Vestments from the Archdiocesan Museum of Warsaw (Part 2)

This is the second set of photos taken by a friend, Mr Anatole Upart, at the museum of the archdiocese of Warsaw, Poland, during a recent visit. In the first part, which I posted on Saturday, most of the vestments were liturgical white, here we have a wide variety of colors, including blue. Among the Slavs who use the Byzantine Rite, blue has become de facto the standard color for feasts of the Virgin Mary, and I have been told by a very knowledgeable scholar that they picked this custom up from their Polish neighbors. The dates range from the mid-17th to mid-19th century.

This chasuble detailed with the coat of arms of Poland was donated to the cathedral by Cecilia Renata, the Austrian queen of King Władysław IV Vasa (1611-44).

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Vestments from the Archdiocesan Museum of Warsaw (Part 1)

This post is something of a follow-up to one I made last week about a chasuble decorated with images of the events surrounding the martyrdom of St Stanislaus, bishop of Krakow, Poland. These pictures come from a friend, Mr Anatole Upart, who recently visited the museum of the archdiocese of Warsaw, and very kindly shared with us these pictures of its very impressive collection of liturgical vestments. A number of these are decorated with the same kind of thickly embroidered images of saints and angels, albeit not at the same level of detail as the Stanislaus vestment. (And it has to be said that one of them is rather cartoonish in appearance.) There aren’t many didactic panels, so I will leave most of them without comment, but from what I know of the style, I believe the majority of these come from the 17th and 18th centuries. Most of these are white; a second post will have more of the other liturgical colors. 

A chalice veil decorated with an image of Casimir, prince of the kingdom of Poland and grand duchy of Lithuania (1458-84), and is venerated a patron Saint of both nations.

Continue Reading this Article. . .

A Visit to the Rectory of Vancouver Cathedral

On a trip last fall to give lectures in Vancouver, I was kindly hosted by the staff of the rectory of the cathedral. During my stay, I took a few photos of some items that will be of interest to many readers of NLM. First, the rectory from the street:

In the hallway at the top of the stairs on the way to the small private chapel is found a rather beautiful alcove with a statue of the Sacred Heart (click to enlarge any image):

The small chapel itself is well appointed for the offering of the traditional Mass, a regular occurrence there:

A parlor nearby features one of the finest statues I’ve ever seen of St. Peter Julian Eymard:

Hanging on the wall, a portrait of Christ, with the inscription “I desire mercy.”

Continue Reading this Article. . .

An Exceptional Chasuble in Honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe

While the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe has long since passed, it is always worth taking a look at the finest handmade vestments in honor of Our Lady, to give honor to her (as is meet), and to inspire ideas in others for vestment commissioning. A case in point is this remarkable vestment set made by Sacra Domus Aurea, worn by a Vancouver priest-friend of mine for a Low Mass on one of the days of my visit there.

Let’s have a look first at the back of the chasuble, obviously designed to be seen for most of the Mass. We see a classic Borromean cut, wider and longer than some other fiddlebacks, and a tasteful use of a rich blue color, studded with gold stars, and allowing room for an ample reproduction of the tilma:

Here’s a close-up taken after Mass:

It is always a delight to see a priest’s coat of arms on a vestment, which is a very traditional way to mark it as his, while striking the dominant note of family heritage and transgenerational patrimony.

The front of the vestment, while plainer, is still noteworthy for its gold piping and well-chosen brocade fabrics, with the ubiquitous star motif:

The maniple continues the stellar theme:

as do the chalice veil and the burse:

Vestments like these accomplish many purposes.

First, they honor God in His saints by the homage of costly beauty.

Second, they honor the priesthood of the priest who dons them in analogy to the Son of God assuming human nature as a garment (in a common patristic manner of speaking) and in analogy to the Christian putting on Christ in baptism, the glorious “clothing” of sanctifying grace.

Third, they delight the faithful with their beauty, which reminds them of the beauty of Our Lady (“tota pulchra es - thou art all fair!”) and of Our Lord, “fairest of the sons of men.”

I am sure more reasons could be given. Fundamentally, such vestments show, without the need for labored explanations, that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a transcendent mystery that demands all the best of our efforts and resources.

Read more of Dr. Kwasniewski’s writing at Tradition & Sanity on Pelican+, and visit his personal website, his composer page, or Os Justi Press.

