It's kind of bizarre that someone had to make an argument from first principles as to why an organization the size of the Catholic Church should have rules and procedures. But here we are.
Joseph Shaw is a treasure. His gifts as a writer make him an especially good choice to write an introduction like this. His ability to synthesize and distill is first rate.
I agree! He's an international treasure for the traditional movement!
Have you ever noticed that "the other side" has no firepower like this? Austen Ivereigh, Massimo Faggioli, David Gibson, Mike Lewis, Andrea Grillo -- they are all infantile in comparison.
Thank you for your engagement with these difficult matters. Your thinking informed by considerable knowledge is a service to us all. Blessings to you, your family, and your work.
I would also like to mention that we all must be vigilant in prayer for God's Will in these matters. Sometimes I think the foundations must be so shaken that all will seem lost - the edifice, crumbled. A continuation of the crucifixion, so that the resurrection is possible. Pray, Watch and Learn, and Pray.
"Christ is risen from the dead; His Church rises like the phoenix from every bed of ashes into which she seems to be dissolved."
Exactly what I was thinking.
And further: "The cycle began long ago and will continue until the end of time. Whatever was made manifest in the life of Christ will take place within His Church, in her sacred history. In every age of the Church there will be obscure births, a hidden and a public life, trials and crucifixions, resurrection and ascension. The whole of reality exists from Him, through Him, and towards Him: He is Alpha and Omega."
Exactly. It may seem strange, but to me: The above is what it is to be truly alive.
I would like to ask a very important question concerning the performance of the function of episcopal ceremonial officer by lay people and the use by these lay people of the cassock of the prelate, i.e. the clergy of the highest rank.
There are no historically known previous instances of laymen performing this function, either before Vatican II or afterwards. In all known episcopal celebrations in the traditional liturgy, the ceremonialists have always been clergy.
In Poland, in the indult circles, such innovations were introduced by a group of lay experts in liturgy. It is a group of laymen associated with an annual series of liturgical workshops called ‘Ars Celebrandi’. Although the aim is laudable, however, the behaviour of lay altar boys is destroying the Priesthood. They are pushing a model for the wearing of clerical garb by the laity during liturgical service. These are the originally purchased cassocks of the Priesthood and the cassocks of the Bishop with all the elements of the garb. If one sees a man ministering in such attire, one has the impression that he is a clergyman. Do the laity have to be so dressed up?
One priest dared to question this kind of novelty and pointed out the incompatibility with the regulations for pontifical celebrations, that is, according to the regulations of Caeremoniale Episcoporum (according to the last edition, i.e. 1948).
The laity very sharply attack this Priest directing insulting and mocking epithets at him. Many Priests connected with the indult also accepted the arguments of the secular ‘ceremonialists’ without any objections.
What are the actual regulations and how do you, as an expert on the liturgy, assess such innovations?
This is a complicated question because we are in a "postwar" period of liturgical rebuilding, I would say a true state of necessity, a real emergency. There are very few qualified clergy to do all the work that needs to be done.
We must balance two considerations: custom/law, on the one hand, and fittingness on the other. The law specifies who may and may not wear this or that garb (although we must also recognize that most of the old laws have been effectively suppressed, so they survive on "life support," by a kind of customary acknowledgment). However, fittingness dictates that we offer the liturgy as solemnly as we can, because God is worth it, and we should not be minimalists in order to be legalists.
All that being said, I too am uncomfortable with laity wearing any kind of dress that is proper to higher ranks of clergy. It is more than enough for laity to wear a humble cassock and surplice. The cassock can be of high quality and the surplice can have lace, for sure; but anything more than this is pretentious and presumptuous.
Above is a link to a post by Father Dariusz, who runs the blog ‘Catholic Theologian Replies’ - probably the most valuable blog in the Polish blogosphere concerning Theology and the teachings of the Catholic Church. I do not know any other theologian so enlightened living in our times who, to my joy, is a Priest. I do not diminish the role of lay theologians, but my personal opinion is that Theology is the domain of the clergy.
I would be grateful if you would take a look at this entry (the English translator is reliable). He is not the only one who has noticed this problem, as the subject has also been raised by the faithful who have noticed that the laity dress in episcopal garb at Pontifical Masses, which as Fr Dariusz rightly points out do not take place every Sunday so there is no greater necessity for lay ceremonialists. Such an event is organised well in advance and there is time to organise Priests as ceremonialists.
There is a lot of additional content in the comments underneath the post, but I personally don't understand why altar boys or lay people so necessarily want to look like Priests or Bishops.
