Sunday, April 5, 2015

POPE FRANCIS AS THE ORNATE PONTIFF

Pope Francis wearing the ornate papal stole for this morning's "Urbi et Orbi" blessing to the "City and the World":
The Papal Easter Mass was rain splashed with papal colors umbrellas!
The Holy Father looking quite papal in his ornate chasuble and using Pope Benedict's feriola and also   note the "cardinal-deacon" wearing the deacon's dalmatic:
And some other random cool photos from this morning's ornate Latin Papal Mass for Easter Sunday:


38 comments:

Anonymous said...

A "feriola" is a cape or cloak.

A "ferula" is a pastoral staff.

Anonymous said...

Gee one nice stole in all of two years thrown over a house cassock for a major blessing on the most solemn day of the year. I guess wearing choir dress or just the Mass vestments (which once again he didn't wear the dalmatic under the chasuble) he had on 5 minutes ago was pompous and would have alienated the poor.

Jdj said...

Yes, how beautiful! He is risen--alleluia!!

Anonymous said...

Pope Benedict the XVI he ain't.

Anonymous said...

Big deal one nice stole and this makes him "traditional"?

George said...

Just as Christ came forth from His mother in the darkness of a cave on that Glorious Christmas morn, so to He came forth from the the darkness of the tomb at His Resurrection, the Eternal Sun rising in splendor on that Glorious morn in the New Day of Salvation. And so Christ came forth- the Divine Light, in triumph over the darkness of sin and death.
He came forth, just as at the beginning Creation came forth, to fill the void of darkness. The light of created things brought illumination to dispel the darkness that was there.
"All things came to be through Him and without Him nothing came to be. What came through Him was life and this life was the light of the human race. The light shines in the darkness,and the darkness has not overcome it" Just at the beginning Creation expanded and brought light to the darkness, so to Christ in the form of His teachings would expand from the darkness of the tomb to fill the Earth with His light.


Michael (Quicumque Vult) said...

Anonymous @8:54 AM, I sympathize with your comment a great deal, but seeing as he has used much uglier stoles in the past, is not this little occurrence something to be thankful for? It's far from ideal, sure, but it could be even worse.

Anonymous said...

And The Franciscans of The Immaculate are still suffering from this Pope. When will this nitemare end? Beware of the Fall synod this will either bode well for the conservitives or the start of a new religion by Bergoglio which he has already put into full force. Popes are not intended to be "popular" and rock stars far from it, the Church is not to be friendly to the world but save us from it. We crazy Trads choose Jesus Christ and his Holy Mother over the world and Bergoglio. Remember 40 years ago you were once like us and believed like us, we have not changed you have Novus Ordonarians. The Faith will return one day to Rome sadly not in our lifetime, gone will be the altar girls, dancing girls, kiss of peace, hand holding, "people's table" felt banners, polyester vestments, guitars, drums, female lectors running around the altar which is reserved for MALES ONLY, lay people handing out communion wafers with their unclean hands, giant puppets, and then the return of The Holy Roman Faith with Latin, insence, stunning vestments, altar boys, kneeling, Gregorian chant, organ, silence, proper attire, high altars, communion rails, Mozart, Palastrina, Hayden, all that you were once we never changed you did.

Anonymous said...

Sure they throw in some Latin and this is like giving us a bone and think oh see Francis says Mass in Latin he can't be that hatefull of the Official language of the Church, don't fall for it people the return of the TLM and only that will save Holy Mother Church not this Jesuit Marxist from Argentina.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand that man. Just as an example: for the Mass he wore the ring he was given when he was installed as pope......by the time he got to the balcony he changed the ring to the silver one he usually wears. What is that? It must mean something to him or he wouldn't be doing it, and he does it all the time. That is strange. He would go to the trouble of changing rings twice in the matter of an hour. He is just strange I don't have another word that's charitable to describe him. The next thing you know he will be upholding the Church's/Jesus' teaching on marriage. Well....

Anonymous said...

He used the ferulla of Pope Benedict not the ferriola which is a long watered silk cape used (well use to be used) by prelates. Nowadays they just use ugly bent sticks and wear jackets from the young men's selection at Kohl's, classy all the way. But those twice yearly vacations to Europe and the islands are first class all the way.

JBS said...

Discussions about the holy father's attire do not seem to bring out the best in commentators.

Paul said...

I watched the Mass. Again Fox News Channel broadcast the Mass live. None of the other news channels did.

John Nolan said...