Pope Leo Restores An Ancient Tradition (From 42 Years Ago)

At the end of this month, our Holy Father Leo XIV will celebrate the feast of Ss Peter and Paul as Pope for the first time. Our readers have perhaps read that the custom will be restored by which during the celebration of Mass in St Peter’s basilica, the pope blesses the pallia which are to be given to those who have lately been made metropolitan archbishops, and personally imposes it on them. In 2015, this custom was changed so that the pope blessed the pallia, but they were imposed on the archbishops back home by the local nuncio. It is difficult to think why this was thought to be necessary, or some kind of improvement, and I think it is a good thing that Pope Leo has undone it. The pallium Mass had become quite a festive occasion in Rome, and many of the new archbishops would be accompanied by large pilgrim groups from their dioceses. It will be nice if these kinds of pilgrimages flourish again.

Pope Leo wearing the pallium during his inaugural Mass last month.

However, it bears remembering that the custom is itself very new, instituted by Pope St John Paul II in 1983. During the homily which he preached at the Mass on June 29 of that year, the pope himself referred to it as a new custom, saying, “During this celebration, this year there will take place the blessing and imposition of the pallia on some recently named archbishops.” I point this out because I have seen a few reports which refer to this as if it were an ancient custom, which it is not; and perhaps this will be useful as a reminder that all customs begin as novelties, and we should not shy away from the new simply because it is new.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, the pallium was for a long time not conferred by the pope in person at all, unless the man to receive it was already a cardinal; much less was there any such special ceremony for it in Rome on the feast of Ss Peter and Paul, or any other feast. “The pallium is conferred in Rome by a cardinal-deacon, and outside of Rome by a bishop; in both cases the ceremony takes place after the celebration of Mass and the administration of the oath of allegiance.” Any archbishop, and some bishops who had the privilege of the pallium, could ask to receive their pallium during a private consistory in Rome, but they were not required to do so. And indeed, the Pontificale of Clement VIII has a special section on the pallium, (right after the consecration of a bishop), the rubrics of which presume that the ceremony is not taking place in Rome, but in the new archbishop’s cathedral. However, where it is more convenient, it may be done in some other church of his diocese, or even one outside his diocese, within the metropolitan province.

The ceremony in the Pontificale for the imposition of the pallium goes as follows. No blessing for it is given, since it is blessed by the pope who sends it. A solemn Mass is celebrated, and after the celebrant’s Communion, the pallium is laid on the altar, wrapped in a silk cloth. After the Mass, the bishop who is to impose it sits before the altar on a faldstool, with cope and miter, and in the name of the Apostolic See, receives the oath of fidelity from the new archbishop, who kneels before him vested as if for Mass, but without miter. (The text of the oath is quite long, and was clearly designed with the memory in mind of the less-than-edifying conduct of some archbishops of old...)

When the oath has been given, the bishop rises and lays it on the new archbishop’s shoulders, saying, “Unto the honor of almighty God, and of the blessed Virgin Mary, and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, of our lord the Pope N., and of the Holy Roman Church, and also of the church of N. entrusted to thee, we hand over to thee the pallium taken from the body of the blessed Peter, in which (pallium) is the fullness of the pontifical office, together with the title of patriarch or archbishop; that thou may use it within thy church on certain days, which are set out in the privileges granted by the Apostolic See. In the name of the Fa✠ther, and of the ✠ Son, and of the Holy ✠ Spirit.” The bishop then withdraws to the epistle side of the altar, and the new archbishop gives the pontifical blessing.

The words “taken from the body of the blessed Peter” refer to the custom, which is indeed VERY ancient, that a pallium is a relic-by-contact from the tomb of St Peter. Within the wall right in front of the Apostle’s tomb is a niche with a silver casket in it, where they are kept until they are sent out. When St John Paul II instituted the custom of imposing them during the Mass of Ss Peter and Paul, it became customary to place the pallia in this casket the evening before, after First Vespers of the feast.

The niche of the pallium within the confessio of St Peter’s Basilica, photographed from upstairs. (Image from Wikimedia Commons by Tieum512, CC BY-SA 3.0.)

From an article published in 2017, the pallium of St Caesarius, archbishop of Arles (470-542; elected 502), sent to him by Pope Symmachus.