This introduces an element of blurring and confusion, because at first glance an altar boy, especially one who is an adult man, looks like a priest, especially those who additionally wear a collar, not to mention those who, as you will see in the pictures in this post, wear a cassock in the colour of an episcopal cassock. There are some limits to the dignified dress of an altar boy, but wearing a cassock is reserved for a priest, not for a layman. The cassock in any shop whether stationary or online is in the section for Priests. Such behaviour reminds me of the lay extraordinary ministers in NOM. It is the same type of behaviour and argumentation. There is an emergency situation and there is such an explanation every time.
When I go to daily Mass in the classical rite, I notice that the boys altar servers only wear a vestment. And there is no obligation for the laity to wear the cassock.
I am generally sympathetic to your points but I would push back in regard to the cassock and surplice. This was allowed to be worn by laity for many decades prior to the Second Vatican Council and it does not seem to be an abuse. After all, men in minor orders wear it, and the Council of Trent even suggested bringing back married men in minor orders to faciliate the celebration of solemn rites.
I agree about the cassock or surplice, but the issue of pontifical ceremonialists is a serious abuse and even tantamount to profanity.
There are no historically known previous instances of laity performing this function, either before Vatican II or afterwards. In all known episcopal celebrations in the traditional liturgy, the ceremonialists have always been clergy.
These men wear the episcopal robe in all its splendour. The issue of the purple cassock is subordinate. This is because it is a matter of privilege, not a command to use it. The CE explicitly says that an episcopal ceremonialist - which clearly must be a clergyman - may use such a cassock if possible. Thus, it is hypocritical to exercise this non-prescriptive privilege while overstepping the explicit requirement for the person of the ceremonialist.
This is already a corruption of tradition from within.
Would you be so kind as to point to the sources of the suggestion of the Council of Trent with regards to bringing back married men in minor orders to facilitate the celebration of solemn rites?
The Council of Trent valued the minor orders so much that it has a whole chapter dedicated to them, against those “heretics [who] traduced [them] as useless,” decreeing that “in the future [their proper] functions shall not be exercised except by those constituted in these orders” and exhorting “each and all prelates of the churches and [commanding] them that they make it their care to restore these functions, so far as it can be conveniently done, in cathedral, collegiate and parochial churches of their diocese.”
The Council Fathers were so determined to see these orders restored that it promoted the ordination of married men: “and if there should not be unmarried clerics at hand to exercise the functions of the four minor orders, their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life; provided they have not been twice married, be competent to discharge the said duties, and wear the tonsure and the clerical dress in church.”
I'm wondering what exactly Bergolio was renound for in order to be elected.
I would imagine that each Pope, going back a couple of centuries or do would have been known for some notable virtue that would propel his candidacy forward like Holiness, or an expert Canonist, Liturgical etc.
Bergolio?
Of course a modernist, but did he have any notable ecclesiastical merit?
No, he had no merits. But what he had was a reputation for ruthless efficiency in power, and the St. Gallen Mafia needed someone like that to undo the legacies of JP2 and BXVI.
I am in the process of coming to grips with some of these issues in a book originating in the late 1950s: Rahner and Ratzinger's "The Episcopate and the Primacy" (NY: Herder and Herder, 1963, but contents are originally from 1959; 1962 imprimatur). Rahner deploys an array of smoke and mirrors but eventually shows his hand near the end of the book, coming out in favor of pluralism and other elements dear to the V2 crowd. Ratzinger, however, steers closer to continuity in his chapter: "Primacy, Episcopate, and Apostolic Succession." I am not a trained theologian; however, the more I read of Ratzinger, on the episcopacy and other issues, I feel confident in saying that while he may have been a liberal, he was never a revolutionary. "[T]he pope's rights over the universal episcopate are not merely the sum of his rights over individual bishops. Therefore the papal rights over the individual bishop must be exercised in such a way that the divine right of the universal episcopate as a college is not, in effect, abolished or its nature threatened" (73).
Yes! I once had a copy of this book, and foolishly donated it to a university library (as I have foolishly done every time I've made a major move). (Then again, if I hadn't done that, there's no way my books could have fit into my present house, which is already overflowing with books!)
I agree with Ratzinger about the universal episcopate. Trads are strangely ultramontanist and tend to reject all that as a heresy (just ask an SSPX person about "collegiality"). And yet we are paying the cost for ultramontanism big time right now.
It bears great resemblance to the way things are working by innuendo and administrative agency capture in the secular sphere as well. I've been meaning to pick up this anthology, and will probably do so now.
It's kind of bizarre that someone had to make an argument from first principles as to why an organization the size of the Catholic Church should have rules and procedures. But here we are.
Indeed, bizarre, ain't it? But this is the dismal price we pay for constantly increasing the adulation and submission paid to the Pope.
Joseph Shaw is a treasure. His gifts as a writer make him an especially good choice to write an introduction like this. His ability to synthesize and distill is first rate.
Looking forward to reading the whole book.
I agree! He's an international treasure for the traditional movement!
