, they chose Benedict XVI as the 'accessorizer' of the year. [On the basis of his red shoes, as though the Pope's red shoes had been a personal caprice rather than a papal custom of centuries!]

That choice, which shows a frivolousness characteristic of an age that tends to banalize whatever it does not understand, came at a time when Benedict XVI had attracted some unprecedented media attention for having revived some articles of wear rooted in papal tradition - like the red-velvet, ermine-trimmed camauro winter cap, or the 'saturno', a wide-brimmed hat that had been used in recent times by some of his predecessors including John XXIII and John Paul II.

Around that time, too, the unfounded report had become widespread that the Pope's red shoes were made by the famous Milan fashion house Prada. Of course, the attribution was false, and contemporary banality wasn't even aware that in the Church, the color red signifies martyrdom.

In the same way, no one seemed to notice how incongruous these frivolous attributions were with the simple serious man who, on the day he was elected Pope, showed himself to the world for the first time wearing a modest black sweater whose sleeves showed under his new papal garments.

Still, as it often happens, those inopportune frivolities did hide a kernel of paradoxical truth: in fact, at times, even through confusion and stupidity, the media are able to perceive - in a fragmentary, confused and distorted way - some realities which truly are.

The truth is that Benedict XVI does, in fact, show a profound concern for what he wears - but a concern that is of a completely different nature and has nothing to do with fashion.

St. Irinaeus used to say, towards the end of his life, that he did nothing in life but to allow to grow and mature whatever had been sown in his soul by Policarpus, a disciple of St. John.

In a memorable passage in his brief autobiography, Joseph Ratzinger tells us how he learned to live the liturgy since he was a child, thanks to the seed planted in him by his parents, who gave him a child's 'Schott' - the Roman missal translated to German by the Benedictine monk Anselm Schott.

The fragment has a seminal beauty comparable to the 'madeleine' episode in Proust's masterpiece:

---

Naturally, the child I then was did not grasp every aspect of this, but I started down the road of the liturgy, and this became a continuous process of growth into a grand reality transcending all particular individuals and generations, a reality that became an occasion for me of ever-new amazement and discovery.

---

This concept of liturgy as a patrimony inherited from Tradition, enriched by successive contributions that make it grow organically, differs from some contemporary views which reflect 'atomized' knowledge, devoid of foundations and of firm links, easily adaptable to concrete actual circumstances, and yet a knowledge that prides itself fiercely on being 'original'- as if tradition was not the supreme form of originality in the sense that it links us to the 'origins' - an attitude that has contaminated some liturgical tendencies that empty the rite of any sense.

The seed that his parents deposited in that boy in Bavaria were to bear fruit in works like God and the World, where Ratzinger took pains to show the sense of historicity in liturgy as a gift handed by Christ to his Church, a gift which has grown with it and inspires the faithful to continually 'rediscover the Church as a living entity'.

To this living entity, Ratzinger would dedicate Introduction to the Spirit of the Liturgy, a book in which - in continuity with the classic title Guardini had used for his own work - Ratzinger reaffirms the concept of Tradition which is not static, "but which can neither be diminished by mere arbitrary creativity", and deepens the idea of liturgy as participation in Christ's encounter with the Father, in communion with the universal Church.

Like his master Guardini, Ratzinger wishes that the liturgy be celebrated "in the most essential way" - in which 'essentiality' does not mean poverty, at least not in the sense whereby some would place the 'social consciousness' aspect ahead of liturgical celebration [to which Jesus responds clearly in the Gospel story about Mary and Martha in Bethany].

'Essentiality' here means 'intimate exigency', the search for an interior purity which is not to be confused with static 'purism'.

It is in this attention to liturgy that we must consider the importance - visible to anyone who is not completely dulled by frivolousness - that Benedict XVI attaches to liturgical vestments and liturgical ornaments.

The priest does not choose such ornaments out of aesthetic whim: he does so to clothe himself as Christ, that "beauty ever ancient, ever new" St. Augustine spoke about. This 'clothing oneself in Christ' - a central concept of St. Paul's anthropology - requires a process of interior transformation, an intimate renewal within the celebrant that allows him to be one with Christ, a member of his body.

Liturgical wear represent this 'clothing oneself in Christ' - the priest transcends his personal identity to become someone else, and the faithful who take part in the celebration are reminded that the journey they started in Baptism and which is nourished by the Eucharist leads us to the celestial home, where we will all be dressed in new clothes made pure by the blood of the Lamb.

Thus, liturgical vestments are 'an anticipation of the new robes, s symbol of Christ's resurrected Body' - an anticipation and hope of our own resurrection, which is the definitive goal and permanent dwelling of Christian existence.

So the Pope is not wearing Prada. He is wearing Christ. And his concern about liturgical wear has nothing to do with 'accessorizing', but with the essential itself.