The Pontificale also contains several restrictions and requirements regarding the use of the pallium. An archbishop was not allowed to be called by the title Patriarch, Primate or Archbishop before receiving it, nor to consecrate another bishop, hold a synod, make chrism, dedicate a church, or perform ordinations. However, he could entrust these functions to another bishop, as long as he was not deliberately delaying the obtaining of his pallium. If a man were moved from one archbishopric to another, he was required to obtain a new pallium, and could not use his old one to perform these functions. An archbishop without a pallium was free to celebrate Mass, but the archiepiscopal cross could not be carried before him. The pallium was not to be used outside the archbishop’s own province, nor in processions, nor at Masses for the dead, but only on certain feasts, (as stated above in the words said when it was imposed), and it was mandatory that he be buried with it.

The following are the feast days when the pallium was to be used, listed in the Pontificale.

• Christmas
• St Stephen
• St John the Evangelist
• The Circumcision
• Epiphany
• Palm Sunday
• Holy Thursday
• Easter Sunday, Monday and Tuesday
• Low Sunday
• The Ascension
• Pentecost
• Corpus Christi
• The five major feasts of the Virgin Mary: the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, Nativity and Immaculate Conception
• The Birth of St John the Baptist
• St Joseph
• All Saints
• The feasts of all the Apostles
• The principal feasts of the archbishop’s own church.
• At the dedications of churches, ordinations of the clergy, consecrations of bishops, abbots and virgins.
• The anniversary of the dedication of a church
• The anniversary of his own consecration.

Lost Customs of Military Chaplains, Restored on TV

We recently highlighted Matthew Plese’s book “Restoring Lost Customs of Christendom,” a compendium of articles about Catholic customs which have fallen into desuetude, and in some cases been almost wholly forgotten. We were therefore very pleased to see how the currently running show Masters of the Air, about bomber pilots in the European theater of World War II, has documented an old lost custom of Catholic Air Force chaplains. (Episode 3, at the 6:10 mark.) When blessing the men before they departed on a mission, they would wear an alb with no cincture, and a chasuble turned backwards. One of the things which the show highlights is how dangerous bombing missions were, and so the backwards chasuble symbolizes the intention of the blessing, that the men come back safe and sound.

The chaplains also wore a stole on the outside of the chasuble, in reference to the words of the vesting prayer which calls it “the stole of immortality”, since the mortality rates of bombing missions were often very high.

(A bit more than two years ago, we noted a similar revival of the odd use of vestments, an even more thoroughly disused custom of the Sarum Rite, on the BBC’s Father Brown series.)

By the way, I would add that this series is genuinely very well done, an Air Force iteration of the deservedly famous Band of Brothers from 2001, and while it is not a major feature, the religiosity of the characters is really portrayed with sincere respect.

Laudato Si’, Laudato No

In function of that peculiar charism (and, in the telling of some, very peculiar) by which the god of surprises goes about his business, the Sacred Congregation for Rites has just announced the promulgation of a novel liturgical tradition. In order to remind us in a more profound and meaningful way that we celebrate every liturgy as a liturgy of creation, it is now permitted to replace the traditional scheme of liturgical colors with the skins of extinct or endangered species, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s “Conservation Status” scheme. NLM is very honored to be chosen once again by the Sacred Congregation as the medium of promulgation for this important new tradition. Here is an outline of the scheme:

Extinct – funerals

Extinct in the wild – Ash Wednesday and Good Friday

Critically endangered – Lent

Endangered – Advent

Vulnerable – Confessors, Virgins

Near threatened – Apostles, Martyrs

Least concern – feasts of Our Lord, Our Lady and the Angels.

The official Latin text is still being composed (it will be called Risu dignum et justum), but a special note has already been released, which recommends the black-and-white striped hide of the quagga as a profound and meaningful expression of the unity of the Paschal mystery, and therefore especially appropriate for funerals. (It is left to the local episcopal conferences to determine which extinct animals’ hides will be most profoundly significant and meaningful for use in funeral liturgies; they are, however, strictly forbidden from making any such determination without the approval of the Sacred Congregation for Rites, to be requested in writing.)

Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.

The Italian church, always especially forwardist when it comes to matters liturgical, has already put the new tradition to good use, for a celebration of the optional memorial of St Tarzanius. (Courtesy of the Facebook page of the Italian blog Messa in Latino.) 

Laudato Si’...

Laudato No!

