Old cardinal's robes?

[JReducation]

There were several reasons for the simplification of the robes worn by bishops and cardinals and they have nothing to do with the liturgical reforms, since these are not liturgical garments. When a cardinal celebrates mass he wears the same vestments as any priest, with the exception of the sucheto or skull cap.

In the Roman Church we have religious orders, which we do not have in the Oriental Churches. The Oriental Churches have only one religious order, the Basilians. Religious orders have always had rules that forbiddent this type of dress by any religious who was named a bishop or a cardinal. These rules had been violated because of the influence of the secular clergy in the episcopate. Most bishops and cardinals were secular, not religious. They voted in these garments to the consternation of the major religious superiors and contrary to the wishes of Pope Pius V who insisted that the religious prelates wear the habit of their order. That’s where we get the white cassock of the pope. It was modeled on Pius V’s Dominican habit. Somehow, the abuse of religious crept into the episcopal state and the religious identity of the bishops and cardinals was often ignored and even looked upon with condescension.

Perfectae Caritatis called all religious to return to the vision of their founders. This included those religious that were priests, bishops and cardinals. But there was a problem, the rule of dress was still in place. Finally, in the code of canon law of 1983, it was stated that any religious who becomes a bishop remains a member of his order and wears the habit of his order. The red cassock and other garments were simplified to accommodate between the opulence of the secular clergy and the simplicity expected of consecrated religious. This was a compromise.

That’s why you will see men like Cardinal O’Malley and Cardinal Pell in their religious habits more than you will in the red. According to the Franciscan rule and the Dominican constitutions, they can only wear that for ceremony. Outside of that, they are to dress as friars, because they never cease to be consecrated religious brothers, which the Franciscans, Dominicans and Benedictines were founded to be.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nickybr38]

Reading the comments to one of the links in this thread and the comments in this thread I find myself worrying that people have taken to praising the messenger instead of the one who sent the message.

 

[malphono]

In the Roman Church we have religious orders, which we do not have in the Oriental Churches. The Oriental Churches have only one religious order, the Basilians.

Not quite so. Among the Maronites there are three Orders (not “congregations” or “institutes”) of monks: OAM, OLM, & OMM. There is also a Congregation of missionaries (MLM).

 

[JReducation]

Not quite so. Among the Maronites there are three Orders (not “congregations” or “institutes”) of monks: OAM, OLM, & OMM. There is also a Congregation of missionaries (MLM).

You’re quite right. I forgot about the Maronite monks. However, the problem with the vestments does not exist in the Oriental Churches, because if you notice, the oriental bishops who are monks dress as monks when they are not at Divine Liturgy. It was the Roman Catholics who forced our religious to dress as secular bishops dress when they are not celebrating mass.

This created a major issue with religious orders that lasted from the Council of Trent to Vatican II when the issue was finallyl settled. What was most interesting was that it was never done until the Council of Trent. As I said, Pius V wore his Dominican habit. It was out of love for him that the next pope adopted the white tunic which evolved into a white cassock.

Bonaventure was also a cardinal and never wore anything but the Franciscan habit. He refused to wear anything else. When he was given the red hat he hung it up on the branch of a tree in the garden of the friary and it was later stored away by a friar. He never wore it. He also refused to live among the bishops and cardinals.

He negotiated with the pope to accept the election as bishop under two conditions: that he be allowed to remain as the Superior General of the Franciscans, which was granted and that he be allowed to continue to teach at the University of Parish, which was also granted. He was given a diocese, to which he assigned one the more educated lay brothers, who was a theologian, as the administrator. He visited his diocese several times a year to celebrate mass in the cathedral, but refused to enter the bishop’s residence.

This was the case for the religious of most orders until after Trent when the secular cardinals began to create rules that did not factor in the religious. There is a very famous painting of St. Juan Diego before the bishop of Mexico. The bishop was a Franciscan Friar. In the painting we see the bishop in a brother’s habit It seems that even in the Americas, the tradition of the religious habit was observed until these rules were created. No one knows for sure how or why they were created. It is assumed that they were to portray the regalness of the cardinals, since they are princess of the Church.

But in resent years we have seen pictures of the Holy Father with the Cardinals. In these pictures we see the Cardinals who are friars and monks dressed as brothers, not in the red. They are surrounded by the secular cardinals in red. The primacy of the religious vocation of the man over his office as cardinal is protected, which is what the religious had struggled for since after Trent.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Cardinals can no longer wear/use either a red galero or a red capello - though I suppose there is nothing preventing them hanging a galero up. Currently, for all clerics other than the Pope, only a black capello may be used - though ornamented in different ways. The Pope’s differs from others in that the sides are turned up by golden cords - a bit like a cowboy hat.