This is the significance of the liturgical vestments and ornaments to which Benedict XVI has dedicated special attention, in order to make more understandable to the faithful of our time the authentic reality that underlies liturgy.


======================================================================

That piece of white wool
by Michael Uwe Lang
Translated from
the 6/26/08 issue of

Among the liturgical insignias of the Roman Pointiff, one of the most evocative is the pallium of white wool, symbol of the bishop as the Good Shepherd as well as of the Lamb crucified for the salvation of humanity.

As Pope Benedict XVI noted in his homily at the Mass that inaugurated his Petrine ministry on April 24, 2005: "The lamb's wool is meant to represent the lost sheep - or the sick one, or the weak one - that the shepherd carries on his shoulder to bring to the waters of life."

The first historical references to the pallium come out of Christian antiquity. Sometimes, it is claimed that it originated from the vestments of Roman state officials which were then worn by religious dignitaries as well. But the Jesuit Joseph Braun in his masterful book Die liturgischen Paramente in Gegenwart und Vergangenheit. Ein Handbuch der Paramentik[Liturgical vestments present and past: A handbook on paraments](2nd ed. 1924, reprint, Nova & Vetera, Bonn, 2005, pp 143-151) suggests an ecclesiastical origin for the pallium. According to the German scholar, from the very beginning, the Popes had wished the sacred pallium to be the insignia and liturgical stole that was specifically theirs.

In any case, the Liber pontificalis[Book of Popes] notes that Pope St. Mark (336) conferred the pallium on the suburbican Bishop of Ostia, one of the consacrants of the Roman Pontiff (Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, volume I, pagine 202-203).

Even if we cannot be sure of the historical value of that information, at leasst it reflects the practice in the 5th or 6th century when the Liber pontificalis was compiled by the Roman Curia.

In 513, Pope Simmacus conceded the privilege of the pallium to St. Cesarius of Arles (Vita, sancti Caesarii 4, 20: pl 67,1016). After that, the granting of the pallium by the Roman Pontiffs to the bishops of Italy and outside Italy became common.

In its historical development, the pallium became the symbol of a bishop's special link with the Pope and also expresses the power that, in communion with the Church of Rome, the metropolitan acquires by right in his own jurisdiction.

In Egypt, St. Isidore of Pelusio (440), identifying the bishop's insignia by the term omophorion - "that which the bishop wears on his shoulders" - explains that it is made of wool, not of linen, and therefore, "it stands for the skin of the lost sheep that the Lord looked for, and having found it, carried it on his shoulder" (Isidore of Pelusio (Ep. i,136: pg 78,721).

The liturgical pallium in its oldest representation appears in the form of an open scarf that is placed over the shoulders. This is how we see it on Archbishop Maximianus (498-556) in the Church of San Vitale in Ravenna (built in the first half of the 6th century).

A piece of the pallium with a cross hangs anteriorly on his left side, while the other end is thrown over the left shoulder, around the neck, and down the right shoulder to chest level, going back up over the left shoulder to fall down the back.

This style of wearing the pallium was maintained until the High Middle Ages when, with the use of pins, it was worn in such a way that the two ends fell exactly down the middle, front and back.

When the pins were replaced by fixed stitches,it evolved into the circular form which is commonly seen after the 9th century, as we can see in representations in different Roman basilicas (Santa Maria Antiqua, Santa Maria in Trastevere, San Clemente).

The two ends of the pallium were always kept considerably long, but after the 15th century, they were increasingly shortened.

The ornaments of the pallium, which can be found illustrated in the Ravenna mosaic, were progressivwely enhanced. Four, six or eight crosses, in red or black, were embroidered on them. Fringes were sometimes added.

In the most developed form, the two ends were finished with small lead weights covered in black silk. The three jewelled pins, which originally served to keep the pallium in place, had become simply decorative by the 13th century.

One can say that the long pallium which is slung over the left shoulder was no longer used by the Pope and by the bishops of the West after the Carolingian era. It would seem that even in the Middle Ages, there was already an awareness of this historical development. An illustration from an 11th century manuscript shows St. Gregory the Great, wearing the contemporary form of the pallium with the ends hanging down the middle, and the Apostle Peter, who uses it in the old style (Montecassino, Biblioteca dell'Abbazia, 73 dd).

Therefore, tehe famous painting found at the Santo Speco inSubiaco, which dates to around 1219, showing Pope Innocent III wearing the old-style pallium, appears to be a conscious 'archaicism'.

The omophorion, a liturgical parament used by the Orthodox bishops and by the Catholic bishops of the Oriental Churches of the Byzantine rite, consists of a wide piece of fabric which is shallow in the center to allow it to go around the neck, drape around the shoulders and then have both ends drop down on the chest.