NLM asked Mons. Giovanni Boidenio, pontifical cerimoniere and titular archbishop of Amafratria, for his comments on the new tradition. He wrote: “I would love to see the orphreys of a Requiem set done in Great Auk, which has a very rich sheen. Less pliable hides such as those of the Sumatran elephant may represent a challenge for vestment design companies. Could they be employed in a mitre? or perhaps the footwear? I think incorporation of each category is important: nothing would raise environmental awareness more than, say, an alb appareled with Pernambuco pygmy owl, or perhaps some California condor.

This raises another question: is the employment of such endangered/extinct species limited to seasonal vestments? What about liturgicalia that are not season-indicated, such as sacred vessels? For example, the Hawaiian gastropod laminella sanguinea is critically endangered/possibly extinct, so it would qualify as decoration. It has a gorgeous deep red shell and would look really nice inset on the base or cup of a chalice or ciborium. Would this be possible? Or is the new custom limited to vestments?”

Of course, with the emergence of new gene-splicing and cloning technologies, it is possible that some extinct species may become unextinct in the not-too-distant future, in which case, the new liturgical market could provide an important incentive for breeding them. NLM will be the first to let you know about any exciting developments in this new tradition.

A Modern History of Gothic Vestments, 1838-1957 (Part 3): Guest Article by Nico Fassino

This is the third part of Mr Nico Fassino’s article on the history of the revival of Gothic vestments; the first part covered the period from 1841-1863, and the second part from 1863-1925. Mr Fassino is the founder of the Hand Missal History Project, an independent research initiative dedicated to exploring Catholic history through the untold and forgotten experiences of the laity across the centuries. Learn more at HandMissalHistory.com or @HandMissals. Once again, we are very grateful to him for sharing his interesting and thoroughly well-researched work with us.

A chasuble made for Cardinal Odoardo Farnese, ca. 1590-1610, designed by the painter Annibale Carracci. Image from Wikimedia Commons by Sailko, CC BY 3.0.

The Vatican “Ban” of 1925

The use of Gothic vestments continued to spread in England and elsewhere. For example: by 1925, it was reported that every single Catholic church and chapel except one (the Oratory of St. Philip Neri) in the Diocese of Birmingham used Gothic vestments. [38]

That year was a momentous one for the story of Gothic vestments. Pope Pius XI had proclaimed 1925 as a Holy Year, and Rome was chosen as the host city for an International Exhibition of Modern Christian Art. During the exhibition, “newly-made vestments, according to the Borromeon proportions, were shown in a special audience with Pius XI, who approved their use and blessed them.” [39]

Afterwards, there seems to have been a desire by some in Rome to walk back any idea of increased Gothic permissions. On December 9, 1925, the Sacred Congregation of Rites responded to a question regarding vestments. The rescript was exceedingly brief, did not formulate any new regulations or details, and simply referred the question back to the well-known letter of 1863, which was appended to the response:

[Question]: In the making and use of vestments for the sacrifice of the Mass and sacred functions, is it permissible to depart from the accepted usage of the Church and introduce another style and shape, even an old one?

[Response]: It is not permitted, without consulting the Holy See, in accordance with the Decree or circular letter of the S.R.C., given to Ordinaries on August 21, 1863. [40]

This was the very first time that the text of the 1863 letter had been published in any official collection of decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. It is likely for this reason that the 1925 reply was commonly viewed as a ‘new’ or ‘updated’ Roman intervention on Gothic vestments, despite the fact that the reply merely pointed back to the original letter.

The Ecclesiastical Review, Dec, 1925, p. 626

The 1925 reply quickly raised questions around the world. It was reported in some quarters as an attempt to stop the widespread adoption of Gothic vestments. The editors of the Ecclesiastical Review answered several questions about it, discussed the original 1863 letter, and again did not interpret the decision to mean that ongoing use of Gothic vestments (or even the manufacture of new ones) was forbidden:

“Hence, while the use of the so-called Roman chasuble, in which the shoulder parts slightly overlap, is recognized as the prevailing approved custom, many churches in England, Germany, America, and even in Rome, adopt what is designated as the Gothic style to distinguish it from the purely Roman. It is certainly the more graceful of the two, and hence is commonly adopted in ecclesiastical art.” [41]

“The use of the Gothic chasuble in the modified form adopted by St. Charles and proposed by Bishop Gavanti, the Roman master of Pontifical ceremonies, is not forbidden. [...] The traditional right, which is not merely a privilege, of using Gothic vestments as described, was not abrogated by Pius IX or the S. Congregation, but continues wherever it has been regularly or accidentally adopted before that time.” [42]

As news of this reply from Rome spread in English-speaking lands, it produced a decent amount of confusion, and in some cases seems to have been met with barely a shrug. [43] Tongue-in-cheek commentary was offered in diocesan newspapers about the “battle of vestments” and the absurdity of attempting to define how ‘amply cut’ a vestment could be before it became forbidden.