Have you ever noticed that "the other side" has no firepower like this? Austen Ivereigh, Massimo Faggioli, David Gibson, Mike Lewis, Andrea Grillo -- they are all infantile in comparison.
Thank you for your engagement with these difficult matters. Your thinking informed by considerable knowledge is a service to us all. Blessings to you, your family, and your work.
I would also like to mention that we all must be vigilant in prayer for God's Will in these matters. Sometimes I think the foundations must be so shaken that all will seem lost - the edifice, crumbled. A continuation of the crucifixion, so that the resurrection is possible. Pray, Watch and Learn, and Pray.
I agree. You might enjoy this brief meditation:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2018/03/christs-life-is-churchs-life.html
"Christ is risen from the dead; His Church rises like the phoenix from every bed of ashes into which she seems to be dissolved."
Exactly what I was thinking.
And further: "The cycle began long ago and will continue until the end of time. Whatever was made manifest in the life of Christ will take place within His Church, in her sacred history. In every age of the Church there will be obscure births, a hidden and a public life, trials and crucifixions, resurrection and ascension. The whole of reality exists from Him, through Him, and towards Him: He is Alpha and Omega."
Exactly. It may seem strange, but to me: The above is what it is to be truly alive.
Thank you for the article. Blessings.
Sitting down to read this 2018 article now, thank you.
Dear Mr Kwasniewski,
I would like to ask a very important question concerning the performance of the function of episcopal ceremonial officer by lay people and the use by these lay people of the cassock of the prelate, i.e. the clergy of the highest rank.
There are no historically known previous instances of laymen performing this function, either before Vatican II or afterwards. In all known episcopal celebrations in the traditional liturgy, the ceremonialists have always been clergy.
In Poland, in the indult circles, such innovations were introduced by a group of lay experts in liturgy. It is a group of laymen associated with an annual series of liturgical workshops called ‘Ars Celebrandi’. Although the aim is laudable, however, the behaviour of lay altar boys is destroying the Priesthood. They are pushing a model for the wearing of clerical garb by the laity during liturgical service. These are the originally purchased cassocks of the Priesthood and the cassocks of the Bishop with all the elements of the garb. If one sees a man ministering in such attire, one has the impression that he is a clergyman. Do the laity have to be so dressed up?
One priest dared to question this kind of novelty and pointed out the incompatibility with the regulations for pontifical celebrations, that is, according to the regulations of Caeremoniale Episcoporum (according to the last edition, i.e. 1948).
The laity very sharply attack this Priest directing insulting and mocking epithets at him. Many Priests connected with the indult also accepted the arguments of the secular ‘ceremonialists’ without any objections.
What are the actual regulations and how do you, as an expert on the liturgy, assess such innovations?
I would be grateful for you help in this matter.
Thank you,
Joseph
This is a complicated question because we are in a "postwar" period of liturgical rebuilding, I would say a true state of necessity, a real emergency. There are very few qualified clergy to do all the work that needs to be done.
We must balance two considerations: custom/law, on the one hand, and fittingness on the other. The law specifies who may and may not wear this or that garb (although we must also recognize that most of the old laws have been effectively suppressed, so they survive on "life support," by a kind of customary acknowledgment). However, fittingness dictates that we offer the liturgy as solemnly as we can, because God is worth it, and we should not be minimalists in order to be legalists.
All that being said, I too am uncomfortable with laity wearing any kind of dress that is proper to higher ranks of clergy. It is more than enough for laity to wear a humble cassock and surplice. The cassock can be of high quality and the surplice can have lace, for sure; but anything more than this is pretentious and presumptuous.
Thank you very much for your prompt reply.
https://teologkatolicki.blogspot.com/2018/08/w-sprawie-faszowania-liturgii-czy.html
Above is a link to a post by Father Dariusz, who runs the blog ‘Catholic Theologian Replies’ - probably the most valuable blog in the Polish blogosphere concerning Theology and the teachings of the Catholic Church. I do not know any other theologian so enlightened living in our times who, to my joy, is a Priest. I do not diminish the role of lay theologians, but my personal opinion is that Theology is the domain of the clergy.
I would be grateful if you would take a look at this entry (the English translator is reliable). He is not the only one who has noticed this problem, as the subject has also been raised by the faithful who have noticed that the laity dress in episcopal garb at Pontifical Masses, which as Fr Dariusz rightly points out do not take place every Sunday so there is no greater necessity for lay ceremonialists. Such an event is organised well in advance and there is time to organise Priests as ceremonialists.
There is a lot of additional content in the comments underneath the post, but I personally don't understand why altar boys or lay people so necessarily want to look like Priests or Bishops.
