Black or violet vestments in Diocese of Madison now for funerals

[Phemie]

Make a fund in case there are none.

I could donate all the money I want, no priest around here is going to don black vestments for a funeral – they’d balk at violet too.

I’m old enough to remember black vestments, a black pall-covered catafalque at anniversary Masses, along with wearing black for a year when you were in mourning and then moving on to subdued colours in the second year. I vividly remember Mom having her winter coat professionally dyed black when my grandfather died and I was only 4 at the time. I also remember vividly how she hated that social convention and how she said she never wanted anyone to do that when she died.

But we rarely see people in mourning clothes any more. I don’t see the family dressed all in black when I do Funeral Vigils at the funeral home, I don’t see it at the Funeral Mass. I don’t often see pallbearers in black, in fact around here I rarely see them ‘dressed up’ at all – at one recent funeral they were all dressed in hockey sweaters. And brides do sometimes dress in black today although the dresses would never be mistaken for mourning clothes.

I honestly don’t know if returning to black vestments (violet is the official colour, black is only allowed in the Latin GIRM ‘where black vestments have traditionally been used’) would have the impact you seem to think it would.

 

[Digitonomy]

violet is the official colour, black is only allowed in the Latin GIRM ‘where black vestments have traditionally been used’)

Interesting. I note the US GIRM uses the same modal verb for both letters under 346:

346
d) The color violet or purple is used in Advent and Lent. It may also be worn in Offices and Masses for the Dead.

e) Besides the color violet, the colors white or black may be used at funeral services and at other Offices and Masses for the Dead in the Dioceses of the United States of America.

That also seems to be true for the Latin GIRM, which omits the white option altogether:

d) Color violaceus adhibetur tempore Adventus et Quadragesimae. Assumi potest etiam in Officiis et Missis defunctorum.
e) Color niger adhiberi potest, ubi mos est, in Missis defunctorum.

I am curious whether a bishop could require his clerics to wear only white, or only violet, or only black vestments at masses for the dead.

 

[Phemie]

Interesting. I note the US GIRM uses the same modal verb for both letters under 346:That also seems to be true for the Latin GIRM, which omits the white option altogether:I am curious whether a bishop could require his clerics to wear only white, or only violet, or only black vestments at masses for the dead.

“adhiberi potest, ubi mos est” “may be used, where it is the practice” (Google translator says “can be used where is custom”) is what it says in the Canadian and England & Wales GIRMs both for black at funerals and rose at* Gaudete & Laetare* Sundays.

GIRM 346 is clear that the Conferences of Bishops are free to submit requests for adaptations to the Holy See.

Conferentiae tamen Episcoporum possunt definire, ad colores liturgicos quod attinet, et proponere Apostolicae Sedi aptationes, quae necessitatibus et ingenio populorum respondeant

Obviously, the USCCB did that and got white as an adaptation for funerals, as did Canada and England and Wales. Unlike the posture adaptation at the time between ‘ecce agnus Dei’ and communion which specifically gives Bishops the right to impose a posture for their diocese, nowhere does the colour adaptation give them the authority to impose a colour on their diocese.

 

[JGMendes4049]

“adhiberi potest, ubi mos est” “may be used, where it is the practice” (Google translator says “can be used where is custom”) is what it says in the Canadian and England & Wales GIRMs both for black at funerals and rose at* Gaudete & Laetare* Sundays.

GIRM 346 is clear that the Conferences of Bishops are free to submit requests for adaptations to the Holy See. Obviously, the USCCB did that and got white as an adaptation for funerals, as did Canada and England and Wales. Unlike the posture adaptation at the time between ‘ecce agnus Dei’ and communion which specifically gives Bishops the right to impose a posture for their diocese, nowhere does the colour adaptation give them the authority to impose a colour on their diocese.

I assume that individual bishops can request Rome for an adaptation for his own diocese as well.

 

[Phemie]

I assume that individual bishops can request Rome for an adaptation for his own diocese as well.

I don’t think the GIRM gives individual bishops the right to do that, it specifically says ‘Conferences of Bishops’. Imagine each bishop petitioning Rome to do his own thing apart from their Conference.

 

[JGMendes4049]

I don’t think the GIRM gives individual bishops the right to do that, it specifically says ‘Conferences of Bishops’. Imagine each bishop petitioning Rome to do his own thing apart from their Conference.

You make it sound as if it would be chaotic. I don’t feel that it would be so terrible if a bishop did that.

 

[theyoungmonk]

The bishop could petition for any change he wanted really, its up to the Holy See to make the descion. If he wanted brown with pink and orange polka dots to be worn he could petition Rome for it, he wouldent get it but he could petition.

Even if the conference got an allowance from Rome a Bishop could either ignore it (depending what it is and if it was within his authority) or request that Rome exclude his diocese.

 

[superamazingman]

The bishop could petition for any change he wanted really, its up to the Holy See to make the descion. If he wanted brown with pink and orange polka dots to be worn he could petition Rome for it, he wouldent get it but he could petition.

Even if the conference got an allowance from Rome a Bishop could either ignore it (depending what it is and if it was within his authority) or request that Rome exclude his diocese.

That’s what I was just going to say

He can petition Rome for anything, and if Rome says yes, than the USCCB can’t do anything about it!

 

[superamazingman]

You make it sound as if it would be chaotic. I don’t feel that it would be so terrible if a bishop did that.

No, I don’t think it would be that bad either.

I mean from a practical standpoint, it’s not like every parish is doing so in this hypothetical situation. How often do priests or lay people move from diocese to diocese in a way that would make these local norms confusing? Do you see what I’m saying? Most people usually stay within their diocese, so a local norm is just an “always norm” for them, and I don’t see why it’d be confusing.

 

[Corki]

That’s what I was just going to say

He can petition Rome for anything, and if Rome says yes, than the USCCB can’t do anything about it!

I think you are correct. There was an example a few years ago where a conference of bishops somewhere in south America (Brazil, maybe) had voted to request the indult for Communion in the Hand. The indult was granted. One Bishop queried Rome as to whether he was required to follow the conference of Bishop’s in this regard and the answer was “no”.

I believe there were some dioceses that petitioned to be exempt from the ruling on purification of the sacred vessels after Communion (after Redemptionis Sacramentum) too. In their case, the answer was “no” but not because they were wrong to ask.

 

[PacoG]

I seem to remember reading and/or hearing on EWTN News that a few years back when Cardinal George took over Chicago, he caused a stir when he mandated that priests wear grayish white (or the so-called Lenten Array as the Anglicans call it) for Funerals and Offices of the Dead.

 

[superamazingman]

I seem to remember reading and/or hearing on EWTN News that a few years back when Cardinal George took over Chicago, he caused a stir when he mandated that priests wear grayish white (or the so-called Lenten Array as the Anglicans call it) for Funerals and Offices of the Dead.

Sounds odd.