The Catholic Transcript, April 15, 1926. p. 4

Gothic Vestments after the ‘ban’ of 1925

Given this reception and interpretation of the 1925 rescript, it will not be surprising that Gothic vestments continued to be used and continued to spread in the years which followed. In the decade following the 1925 document, they were discussed as normal and licit things by diocesan newspapers and the US Bishops’ news service; they were manufactured and advertised by church goods retailers, they were used in the presence of bishops and by bishops themselves; they were even used by papal legates and by the pope himself!

Gothic Chasuble commissioned in 1929 by Cardinal Francis Bourne. From Dom E.A. Roulin, Vestments and Vesture: A Manual of Liturgical Art (London: Sands & Co, 1933), page 94.

• In 1926, Gothic vestments were used at the Solemn Midnight Mass at the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land in Washington, DC. [44]
• In 1927, the US Bishops’ news service praised Sacred Heart church in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for fostering a liturgical revival and specifically commented upon the exclusive use of Gothic vestments. [45]
• In 1929, a special set of Gothic vestments was worn on the feast of St. Ignatius and Golden Jubilee of Rev. William Cunningham, SJ at the Church of the Gesù in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [46]
• In 1929, Cardinal Francis Bourne commissioned Gothic vestments for Westminster Cathedral during the celebration of the centenary of Catholic Emancipation. [47]

On March 19, 1930, Pope Pius XI used Gothic vestments during mass at St. Peter’s, and allowed himself to be photographed while doing so. [48] Gothic vestments were widely used throughout Rome during these years, including by cardinals in the catacombs, at the Basilica of St. Sebastian, and in celebrations organized by the Pontifical Academy of Martyrs and presided over by the papal master of ceremonies. [49]

Pope Pius XI celebrating Mass in a Gothic chasuble made for him by the Poor Clares of Mazamet, France. Source: Raymund James, “The Origin and Development of Roman Liturgical Vestments” (Exeter: Catholic Records Press, 1934), page 2.

In 1934 the Catholic Church in Australia held a National Eucharistic Congress in Melbourne, celebrating the centenary of the church in that country and featuring “unprecedented” spectacular ceremonies and vast numbers of clergy and laity. On November 30, following the opening ceremonies for the congress, pontifical high mass was celebrated at St. Patrick’s Cathedral by papal legate Cardinal Joseph MacRory in the presence of 60 bishops and 450 priests from around Australia. The cardinal and celebrating ministers wore Gothic vestments. [50]

The Telegraph (Brisbane), Nov. 30, 1934, p. 7 

The following day Archbishop Filippo Bernardini, papal nuncio to Australia, celebrated another pontifical high mass in St. Patrick’s Cathedral for a crowd of more than 7,500 people, wearing Gothic vestments, which were frequently used throughout the Eucharistic Congress. [51]

Full approval of Gothic Vestments

In the years which followed, various members of the hierarchy of Australia continued to use Gothic vestments in high-profile settings, as in 1937, when Archbishop of Adelaide Andrew Killian used them during the consecration of Francis Henschke as Bishop of Wagga Wagga. [52]

They continued to receive official approval and use around the world during these years, for example, being authorized for the Archdiocese of Malines by Cardinal Jozef-Ernest van Roey in 1938, and by the Second Diocesan Synod of Quebec in 1940. [53]

Gothic vestments even reached the literal ends of the Earth during this period. During the US Navy’s Antarctic Expedition, on January 26, 1947, the first ever Catholic Mass offered in Antarctica was celebrated in extremely rustic conditions in the mess hall of camp ‘Little America IV’ on the Ross Ice Shelf. Rev. William Menster, chaplain of the flagship USS Mount Olympus, used green Gothic vestments. [54]

At left, Rev. William Menster; at right, the USS Mount Olympus (AGC-8) in Antartica, 1947. (Sources: left and right.)

Finally, on August 20, 1957, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued a decree which gave bishops the right to permit the use of Gothic vestments in their own dioceses. From this point onward their use, which had been regular throughout the world by priests and bishops alike since 1925, only further increased.

