Bishop's cassock

  • Thread starter Thread starter mcliffor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcliffor

Guest
I know Cardinal O’Malley continued to wear his Franciscan habit once he became bishop. Is this typical of Franciscans who become Bishops or was he making a statement? Also, do Franciscan cardinals wear their grey tunic when they’re not in choir dress? What about him insisting that people call him Bishop Sean? Is that traditional?
 
The Bishop of Sweden (I forgot his name - he’s on ewtn sometimes) is a fransican and he wears his habit along with a bishop’s skull cap so people can tell he is a bishop. It looks a heck of a lot better than the business suits worn here in the U.S. by bishops. And while we are at it - what is that gold chain worn by all American latin bishops? (see pic below)
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/images/Bishops/Bishop Lennon bs150.jpg

edit: Oh to answer your question about address: It is proper for a bishop to be called “Your Excellency” in the United States or “Your Grace” if you are in Great Britian or talking to an eastern bishop. however, in recent years in the U.S. people tend to ignore that and simply call bishops “bishop” (which I think is unproper and definatly untraditional)
 
Canderous said:
The Bishop of Sweden (I forgot his name - he’s on ewtn sometimes) is a fransican and he wears his habit along with a bishop’s skull cap so people can tell he is a bishop. It looks a heck of a lot better than the business suits worn here in the U.S. by bishops. And while we are at it - what is that gold chain worn by all American latin bishops? (see pic below)
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/images/Bishops/Bishop Lennon bs150.jpg
Click to expand...
It’s usally attached to his crucifix,
silver for a priest, gold for bishop,
in the pocket, off duty, out of the pocket on duty.
thats what one of my bishops told me.
 
FrCorey said:
It’s usally attached to his crucifix,
silver for a priest, gold for bishop,
in the pocket, off duty, out of the pocket on duty.
thats what one of my bishops told me.
Click to expand...
What state are you from, Father?
 
Canderous said:
The Bishop of Sweden (I forgot his name - he’s on ewtn sometimes) is a **fransican **and he wears his habit along with a bishop’s skull cap so people can tell he is a bishop.
Click to expand...
Actually he is a discalced(sp?) carmelite. He appears on a Carmelite spirituality show on EWTN
 
Strictly speaking, it is not permitted for bishops to wear the habits of the religious orders to which they belonged- they are to wear the dress proper to their new status as bishops (i.e. Charles Chaput, OFM Cap.).

Would I criticize Cardinal O’Malley for making the statement he is making by wearing his habit? Not a chance. You go, Your Eminence.
 
Well, it does show a disregard for church discipline, a minor issue that might have broader implications about rules. But I have seen paintings of Juan Diego in front of the bishop who is wearing his Franciscan habit under his cope, so wouldn’t that make it traditional?
 
It may interest people to know that the reason the pope wears white is because a pope, I want to say Pius VI but may have that wrong, was a Dominican and chose to continue to wear his white habit after selection as pope. Prior to that, popes (as attested to in Renaisssance portraiture) dressed the same as cardinals.

OId military saying: A general is never out of uniform.
 
jbuck919 said:
It may interest people to know that the reason the pope wears white is because a pope, I want to say Pius VI but may have that wrong, was a Dominican and chose to continue to wear his white habit after selection as pope. Prior to that, popes (as attested to in Renaisssance portraiture) dressed the same as cardinals.

OId military saying: A general is never out of uniform.
Click to expand...
I knew that actually, but the pope is the one who has the authority to change those rules, not the bishop of boston.
 
mcliffor said:
I knew that actually, but the pope is the one who has the authority to change those rules, not the bishop of boston.
Click to expand...
I don’t know this for a fact, but I imagine that O’Malley was “in uniform” at the last conclave so as not to singularize himself. I don’t care much for his apparently self-abasing shenanigans. “Bishop Sean” or whatever just won’t do, nor will sleeping in a monastic cell when the Archdiocese of Boston provides at considerable expense a nice residence as part of its patrimony and expects it to be used. But I believe he has the right to wear the habit of his order rather than a normal cassock under ordinary circumstances, just as the Eastern Rite cardinals have the right to wear their crowns instead of a standard mitre under most circumstances. This is all just what runs through my head, so I would appreciate further informed discussion.
 
Cardinal Sean (as he is known on his blog) wore standard clerical suits/cassocks at the recent USCCB meeting. He tends to wear his Franciscan tunic “at home” in Boston.

It’s ironic that some people criticize bishops for pretense and ostentatious lifestyles, but when one exercises humility and exemplifies Franciscan penitence, he is also bashed. I for one am grateful for His Eminence’s example.
 