Before people start hurling brickbats at the papal liturgies they might ask themselves some questions:
1. How many parishes used Latin for the services on Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday?
2. In how many parishes was the Exsultet sung in full, using the time-honoured chant? ICEL now has a decent translation which is set to this tone.
3. How many Catholics in the English-speaking world heard the Passion sung as it should be?
4. How many have heard the Easter Introit 'Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum' and the Sequence 'Victimae Paschali laudes' not just yesterday but in their lifetimes? Precious few, I expect.
5. How many parishes used the Plainchant Mass I (Lux et origo) which is proper to Eastertide? It doesn't take a trained schola to sing it.

The vast majority of British or American Catholics will have found what went on in Rome bafflingly unfamiliar. They couldn't even join in the Pater Noster or Credo III. Fr McDonald cheerfully admits that his parishioners would revolt if presented with a Latin OF, although he has the musical resources to do it. What lamentable philistinism and ignorance!

To read some of the comments one might have thought the Pope had celebrated Mass in a sombrero accompanied by guitar-strumming gauchos. This is the third Triduum he has celebrated and if he was going to change things he would have done it by now. Liturgical and musical standards in St Peter's have improved greatly since JP II's day.

Pray for the Holy Father, and for God's sake give him a break!

JBS said...

John Nolan,

Hear, hear! Well said. Very well said, indeed.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

John - We did not use Latin since it is not understood by the people of this parish. And yes, that is more than sufficient reason not to use it.

I sang the Exsultet in full, using the chant in the missal, making minor changes to the "melody" for stylistic reasons.

We did not sing the Passion. We read it, as it should be presented in order for the People of God to participate.

We did not use the Easter introits.

We did not use the Plainchant Mass.

I don't know that Catholics would have found the Papal liturgy "baffling." Certainly they would have thought it "different," but that's not an issue.

I am pleased to note that you have now included Good Father McDonald among the legions of philistines at whom you haughtily and derisively look down your nose at. I am in good company!

Henry said...

Perhaps it needs (for some) to be emphasized that John Nolan's questions pertain to proper celebration of the OF (Novus Ordo) Mass--as was seen in the Sacred Triduum Masses that were telecast from St. Peter's this year, but so seldom seen in Catholic parishes and cathedrals world wide. If the liturgical recommendations of Vatican II had been followed--rather than blocked and hijacked by liturgists with a different agenda--then the answers to each of his questions would be "almost all" rather than "almost none".

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

While it isn't true of his parishioners I suspect Former PI would even bother to use good Emglish grammar since he would think they don't use it. What an insult to his parishioners to think that they could not learn or sing or understand the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Pater Noster or Agnus Dei! Thus it is with clerical priests who look down their noses at their poor ignorant parishioners. And isn't it the progressive clericalism that continues to decry the glorious new English translation which recovers the LATIN Tote's spirituality of abasement which Pope Francis said is necessary for us at his Easter message, and think the English just too hard for stupid laity!

Henry said...

"We did not use Latin since it is not understood by the people of this parish."

But they should understand at least the Ordinary in Latin--which requires no training in Latin grammar or vocabulary per se, only repetition in the liturgy, just as it is solely by repeated hearing rather than language that any native language facility is acquired). Unless, that is, their pastor--upon whom the obligation, to insure that they do, primarily falls—takes it upon himself to ignore the teaching of Vatican II and Popes XXIII and Paul VI (among others).

Just as anyone who worships in the EF acquires naturally a comprehension of at least the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and Pater Noster in Latin. Even if they continue to follow in the English column those prayers addressed by the priest to God. Though I for one would be ok with those prayers in English, which He undoubtedly understands equally well as Latin or Greek, and perhaps is not even subject to the imprecision and vagaries in meaning that plague human beings using an ever-evolving vernacular language.

JBS said...

Father Kavanaugh,

If you used Latin during Mass, would they come to understand it?

John Nolan said...

Fr K,

The philistinism and ignorance were not on Fr McDonald's part but on the part of those parishioners who he claims would revolt against a Latin Mass.

I have heard your reasons for removing all Latin from the liturgy; they are bogus and indeed philistine and I have no intention of reiterating them. I don't myself object to an all-vernacular Mass; indeed I occasionally attend one. But then I don't have a closed mind.

JBS said...

Father Kavanaugh,

We have parishioners who are unfamiliar with African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, American Indians and Jews. Is it best that these unfamiliar groups be kept away from everyone else, since, like Latin, such exposure could lead to confusion? Or, is exposure the way to overcome confusion and build understanding?

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Good Father, JBS, Henry, John Nolan - What's the point of encouraging people to memorize prayers in languages they do not speak or understand?

Does it make them more Catholic? No.

Does it help them to understand better the saving mysteries of Jesus? No.

Is God more pleased because He hears the Creed or the Our Father in Latin? No.

Allan, you've accused me previously of thinking the people I serve are "stupid" and that is nothing less than a bald-faced lie.