NCWC News Service, Aug. 31, 1957, wire copy p. 8

Conclusions

This concludes our survey of the use of Gothic vestments between 1841 and 1957. It is a story far more complex and fascinating than that depicted by conventional narratives. What can we make of all this? I think there are several key points which are worthy of summary and further discussion.

First, it is abundantly clear that the ‘revival’ of Gothic vestments in the modern period was much more widespread throughout Europe–particularly in England, France, and German-speaking lands–much earlier than commonly thought. By 1849 it was authorized by multiple bishops (in some cases on a diocesan-wide basis) across the continent.

Second, it is also clear that from the very early days of the Gothic revival, there were some officials in Rome who were skeptical and disapproving of the use of these vestments. The number of those who disliked the Gothic, as well as their roles and the intensity of their opposition, varied over the years. On multiple occasions, the popes themselves directly gave approval for and/or approving remarks about Gothic vestments. But in general, there was consistently more opposition than support from various members of the curia.

Despite this, it is also evident that Rome did not ever unequivocally condemn or actually attempt to stamp out the practice, and that there was widespread toleration of Gothic vestments, which evolved into permission to the local bishops. [55] There were no formal restrictions against Gothic vestments until the circular letter of 1863, and even then it was not viewed by chanceries and clerical journals around the world as a strict ‘ban’. The text of the letter was not published for more than 60 years afterwards and not a single different or clarifying statement was ever issued by Vatican officials.

It’s obvious that there was a persistent lack of clarity on what Rome permitted, tolerated, or forbade, as is evident from the number of times the question was raised in clerical journals and Catholic periodicals). There was also a widespread interpretation that Gothic vestments could continue to be used with the permission of the bishop. Because of this, the situation varied from diocese to diocese and region to region. In some cities or dioceses, the use of Gothic vestments was fully approved; in others, it was forbidden or limited.

All of this demonstrates how difficult it would be to claim that there was a clear message from Rome or to assign the label of disobedience to those many priests, bishops, and laity who produced, purchased, and used Gothic vestments for decades even after the 1863 letter. They were discussed approvingly in diocesan newspapers, permitted and used by the bishops and cardinals of the region, and routinely sanctioned by canonical and clerical journals. If the use of these vestments was in fact disobedient or forbidden during these decades, could the common priest or member of the laity have been expected to discover that fact with any certainty? [56]

Even after the Vatican rescript of 1925–which merely pointed back to the 1863 letter, and again, was not interpreted as a ban–the use of Gothic vestments did not slow or diminish. Just 5 years after the rescript, the pope himself was photographed in Gothic vestments. Within less than a decade, multiple papal nuncios and legates were regularly using them in the most high-profile and public ceremonies possible.

Photograph of the Gothic vestments blessed by Pope Pius XI in 1925. Source: Dom E.A. Roulin, Vestments and Vesture: A Manual of Liturgical Art (London: Sands & Co, 1933), page 82.

Because the use of Gothic vestments was so widespread before 1900 (and was desired and encouraged by so many different priests and bishops in so many different countries for so many years) it seems clear that it would have been essentially impossible to avoid the trend even without the advent of the modern Liturgical Movement in the 1920s.

If Rome truly viewed the ongoing use of Gothic vestments as a clear abuse or explicitly forbidden, it must be said that they handled it in one of the worst and most ineffective ways possible. Furthermore, once papal representatives and the pope himself began to even occasionally use them for public masses, any remaining doubt about their permissibility was eliminated in the mind of Catholics around the world.

Following the decree of 1957, Gothic vestments came to dominate the ecclesiastical landscape and their use for the last several decades has been essentially universal. Contrary to the expectations of the writer in America in 1910, it seems that the vast majority of priests in the mid-20th century did not adopt the Gothic with “heavy hearts” after all. It is also interesting that the lighthearted commentary from 1926 now appears to be extraordinarily prescient:

“The question of amplitude or non-amplitude in vestments will never, let it be hoped, rise, or descend, to schismatical proportions. There was a long dispute over the date of Easter. The war of the Vestments ought to be settled within a generation or two at the utmost.” [57]

And indeed it was.

NOTES (numeration continued from previous article):

[38] The Advocate (Melbourne), June 4, 1925, page 15.

Continue Reading this Article. . .

