Sweet mystery of life, I mean, colors…is the vestment with the designed middle panel the redder hue of purple or the purpler hue of red????? The photo of it next to the bright red vestment is closer to what I actually perceive in person. But I can’t tell if it is a red or violet vestment! So when red or violet is mandated for a particular Mass, I don’t choose it everrrr….I can’t tell 🧐
These are Holy Family Church, on Hilton Head Island, vestments:
10 comments:
Methinks, the vestment in question of of a shade formerly known as 'roman purple'
I agree with Fr. David Evans.
In other news, Where Peter Is majordomo Mike Lewis--whom loyal commenters may recall has decreed, on his own non-existent authority, that untold thousands of Catholics are in dissent and schism--has published an article openly stating that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis may well be "indefensible" and "reversible" and calling for open debate . Mike furiously back-pedaled to say he only wanted to encourage a conversation so that the Church could strengthen the underpinning of this teaching, meanwhile straw-manning his critics and the critics of what was published, as is his irreversible wont. Remember, the commentator suggested that the teaching was "indefensible" and "reversible." So much for removal of doubt and Catholics holding to Pope John Paul II's definitive judgment! The irony, the irony...
Nick
I should clarify the author of the original piece is not Mike Lewis; Mike made the decision as editor-in-chief to have it published.
I can’t find the article in question at WPI. The whole reason for this blog’s development was to have a so-called liberal/progressive blog support liberal/progressive Pope Francis in the face of the criticisms he was facing from almost everyone orthodox. Now that we have a pope who respects the big T and little t traditions/Traditions of the Church and is orthodox, the true colors of WPI is emerging. As I have said, they need to change their name from Where Peter Is to Where Francis Was.
Apologies, I'd meant to include a link: https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-on-the-influence-of-old-prejudice/
Nick
Purple and violet are both a mix of red and blue. If the red shade predominates, it's purple. If the blue shade predominates, it's violet. An easy way to remember: "Roses are red, violets are......blue!" Most vestment makers don't make that distinction and call both "purple" and the reddish shade "Roman purple" (which it already is). Some self-proclaimed liturgical experts recommend violet for Advent and purple for Lent. But I think that's just to increase sales, like selling miters to match the chasuble.
Part of the problem is that we routinely confuse purple for violet but they are separate colors; purple tending more towards red and violet more towards blue. Liturgical documents call for the use of violet vestments but conversationally we nearly always call them purple. Interestingly, while violet has its own spectral wavelength, purple does not. It is color that our brains make when red and blue light hits our eyes at the same time. Thus violet appears in the rainbow but purple does not. So regardless if that vestment is a redder hue of purple or the purpler hue of red, it is not violet.
Roman, or Tyrian, purple has more red in it.
There's a good image of royal purple, Tyrian purple, amethyst purple, indigo/violet, scarlet red, and amaranth red (crimson) at this site:
https://saintbedestudio.blogspot.com/2007/11/liturgical-colour-violaceus-in-roman_17.html
Speaking of vestments, here is a newly created, rose chasuble:
https://www.liturgicalartsjournal.com/2026/03/a-rose-by-any-other-name-medievally.html
It's maroon. Methinks a Texas Aggie had something to do with it.
Post a Comment