Thanks for the update. I’m not familiar with much of the Paul VI revisions.

 

[AJV]

There were several reasons for the simplification of the robes worn by bishops and cardinals and they have nothing to do with the liturgical reforms, since these are not liturgical garments. When a cardinal celebrates mass he wears the same vestments as any priest, with the exception of the sucheto or skull cap.

In the Roman Church we have religious orders, which we do not have in the Oriental Churches. The Oriental Churches have only one religious order, the Basilians. Religious orders have always had rules that forbiddent this type of dress by any religious who was named a bishop or a cardinal. These rules had been violated because of the influence of the secular clergy in the episcopate. Most bishops and cardinals were secular, not religious. They voted in these garments to the consternation of the major religious superiors and contrary to the wishes of Pope Pius V who insisted that the religious prelates wear the habit of their order. That’s where we get the white cassock of the pope. It was modeled on Pius V’s Dominican habit. Somehow, the abuse of religious crept into the episcopal state and the religious identity of the bishops and cardinals was often ignored and even looked upon with condescension.

I am not sure that this is completely true. Religious prelates were always allowed to wear the religious habit if they so chose. If they did not, their clothes were not the same as those of secular prelates. The cassock, mozetta, etc. was then usually in the color of the religious habit. Moreover, they could not use certain materials like watered silk, etc. than secular prelates could. It was the reform of Paul VI that abolished the distinctions between the dress of regular and secular cardinals and bishops. I would posit instead that it was not the idea of religious, but the idea of simplicity, which in fact began with Pius XII. The rules for secular cardinals had to be updated as they dated from times when people of rank were expected to dress in a certain way.

Perfectae Caritatis called all religious to return to the vision of their founders. This included those religious that were priests, bishops and cardinals. But there was a problem, the rule of dress was still in place. Finally, in the code of canon law of 1983, it was stated that any religious who becomes a bishop remains a member of his order and wears the habit of his order. The red cassock and other garments were simplified to accommodate between the opulence of the secular clergy and the simplicity expected of consecrated religious. This was a compromise.

That’s why you will see men like Cardinal O’Malley and Cardinal Pell in their religious habits more than you will in the red. According to the Franciscan rule and the Dominican constitutions, they can only wear that for ceremony. Outside of that, they are to dress as friars, because they never cease to be consecrated religious brothers, which the Franciscans, Dominicans and Benedictines were founded to be.

I think canon law supports the opposite interpretation:bishops are not obliged to continue wearing the habit. The constitutions of the congregations and the orders do not bind the bishops or the cardinals (such as Cardinal O’Malley). They may opt not to (as with other things e.g. poverty) and it is entirely upto them whether they for a good reason wish to dress as secular or retain the religious habit. Many do retain the habit, for admirable causes of religious identity, and some don’t for other good reasons. For example, while Cardinal O’Malley keeps the Capuchin habit for his daily wear, Cardinal Hummes usually dresses as a secular, instead of as a Franciscan.

 

[malphono]

You’re quite right. I forgot about the Maronite monks. However, the problem with the vestments does not exist in the Oriental Churches, because if you notice, the oriental bishops who are monks dress as monks when they are not at Divine Liturgy.

Again, that’s not quite the case overall.

Among the Maronites in particular, the concept of “secular bishops” was almost unheard of prior to the 17th century: bishops were normally selected from the ranks of the monks. Since that time, and continuing today, the vast majority of bishops are “secular” while “monastic bishops” have become the rarity.

In any case, though, secular clerics are technically professed as monks before being ordained to the episcopacy. Consequently, they adopt the small monastic hood (used both liturgically and otherwise) as part of their dress. They may (but are not required to) also use the monastic “skullcap” (similar to a zuchetto with a tuft on top, and no, it’s not a latinization). OTOH, those few bishops who are truly monks normally dress exactly the same way as secular bishops. Yes, “monastic bishops” remain professed members of their Order (or, according to the most ancient practice – i.e. before the Orders were established – bound to their monastery), but are of course exempt from the rules of obedience to the Abbot since one of higher ecclesiastical rank cannot be juridically subject to one of lower rank.