Henry - I don't agree that it is helpful to have the people recite memorized prayers in a language they don't understand. What improvement does this memorization result in?

JBS - No, I don't think people come to understand a language by memorizing and repeating certain prayers in that language. They become mimics, not unlike parrots and mynah birds.

John - Your capacity with Latin leads you to speak very condescendingly about those who do not share your educational background. Not a single one of the people I serve is in any way a philistine or ignorant in things that matter.

JBS - Memorizing a few Latin or Greek phrases is not going to result in building understanding. Respect among people of different religious or ethnic backgrounds matters. Repeating memorized phrases doesn't.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Former PI, you've come up with some really dumb contrary response in the past but this one takes the cake! Of course I kknow you don't take this seriously as it is tongue in cheek, otherwise I would have to feel really really embarrassed for you!

John Nolan said...

Fr Kavanaugh insists that no-one in his parish understands Latin. So we are to infer that no-one in his parish could possibly listen to Haydn's 'Nelson' Mass or Beethoven's 'Missa Solemnis' since they would not have a clue as to what was being sung. We are also to infer that after reciting the Gloria in English for years they would not know what it meant if it were sung in Latin.

Apart from anything else, let's look at some of the the cognates:

Gloria ... Glory
in ... in
excelsis ... excellent, excelling
Deo ... Deity
terra ... terrestrial
pax ... pacific
hominibus ... homo sapiens
bonae ... bonus, bon mot
voluntatis ... voluntary
laudamus ... laudatory
benedicimus ... benediction
adoramus ... adore
glorificamus ... glorify
gratias ... grazie, gracias
agimus ... agenda
magnam ... magnitude
rex ... regal
caelestis ... celestial
pater ... paternal
omnipotens ... omnipotent
Fili ... filial
unigenite ... unitary, generation
Domine ... dominate
peccata ... impeccable
mundi ... mundane
miserere ... commiserate
solus ... solitary
sanctus ... sanctity
Spiritu ... spirit

Either Fr K's parishioners are extraordinarily stupid or he is extraordinarily patronizing.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

John, he's just killing us with his sense of humor a la Sheldon of the Big Bang Theory. Former PI is a font of knowledge for useless trivia having been on Jeopardy a much beloved TV game show which has aired here go more than 50 years. He Woolf have won if not for answering the Final Jeopardy question wrong. The actual question which one must give from the answer the constant reads was "What is the LATIN response to Dominus Vobiscum?" 😇

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...


No, Allan, my response was not tongue-in-cheek. You've lied about me before, saying I think the members of my parish are stupid, and you've done it again.

And, no, I would not have won on Jeopardy had I correctly answered the Final Jeopardy question. Both of the other contestants got it right and had more money than I.

John - I listen to and enjoy many wonderful musical compositions that are not in English and I enjoy them greatly. But participating at mass and listening to Haydn or Beethoven are not the same thing.

I suspect many would have a clue, or even more than a clue, as to what's being sung, but, again, that's not the point.

The use of Latin does not offer greater or more profound worship of God, nor does it communicate the saving mysteries of Jesus to the People of God more fully.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Stop! You're killing me with hysterical laughter and tears in my eyes! Who knew you were such a comedian!

Henry said...

Fr. Kavanaugh: "Henry - I don't agree that it is helpful to have the people recite memorized prayers in a language they don't understand. What improvement does this memorization result in?"

I could not agree more fully. Memorizing prayers in a language not understood is worse than foolishness.

You may miss one of the points I meant to make. Recitation by memory is the opposite of reading with understanding.

For instance, I have been reciting the Gloria and Credo in both English and Latin for over a half century, but I still cannot recite either by memory. Certainly I could memorize both if I wished, but this would more likely be an impediment rather than an aid to comprehension.

At Mass I recite both by reading them with understanding. As I believe most people do at Latin Masses. They recite the Ordinary prayers of the Mass by following the Latin in their hand missals, with understanding absorbed naturally by occasionally checking the English column for meaning.

By contrast, at a vernacular OF Mass I sense people reciting these prayers by rote memory, but apparently WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THEM. Indeed, many people can recite a passage by memory only if they refrain from following the meaning as they do so. If they think too much about what the memorized words mean, they lose place and have to start over. Paradoxically, I’m convinced that lifetime liturgy in the vernacular only is a reason why understanding of the liturgy among people I know now seems much less than among people knew when it was Latin only.

Thus I use a Latin-English hand missal at both OF and EF Masses, frequently reading in English at a Latin Mass, and the Latin at an English Mass, as a means of guarding against the couch-potato 30-yard stare mode many exhibit at vernacular Masses where the language has become so familiar and repetitious as to neither encourage nor require any attempt to comprehend.