Canderous said:
The Bishop of Sweden (I forgot his name - he’s on ewtn sometimes) is a fransican and he wears his habit along with a bishop’s skull cap so people can tell he is a bishop. It looks a heck of a lot better than the business suits worn here in the U.S. by bishops. And while we are at it - what is that gold chain worn by all American latin bishops? (see pic below)
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/images/Bishops/Bishop Lennon bs150.jpg

edit: Oh to answer your question about address: It is proper for a bishop to be called “Your Excellency” in the United States or “Your Grace” if you are in Great Britian or talking to an eastern bishop. however, in recent years in the U.S. people tend to ignore that and simply call bishops “bishop” (which I think is unproper and definatly untraditional)
Click to expand...
I think most bishops prefer “bishop” to “Your Excellency.” Every time I kiss a bishop’s ring, they look slightly surprised.
 
franksta said:
Cardinal Sean (as he is known on his blog) wore standard clerical suits/cassocks at the recent USCCB meeting. He tends to wear his Franciscan tunic “at home” in Boston.

It’s ironic that some people criticize bishops for pretense and ostentatious lifestyles, but when one exercises humility and exemplifies Franciscan penitence, he is also bashed. I for one am grateful for His Eminence’s example.
Click to expand...
It’s probably different people making these judgments. I think most of the people on this thread would recognize that the “ostentatious lifestyle” His Eminence is trying to avoid is fitting for someone in the Cardinal’s position of authority and leadership, and that visible signs of authority are necessary, which is why the Church makes use of them.
 
jbuck919 said:
I don’t know this for a fact, but I imagine that O’Malley was “in uniform” at the last conclave so as not to singularize himself. I don’t care much for his apparently self-abasing shenanigans. “Bishop Sean” or whatever just won’t do, nor will sleeping in a monastic cell when the Archdiocese of Boston provides at considerable expense a nice residence as part of its patrimony and expects it to be used. But I believe he has the right to wear the habit of his order rather than a normal cassock under ordinary circumstances, just as the Eastern Rite cardinals have the right to wear their crowns instead of a standard mitre under most circumstances. This is all just what runs through my head, so I would appreciate further informed discussion.
Click to expand...
The crowns ARE their standard mitres, part of their seperate identity as a sub juris Church.

With respect, I think we need to be careful in attributing bad motive to the Archbishop for wearing his old habit or simplyfying his life or call those things “shenanigans.” Popes and cardinals have processed through the streets of Rome with nooses around their necks and ashes on their heads in penance for the sins of their predecessors. No one accused them of “self-abasing” shenanigans. We shoud give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
mcliffor said:
It’s probably different people making these judgments. I think most of the people on this thread would recognize that the “ostentatious lifestyle” His Eminence is trying to avoid is fitting for someone in the Cardinal’s position of authority and leadership, and that visible signs of authority are necessary, which is why the Church makes use of them.
Click to expand...
Actually, I quite disagree. I think his approach to these things actually enhances his authority, esp. in light of what happened immediately prior to his assumption of his see. I’m not saying every bishop should do the same or that they should sell each diocese’ patrimony and give it all to the poor, but I had a friend who once told me that a bishop with two coats has one two many. Worth thinking about, at least. I think bishops have an obligation to live simply. As for outward signs of their authority, well, the ring, the crozier, and the mitre are pretty authoritative. I do wish our bishops wore their cassocks all the time (could be another “sign”), but I dont’ object to the ones out of religious orders wearing their habits.
 
introibo said:
Strictly speaking, it is not permitted for bishops to wear the habits of the religious orders to which they belonged- they are to wear the dress proper to their new status as bishops (i.e. Charles Chaput, OFM Cap.).
Click to expand...
I would be interested in the reference.
 
I applaude Boston’s new Cardinal for demonstrating the simplicity for which Franciscans are known. He has a big load on his shoulders and if he is more comfortable in the habit of his order, so be it.

As for addressing a bishop, yes, there are correct forms. I have been acquainted with a couple of bishops who point out that they were and are priests, and do not object to being addressed as simply Father in informal situations.

In reality, whether he’s wearing a habit, cassock, or full vestments, or a swimsuit at the beach, a priest or bishop is still “another Christ” and should be respected as such.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
The crowns ARE their standard mitres, part of their seperate identity as a sub juris Church.

With respect, I think we need to be careful in attributing bad motive to the Archbishop for wearing his old habit or simplyfying his life or call those things “shenanigans.” Popes and cardinals have processed through the streets of Rome with nooses around their necks and ashes on their heads in penance for the sins of their predecessors. No one accused them of “self-abasing” shenanigans. We shoud give him the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we’re in fundamental disagreement, though I did manage to put out a straw man on this one, and apologies if it was misleading. I do sometimes wonder, if he is a true son of St. Francis, and I think he is, why he accepted a cardinalate archishopric with the potential for a lavish lifestyle such as is still led by his predecessor in Rome. I don’t criticize it, I simply wonder. In addition to everything he knew he would have to deal with (the scandals, church closings), there would inevitably be the issue of the patrimony.

The current mayor of New York also refuses to live in Gracie Mansion, but in that case it is because he is extremely wealthy and it is not luxurious enough for him! 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top