A Modern History of Gothic Vestments, 1838-1957 (Part 2): Guest Article by Nico Fassino

This is the second part of Mr Nico Fassino’s article on the history of the revival of Gothic vestments; the first part was published on Wednesday. Mr Fassino is the founder of the Hand Missal History Project, an independent research initiative dedicated to exploring Catholic history through the untold and forgotten experiences of the laity across the centuries. Learn more at HandMissalHistory.com or @HandMissals. Once again, we are very grateful to him for sharing his interesting and thoroughly well-researched work with us.

Reception of the 1863 letter

Despite the 1863 letter from the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the use of Gothic vestments did not seem to be much changed in the years which followed. Records demonstrate the widespread and uncontroversial use of Gothic vestments around the globe during these years, including:

• In 1870, a magnificent set of Gothic vestments worth approximately $50,000 in modern valuation was given to Bishop Richard Roskell of Nottingham for use in the cathedral. [15]
• In 1873, Archbishop of Sydney John Polding wore “rich” Gothic vestments as he ordained Christopher Reynolds as Bishop of Adelaide in a large ceremony attended by at least four other Australian bishops. [16]
• The 1867, 1879, 1883, and 1885 retail catalogs of Benziger Brothers, the premier Catholic publishing house and church goods retail in the United States, offered Gothic-style vestments. [17]
• At his ordination by 1887, newly-consecrated Bishop of Wilcannia John Dunne wore “a superb and costly” set of white and gold Gothic vestments. [18]
• By 1895, one account observed: “… there is a great diversity in this respect [of vestments] in the Roman Catholic Church. In England, the Gothic, French, and the Italian chasubles are all freely used by the Roman Catholic Clergy. [...] The Swiss Roman Catholic clergy and those in many parts of Germany use Gothic vestments, not those of Renaissance form”. [19]

Archbishop of Sydney John Bede Polding in Gothic vestments, 1866

Another summarized the situation thus: “[a]s in England, so also on the Continent, the advance of the ample chasuble was notable. By 1900 many dioceses in Western Europe could show churches where it was in use. Some of them had secured indults, some had simply accepted a growing custom, and all could cite the example of Rome itself, where several cardinals and at least two popes (Pius IX and X) encouraged the ample chasuble and used it themselves.” [20]

Helene Stummel, ca. 1890

Helene Stummel, wife of the famous artist Frederick Stummel, was a vestment maker, and a passionate advocate for the revival of Gothic vestments during these years. She was sought after by many bishops, taught regularly across Europe, and published books on recommendations for the design of vestments:

“Madam Stummel has lectured before cardinals, bishops, and the clergy in Rome, before the Congresses of Cologne and Dusseldorf. Recently a number of the Bishops of England have invited her to speak before the conferences of the clergy and in their seminaries to the students of theology. She possesses a singular mastery of the subject, and has the means to illustrate her clear and erudite expositions from a rare collection of paramentics gathered and disposed with artistic skill and a thorough realization of the dignity of the subject.” [21]

One may wonder how such a situation could exist following the circular letter of 1863. It seems exceedingly implausible that significant numbers of bishops and priests of multiple countries throughout the world were deliberately disobeying Roman directives. What then is the explanation?

Interpretation of the 1863 letter

First, it is interesting to note that the 1863 letter was not published or included in the official collection of decrees and decisions of the Sacred Congregation of Rites for more than sixty years after it was written. It is possible that, because of this, in some isolated cases the letter went unheeded due to lack of awareness, or because it was viewed as less authoritative than a formal decree. [22]

The letter was widely known in general, however, and regularly cited in clerical journals or similar interpretive authorities. These discussions demonstrate how the 1863 letter was understood and applied over decades and suggest an explanation for why the use of Gothic vestments continued: in short, the letter was not considered to be an unequivocal or totally restrictive ban.

Writing in 1884, the editors of the Irish Ecclesiastical Record explained that this letter permitted Gothic vestments to continue to be used but prevented any new vestments from being produced: “[i]n the face of this decree, it is not lawful to manufacture new vestments of this pattern. The bishop may allow the use of those already made, till they are worn out.” [23]

Painting of Rev. William Lockhart, from the cover of “William Lockhart: First Fruits of the Oxford Movement” (Herefordshire: Gracewing, 2011).