Finally, I recall reading that Charles Borromeo had over the years committed to whole Divine Office to memory (in Latin, of course), but read it daily instead of reciting it by memory, because it’s supposed to be recited with understanding. I don’t have a Borromean memory, but I can readily recite the Pater Noster in either Latin in English, but in Mass or Rosary or LOH must guard against doing so, lest I drift into auto-pilot mode and don’t consciously mark mentally the seven distinct petitions I’m supposed to be making.

Henry said...

Fr. Kavanaugh: “ . . . participating at mass and listening to Haydn or Beethoven are not the same thing. . . . The use of Latin does not offer greater or more profound worship of God”

At EF Mass on a typical Sunday I hear--and sing along with the choir and everyone else--the Gloria and Credo in Gregorian chant. But at our solemn Mass of Easter, the choir sang the Ordinary in sacred polyphony, so the congregation listened instead of joining in. As a result, I had to concentrate much more on the actual words of prayer, consciously focusing on the successive Latin phrases as they were repeated in the polyphonic arrangement.

As a result, I received these prayers with more intense reflection and comprehension that I ever experience when reciting them myself. Therefore, this particular use of Latin did indeed afford for me a “greater and more profound worship of God”. As is frequently observed, silent and reflective reception at Mass can well be a more meaningful and active form of conscious participation than merely doing and saying things audibly.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Good Father, Your false accusations are not covered up by your hysterical tears...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Go reread your funny statement about your parish can't understand LATIN and by implication they can't learn either. It is funny that you would write such a thing!

JBS said...

John Nolan,

That's a truly incisive post. Well done.

Flavius Hesychius said...

...It's funny because the young adults attending the EF clearly don't think Latin is an impediment.

Joking aside, the thing I most detested were bilingual (or sometimes trilingual) liturgies. Talk about a headache.

I still don't like English-Greek liturgies.

That said, I still believe liturgical languages have a place, given they provide a common language in situations where it would be impractical to have multi-lingual liturgies or a separate one for each language.

Need it be Latin? I don't know, and really don't care, now that I think about it. It'll never affect me.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Allan - I suspect if you can learn Latin, anyone can. But I digress.

I think most anyone can memorize Latin prayers. I just don't see any need.

John Nolan said...

'Does it [being able to sing the Credo and Pater in Latin] make them more Catholic?' Given the meaning of the word 'Catholic' the answer to this question has to be in the affirmative. Does it make them better Catholics? Of course not.

Henry, your point about reading as opposed to memorizing is an interesting one but I cannot agree with the assertion that 'Recitation by memory is the opposite of reading with understanding'. Were this the case there would be no point in performing Shakespeare - just give the audience the script and tell them to read it for themselves. Committing poetry to memory enhances the understanding of it, as well as providing a mental reference library.

To be able to pause and recite the Angelus, or to say the De Profundis when visiting a grave (as I did this morning) without having to reach for a book is a very Catholic thing to do, and even protestants, fond as they are of extempore prayer, tend to fall back on the Lord's Prayer as something they all know.

Charles Carrington (1897-1990), a First World War subaltern, was about to lead his men 'over the top' on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. He records his astonishment at hearing one citizen-soldier, a man of rudimentary education and invariably coarse of speech 'singing a hymn to the Virgin in Latin'. (On that day, 1 July 1916, 24,000 British soldiers were killed.)

I find that vignette revealing, moving, but not in the least astonishing.

rcg said...

John, I suspect even if the soldier did not understand a word of the Latin, he knew what it meant.

John Nolan said...

'I think most (sic) anyone can memorize Latin prayers. I just don't see any need.'

Quite so. I learned all my prayers in English. It was only when I started serving Mass that I was required to memorize anything in Latin.

Nor was there a tradition (in England, anyway) for people to recite the Mass Ordinary (Gloria, Credo, etc.) along with the priest. They were familiar with the texts, though, and joined in at sung Mass. They also knew the O Salutaris, Tantum Ergo, Adoremus in Aeternum and Salve Regina which they sang at Benediction - the recited prayers were of course in English.

Most (not all) prayers were originally in Latin and had been translated by people with an ear for spoken English. The Apostle's Creed, for example, was the same as the Anglican version except that we said 'the living and the dead' and they had 'the quick and the dead'. I still cross myself 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'. I pray 'Hail Mary' and 'Hail Holy Queen'. I don't know the prayer to St Michael Archangel in Latin because we never said it in Latin.

It was never a question of Latin v. English. My beef has always been with those who would deny that Latin has any place as a liturgical language, an extreme position advanced for dubious ideological reasons by those with a liturgical agenda which I (and many others) never signed up for in the first place.