From what I’ve learned, the situation is similar in the other West Syriac churches. Although I cannot speak directly about the rest of the Orient and East, I think their practices are analogous as well.

 

[malphono]

I am not sure that this is completely true. Religious prelates were always allowed to wear the religious habit if they so chose. If they did not, their clothes were not the same as those of secular prelates. The cassock, mozetta, etc. was then usually in the color of the religious habit. Moreover, they could not use certain materials like watered silk, etc. than secular prelates could. It was the reform of Paul VI that abolished the distinctions between the dress of regular and secular cardinals and bishops. I would posit instead that it was not the idea of religious, but the idea of simplicity, which in fact began with Pius XII. …

Funny you say that: it quite agrees with what I remember and what I almost posted yesterday. Nice to know I’m not alone.

 

[JReducation]

I am not sure that this is completely true. Religious prelates were always allowed to wear the religious habit if they so chose. If they did not, their clothes were not the same as those of secular prelates. The cassock, mozetta, etc. was then usually in the color of the religious habit. Moreover, they could not use certain materials like watered silk, etc. than secular prelates could. It was the reform of Paul VI that abolished the distinctions between the dress of regular and secular cardinals and bishops. I would posit instead that it was not the idea of religious, but the idea of simplicity, which in fact began with Pius XII. The rules for secular cardinals had to be updated as they dated from times when people of rank were expected to dress in a certain way.

I think canon law supports the opposite interpretation:bishops are not obliged to continue wearing the habit. The constitutions of the congregations and the orders do not bind the bishops or the cardinals (such as Cardinal O’Malley). They may opt not to (as with other things e.g. poverty) and it is entirely upto them whether they for a good reason wish to dress as secular or retain the religious habit. Many do retain the habit, for admirable causes of religious identity, and some don’t for other good reasons. For example, while Cardinal O’Malley keeps the Capuchin habit for his daily wear, Cardinal Hummes usually dresses as a secular, instead of as a Franciscan.

The code of 1983 explicitly says that bishops remain members of their religious institutes. It’s not an option. As far as dress in concerned, they wear whatever is customary for their religious institute. For example, among Franciscans, there are 120 branches of the order. The reformed branches all wear habits 24/7. The Leonine Franciscans (also know as just Franciscans), the Conventuals, and the Third Order Regular of Penance (TOR), wear either a habit or a Roman collar (ordained and non ordained). The Capuchins go by provinces. Cardinal Sean’s province, which is the same province that my community came from, wears their habit 24/7 and the collar is rarely worn, except for special situations or climates. They Capuchins of the Mid-America Province, which is were Charlie Chaput is, go back and forth between the habit and a collar with greater flexibility. That’s because they have a different Pronvincial Minister. Among Franciscans, dress is really up to the General Chapter. The Capuchin General Chapter assigned that responsibility to the Provincial Ministers.

These changes did not come from Paul VI. They came from the Council when the goal was to reach some kind of simplicity that was agreable to everyone. The whole issue of dress for cardinals has been in constant flux since the Middle Ages. It has always seemed to go in waves, from very elegant and over the top to very simple and back. I believe that we finally have a struck a good balance. It’s dignified, but not over the top that would make some feel uncomfortable with it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AJV]

The code of 1983 explicitly says that bishops remain members of their religious institutes. It’s not an option.

I did not question that they remain part of their institute (although bishops cannot have an active or passive vote in their institutes) but the issue of observing their constitutions in toto. Not only do they not have to, but they are not subject to major superiors and cannot be commanded to.

Can. 705 A religious raised to the episcopate remains a member of his institute but is subject only to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the vow of obedience and is not bound by obligations which he himself prudently judges cannot be reconciled with his condition.

as well as the following canons. Commentaries on the Code, and other interpretations of this canon can also be consulted. Furthermore, when speaking of the wearing of the habit, the Ceremonial of Bishops says “possunt”.

 

[AJV]

These changes did not come from Paul VI. They came from the Council when the goal was to reach some kind of simplicity that was agreable to everyone. The whole issue of dress for cardinals has been in constant flux since the Middle Ages. It has always seemed to go in waves, from very elegant and over the top to very simple and back. I believe that we finally have a struck a good balance. It’s dignified, but not over the top that would make some feel uncomfortable with it.

Sorry, I’ a bit confused: which changes are you speaking of here? I’m a bit puzzled since it seems to be that especially from the Middle Ages cardinatial dress has always been defined through the ceremonials and has been pretty much always over the top, considering the temporal status of cardinals.