In the Oriental tradition, the 'great omophorio' (different from the smaller one, which is worn by Orthodox bishops on some occasions and resembles the 'epitrachelion' which corresponds to the Western stole)
has undergone a certain change and today, it is charatcerized by being much wider and is much more adorned. Unlike the pallium, the omophorio is not reserved to metropolitan archbishops but can be worn by all bishops.


======================================================================



The Papal pallium between
continuity and development
by Gianluca Biccini
Translated from
the 6/26/08 issue of




Starting June 29, Benedict XVI will change the style of the pallium he uses for solemn liturgical celebrations. For the Mass on the Feasts of Saints Peter and Paul, he will wear the closed circular pallium, with the ends hanging down the center, front and back,



It will be wider and longer and will retain the red color of the crosses that adorn it.

"It has to do with the development of the Latin pallium that was used up to the time of John Paul II," explained Mons. Guido Marini, Master of pontifical liturgical celebrations, who cited historical and liturgical reasons for the change in this interview with L'Osservatore Romano.


What are the elements of continuity and of innovation compared to the past?
In the light of careful studies on the development of the pallium in the course of centuries, one can say that the long pallium crossed over the left shoulder was no longer worn in the West starting from teh ninth century. In fact, the painting at the Sacro Speco [Benedictine monastery] in Subiaco, which goes back to 1219, showing Pope Innocent II with that kind of pallium, appears to be a conscious 'archaicism'.

In this light, the use of the new pallium would satisfy two demands: first of all, that of underscoring better the continuous development of this liturgical vestment over the course of more than 12 centuries; and in the second pratical reason is that the style of the pallium used by Benedict XVI since the start of his Pontificate has entailed a number of bothersome problems.


Will there still be a difference betwen the papal pallium and that which he imposes on the metropolitan archbishops?
Yes. What Benedict XVI will use starting June 29 will be the form of the pallium used up to the time of John Paul II, although it will be wider and longer, and with red crosses rather than black. The difference in form between the Pope's pallium and that of the archbishops highlights the difference in the jurisdiction that the pallium represents.


For some months, the Pope has also been using a different pastoral staff. What were the reasons for the change?
The golden staff in the form of a Greek cross - which belonged to Pius IX and was used for the first time by Benedict XVI last Palm Sunday - is the one now used by the Pope, who decided to replace the silver staff topped by a crucifix that had been first used by Paul VI and then by John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself.

The choice was not simply a question of using something from the past, but a sign of development in continuity, being rooted in tradition that allows proceeding along the historical path in an orderly manner.

This staff, which is called a 'ferule', is more faithful to the form of the papal staff in the Roman tradition, which was always in the form of a cross, not a crucifix, from the time the pastoral staff was first adopted by the Roman Pontiffs.

Then there is the element of practicality: Pius IX"s ferule is much lighter and more manageable for Benedict XVI than the staff introduced by Paul VI.


What has been done with the original staff designed by Lello Scorzelli for Papa Montini in the mid-60s?
It is always available at the Pontifical Sacristy, along with many other objects belonging to previous Popes.


Do the same arguments hold for the choice of liturgical vestments that the Pope has worn in various celebrations?
Even in such cases, it must be pointed out that the liturgical vestments chosen, along with certain particulars of the liturgical rites, are meant to underscore the continuity between the celebration of the liturgy today with what characterized the life of the Church in the past.

The hermeneutic of continuity is always the correct criterion for looking at the pilgrimage of the Church in time. This is true even for the liturgy. Just as a Pope always cites the documents of his predecessors in order to show the continuity of the Magisterium, it's the same way in the liturgical field, where the Pope uses liturgical vestments and accessories his predecessors used to indicate the same continuity in the lex orandi.

But I would like to point out that the Pope does not always use old vestments, that he wears contemporary ones often. Because what matters is not whether it's old or new, but rather whether the vestments have beauty and dignity, which are the important components of every liturgical celebration.


We certainly see that in the Pope's travels outside Italy and within Italy, where the Pope's vestments are prepared by the host Churches.
Exacly. Think of the recent Masses in the United States or those in Liguria and in the Salento. In each case, it was the local dioceses which prepared the Pope's liturgical vestments, in consultation with the Office of Papal Liturgical Celebrations. Even with the variety of styles and the attention to incorporating local elements, the basic criteria are still beauty and dignity, which are the necessary dimensions of the sacred acts that are carried out in every liturgical function.


Can we anticipate any particular aspect of the Pope's next trip abroad?
I can say that the period of preparation was very fruitful and that the cooperation I found in Australia was very heartfelt and outgoing. Pope Benedict will be meeting the youth of the world again, and we should all pray that this encounter will be a source of great grace for all, an occasion for everyone to know the face of Jesus and the face of the Church better, and a stimulus for a prompt and generous response to the call of the Lord.

