Blue vestments for Marian feasts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Could that spanish rule exception be applied th the United States? and if so, whats to stop a priest in say Alaska from using blue vestments and saying " well portions of the US were once under Spanish crown control, im in the US, therefore I can use blue vestments"
 
I guess so. But IMO, I’d rather go what the Bishop’s Conference or the local ordo says.
 
I want to say that the Spanish Privilege dates to Feb. 12, 1864, if I’m reading my history correctly. So it would have to be a holding that was in possession of Spain at that time, even if it later was no longer part of Spanish territory. I think Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821. Texas gained independence from Mexico in 1836. But Alaska was never part of Spanish territory, period.

So if the decree was granted to “Latin America”, it might still apply to Mexico… but Texas became its own country in 1836; was a state of the United States by 1845; and was part of the Confederacy by 1861. So by the time you hit 1864, it was pretty far removed from being considered “Spain/Its Colonies/Latin America”. California was ceded to the US in 1848 after the Mexican-American war and acquired US Statehood in 1850. And Arizona/New Mexico/Nevada were acquired in 1848 after the Mexican-American war as well.
 
so, Puerto Rico and Guam could, but none of the mainland USA. thanks you!
 
Cool beans! Looks like one of us needs to go on a field trip to Puerto Rico and Guam and see what they do in their churches on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. 🙂
 
The rubric for feast days is white or gold (or in a few cases silver).

There isn’t anything against blue per se, it simply isn’t included in feast day liturgy at this point (… in the Latin Rite in the US… other caveats included here).

This could change-- it is a discipline. Perhaps one day, blue will be an official liturgical color for certain feasts in the Latin Rite.
 
or the Marian Privlege could be extended to the universal church… #IfIWerePope
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
Well, was replying to the OP and his linked article, which is an American publication talking about American parishes in the Latin Rite. Not Eastern Catholics, not Orders, etc.

So I don’t feel bad in the least for replying with the rubrics and liturgical rules for US parishes. Catholic Answers, while attracting an international audience, is a US-based company and website and most of their “answers” on their radio program and website are Latin Rite, US centric answers- such as holy days of obligation, liturgical rubrics, etc.

Thank you for listing out some of the exceptions and norms to be found elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I think it important to note when there are exceptions to the general rule. Otherwise, you tend to get uninformed, self-appointed, liturgy police making pronouncements on liturgical abuse where none actually exists. Emphasizing that there are circumstances which permit deviations from the norms helps people to see beyond their little world. We have a diverse, international and universal Church. In the United States, we have a tendency to assume that our own experience, or at least that of our grandparents, is the standard, the way things ought to be done. I suspect it is that way in other places as well. I just think that it is helpful to point out that things are legitimately done differently in certain circumstances. Most people are here to increase their knowledge of the Church.
 
Last edited:
Maximilian75 said:
so, Puerto Rico and Guam could, but none of the mainland USA. thanks you!
Click to expand...
Possibly.

However, in order to truly invoke the privilege of “custom” one would have to prove that the practice has been continuous. That would mean that one would have to prove that a priest wore blue vestments for the Immaculate Conception every year for over a century in that particular place.

While there might (just might) be one or two parishes who could claim that, I rather doubt that there are any. I can’t actually prove it, but it’s so unlikely that it’s not realistic to expect that would be the case.
 
Maximilian75 said:
I had always thought this was okay, although I have never seen it (The only Marian vestments I have seen are white with blue trim/accents), but is it okay to use primarily blue vestments for Marian feasts? I base this question off of point 1 of this article…
Click to expand...
I happen to like the idea of blue vestments and would like to have the option to wear them.

I’ve had a lot of experience in the Eastern Churches where blue is not just permitted but rather popular.

So I would like to see it permitted for the Latin rite.

Until then, I’ll have my white-with-lots-of-blue-trim vestments.
 
Nelka said:
What is the reason for no blue vestments?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that blue vestments would send the signal that the Mass is more about our Blessed Mother than about our Savior. I don’t entirely agree with that, but I can see how some people might think that way.

As far as I’m concerned both the Eastern praxis and the Latin exceptions show that there is no real danger here.
 
FrDavid96 said:
40.png
Maximilian75:
I had always thought this was okay, although I have never seen it (The only Marian vestments I have seen are white with blue trim/accents), but is it okay to use primarily blue vestments for Marian feasts? I base this question off of point 1 of this article…
Click to expand...
I happen to like the idea of blue vestments and would like to have the option to wear them.

I’ve had a lot of experience in the Eastern Churches where blue is not just permitted but rather popular.

So I would like to see it permitted for the Latin rite.

Until then, I’ll have my white-with-lots-of-blue-trim vestments.
Click to expand...
Don_Ruggero said:
Indeed. I remember one chasuble in our collection that was technically a white chasuble, even by the estimation of a rigourous diocesan Ordinary – but the orphrey was so broad in all its dimensions that one would be hard-pressed to say that the colour most in evidence was, in fact , anything but blue. However, it was deemed to be a white chasuble with blue ornamentation…and indeed, since the blue was an orphrey, one had in the end to say that the chasuble, as such, was white.
Click to expand...
Hmmm… Seems like a possible solution?
 
I don’t disagree. I was pointing out the POV I had in answering the question and thanked Don Ruggero for adding an additional perspective.
 
My solution is similar to this

similar, but not quite the same.
 
LOL…i guess not everything can’t be just black or white…we all learned a lesson today…nice to have priests in the crowd to offer charitable and fraternal correction, even when we err with the best intentions!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top