This introduces an element of blurring and confusion, because at first glance an altar boy, especially one who is an adult man, looks like a priest, especially those who additionally wear a collar, not to mention those who, as you will see in the pictures in this post, wear a cassock in the colour of an episcopal cassock. There are some limits to the dignified dress of an altar boy, but wearing a cassock is reserved for a priest, not for a layman. The cassock in any shop whether stationary or online is in the section for Priests. Such behaviour reminds me of the lay extraordinary ministers in NOM. It is the same type of behaviour and argumentation. There is an emergency situation and there is such an explanation every time.
When I go to daily Mass in the classical rite, I notice that the boys altar servers only wear a vestment. And there is no obligation for the laity to wear the cassock.
I am generally sympathetic to your points but I would push back in regard to the cassock and surplice. This was allowed to be worn by laity for many decades prior to the Second Vatican Council and it does not seem to be an abuse. After all, men in minor orders wear it, and the Council of Trent even suggested bringing back married men in minor orders to faciliate the celebration of solemn rites.
I agree about the cassock or surplice, but the issue of pontifical ceremonialists is a serious abuse and even tantamount to profanity.
There are no historically known previous instances of laity performing this function, either before Vatican II or afterwards. In all known episcopal celebrations in the traditional liturgy, the ceremonialists have always been clergy.
These men wear the episcopal robe in all its splendour. The issue of the purple cassock is subordinate. This is because it is a matter of privilege, not a command to use it. The CE explicitly says that an episcopal ceremonialist - which clearly must be a clergyman - may use such a cassock if possible. Thus, it is hypocritical to exercise this non-prescriptive privilege while overstepping the explicit requirement for the person of the ceremonialist.
This is already a corruption of tradition from within.
Would you be so kind as to point to the sources of the suggestion of the Council of Trent with regards to bringing back married men in minor orders to facilitate the celebration of solemn rites?
The Council of Trent valued the minor orders so much that it has a whole chapter dedicated to them, against those “heretics [who] traduced [them] as useless,” decreeing that “in the future [their proper] functions shall not be exercised except by those constituted in these orders” and exhorting “each and all prelates of the churches and [commanding] them that they make it their care to restore these functions, so far as it can be conveniently done, in cathedral, collegiate and parochial churches of their diocese.”
The Council Fathers were so determined to see these orders restored that it promoted the ordination of married men: “and if there should not be unmarried clerics at hand to exercise the functions of the four minor orders, their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life; provided they have not been twice married, be competent to discharge the said duties, and wear the tonsure and the clerical dress in church.”
I'm wondering what exactly Bergolio was renound for in order to be elected.
I would imagine that each Pope, going back a couple of centuries or do would have been known for some notable virtue that would propel his candidacy forward like Holiness, or an expert Canonist, Liturgical etc.
Bergolio?
Of course a modernist, but did he have any notable ecclesiastical merit?
No, he had no merits. But what he had was a reputation for ruthless efficiency in power, and the St. Gallen Mafia needed someone like that to undo the legacies of JP2 and BXVI.
Thank you for posting this. It really helps me make sense of the actions I see in the Church that makes no sense to me at all.
Thanks, Linda. This is what I try to do here: bring some tradition *and* sanity to every topic! :-)
I am in the process of coming to grips with some of these issues in a book originating in the late 1950s: Rahner and Ratzinger's "The Episcopate and the Primacy" (NY: Herder and Herder, 1963, but contents are originally from 1959; 1962 imprimatur). Rahner deploys an array of smoke and mirrors but eventually shows his hand near the end of the book, coming out in favor of pluralism and other elements dear to the V2 crowd. Ratzinger, however, steers closer to continuity in his chapter: "Primacy, Episcopate, and Apostolic Succession." I am not a trained theologian; however, the more I read of Ratzinger, on the episcopacy and other issues, I feel confident in saying that while he may have been a liberal, he was never a revolutionary. "[T]he pope's rights over the universal episcopate are not merely the sum of his rights over individual bishops. Therefore the papal rights over the individual bishop must be exercised in such a way that the divine right of the universal episcopate as a college is not, in effect, abolished or its nature threatened" (73).
Yes! I once had a copy of this book, and foolishly donated it to a university library (as I have foolishly done every time I've made a major move). (Then again, if I hadn't done that, there's no way my books could have fit into my present house, which is already overflowing with books!)
I agree with Ratzinger about the universal episcopate. Trads are strangely ultramontanist and tend to reject all that as a heresy (just ask an SSPX person about "collegiality"). And yet we are paying the cost for ultramontanism big time right now.
Thank you for posting this.
It bears great resemblance to the way things are working by innuendo and administrative agency capture in the secular sphere as well. I've been meaning to pick up this anthology, and will probably do so now.
Yes, totally agree. Rights come with responsibilities; we need the Pope to have obligations again. We are living in an age of "1984" Catholicism.