We hope, of course, that even the liturgical celebrations - prepared with care and truly participated in because they would be lived with the heart - may be privileged occasions for receiving grace.


What about the use of some large papal thrones, such as that used during the consistory, and placing the Crucifix back at the center of the altar?
The so-called throne, which has been used on particular occasions, simply calls attention to the fact that it is the Pope - Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ - who is presiding at the liturgy.

The position of the Cross in the center of the altar idnicates the centrality of the Crucifix in the Eucharistic celebration, as the correct orientation that the whole assembly should have during the liturgy. We are not there to look at each other, but at him who was born, died and reseurrected for us, the Saviour. From the Lord comes salvation, He is our East, the Sun who rises, to whom we should all turn our eyes, to whom we turn to receive his grace.

The question of liturgical orientation during Mass, and the pactical ways in which this is realized, is very important, because it conveys a fundamental truth which is theological and anthropological, ecclesial as well as relevant to one's personal spirituality.


So this would explain even the decision to use the built-in altar of the Sistine Chapel during the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord?
Exactly, but in circumstances when the celebration is oriented this way, it is not a case of the pries tturning his back to the faithful, but of orienting himself together with the faithful toward the Lord. This is not 'closing the door to the gathering' but 'opening the door' to them and leading them to the Lord.

We know there are circumstances when the particular conditions of the place of worship - artistic quality, beauty, harmony - makes it appropriate to use its traditional altar which generally retains the precise orientation for liturgical celebrations. And this is not at all surprising. Just go to St. Peter's Basilica in the morning to see all those priests celebrating the ordinary form of the Mass - the Novus Ordo - but on traditional altars oriented like that of the Sistine.


In the recent visit to Santa Maria di Leuca and to Brindisi, the Pope gave Communion on the tongue to the faithful who knelt to receive it. Is this going to be habitual now in papal Masses?
I think so. In this respect, one must not forget that receiving Communion in the hands is still, from the juridical viewpoint, simply an indult or exception to the universal rule for Communion, and that it was originally granted by the Holy See to the bishops' conferences that had requested the reception.

The modality now adopted by Benedict XVI underlines that it is still the Communion norm for the universal Church. One can perhaps see his preference for it, since without taking anything from the other way of receiving Communion, it throws a clearer light on the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it helps devotional concentration, and it more easily induces a sense of mystery and reverence - and these are aspects which, in our time, pastorally speaking, need to be urgently recoverd.


What do you say to those who accuse Benedict XVI of wanting to impose pre-conciliar models?
First of all, I would like to point out the sincere support that Pope Benedict XVI has received from the faithful, even in his liturgical Magisterium. Next, I think that terms like 'pre-conciliar' and 'post-conciliar' belong to the past, we have gone beyond that, and if they are used with the intention of showing a discontinuity in the path of the Church, then I say they are wrong and typical of ideological views which are exteremely reductionist.

There are always old things as well as new things among the treasures of the Church which should be considred simply as such - treasures. The wise man will always find both in his treasury without need for using criteria that are neitehr evangelical onor ecclesial.

Not everything that is new is true, in the same way that not everything old is valid. Truth transcends old and new, and we should only be concerned about the truth, without preconceptions.

The Church lives according to a law of continuity by which she has developed while rooted in tradition. What is important in liturgy is that every element should contribute so that the liturgical celebration is truly a celebration of the sacred, of the Crucified and Risen Lord who is present in his Church, constantly renewing the mystery of salvation, and calling us, by the logic of authentically active participation, to share his example even up to its extreme consequences, a life that is a gift of love, for the Father and for our brothers, a life of holiness.


About Summorum Pontificum - even today, it continues to be the subject of contradictory interpretations. Can we look forward to celebrations presided by the Holy Father using the extraordinary or traditional form of the mass?
That's a question I cannot answer. As for the Motu Proprio, if it is considered with calm attention and without ideological bias, along with the letter that the Pope addressed to all the bishops of the world in presenting it, then his double purpose is clear. First, to facilitate achievement of 'reconciliation in the bosom of the Church itself' - in which sense, the Motu Proprio is a very beautiful gesture of love in order to promote church unity. In the second place - and we must not forget this - it also aims to promote a reciprocal enrichment between the two forms of the Roman rite: such that, for instance, in a celebration according to the Missal of Paul VI - the ordinary form - "the sacredness which attracts many to the old Mass may be manifested more strongly than it has been till now".


=====================================================================

Personally, I am sorry to see the Pope abandoning the older form of the pallium. I like the ample and generous and yes, 'classic' way it drapes - it's much more 'ceremonial' and, in a way, more meaningful that way. Just look at the Spaziani photo above! The 'modern form' looks too much like a convenience, somewhat like, say, a clip-on bowtie! I have been trying to check back why the Holy Father had decided to revive the classic early medieval form starting with his Inaugural Mass, to begin with....