Rev. William Lockhart, a convert and friend of John Henry Newman, offered extensive commentary on the 1863 letter in the pages of the Irish Ecclesiastical Record in 1890, stating that, among other things, the manufacture of ‘Borromean’ chasubles (in the size and shape prescribed by St. Charles Borromeo) remained fully permitted without requiring any special permission, as did the ‘Galway’ chasuble in Ireland. [24]

Despite the continuing use of Gothic vestments and the prevailing interpretation that the 1863 letter permitted this (but not the manufacture of new ones), Rome did not issue any further instructions, clarifications, or restrictions. [25]

The hated modern ‘French’ style

It is also worth noting that there were a number of prominent clerical and lay figures during these years who regularly wrote about their preference for the Gothic style in clerical journals and Catholic periodicals. Ernest Gilliat-Smith, for example, wrote in 1890, “... to my mind, Gothic vestments are preferable to Roman, both from an artistic and symbolic point of view, and I hope and trust that one day their use may be universal.” [26]

There was also widespread and long running disdain for the cheap, mass-produced French (modern fiddleback-style) vestments. These had undergone rather significant changes in style – described by some as “cutting and clipping” and others as “mutilation” – both before and after the French Revolution. These new forms were not forbidden by Rome and had quickly spread throughout Italy and elsewhere. [27]

Example of French-style clerical dress, 1776

The trend was described by the editors of the American Ecclesiastical Review as “[t]he growing abuse of the viol- (fiddle-) shaped chasuble, forced on the ecclesiastical market by the French makers of paramentics and silk merchants.” [28] Commentary in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record in 1890 is at turns both comical and illustrative, and seems worth quoting at length:

“Who can describe the abortion of the chasuble that pervades France at the present day? Fiddle-shaped in front, not coming down to the knees, stiff with buckram, or paper pasted on the poverty-stricken half-cotton-half-silk material of Lyons manufacture. They are as stiff as tea-boards, and crack if they are bent.

“I was told a story lately in Belgium, of a priest who objected to the stiff paper pasted between the flimsy silk and cheap cotton lining. The manufacturer [...] misunderstanding the objection of the priest, replied: ‘Yes, M. l‘Abbe, we always use paper, in order that they may wear better, and to add to the substantial appearance of our vestments; but I assure you, on this point I have a delicate conscience, and I never put into vestments anything but des bons journaux Catholiques [good Catholic newspapers].”

“These Lyons vestments are going every day all over the world. They are cheap, and Les Dames pieuses can thus make their collections go a good way in providing vestments for Les Missions Etrangeres. [...] We need not wonder that Pius IX intimated in the letter of Cardinal Patrizi that there might be good reasons (rationes alicujus ponderis), in favour of a return to the more ancient form of the vestment.” [29]

Even the noted authority Bishop Josephus van der Stappen commented dismissively on the French corruption of the chasuble:

“Hence, when the ancient chasuble had, in the course of time, been cut down from its generous proportions of old, to the skimp reduction of modern times, and the evil had found its way from France into the neighboring countries, there arose in England, France itself, Germany, and Belgium men who, animated by a zeal for Christian art, sought on their own account to restore the ancient practice by adopting the more beautiful style of Gothic vestments...” [30]

American Gothic (Vestments)

In America, by the turn of the century, there was some regular use of Gothic vestments and clear clerical support for more. Even the editors of the Ecclesiastical Review, nobody’s idea of progressive innovators, routinely featured pieces and editorials supporting their adoption.

Excerpt from the Ecclesiastical Review, April 1910

Beyond mere support, the Review was considered to be a driving force behind a movement pushing for the change in vestments. A letter from 1910 begins: “To the Editor, The Ecclesiastical Review. My hearty congratulations upon the movement you have started for the very desirable reform in our church vestments. Enclosed is a typical letter showing that you have many well-wishers with you in this matter…” [31]  Multiple examples of proposed Gothic designs were published in the Review, along with example measurements of what was permissible.

Model of proposed Gothic chasuble in the Ecclesiastical Review, December 1909, page 687.

The use and permissibility of Gothic vestments were widely discussed in various Catholic publications of the time. Some discussions even considered the potential future of a Roman decree to abandon fiddlebacks and exclusively adopt the Gothic! A 1910 editorial in the Jesuit journal America commented on the matter in a rather cheeky fashion:

The proper form and colors of vestments is being discussed in the Ecclesiastical Review[…] they represent a school long in existence in Germany and England, and are strong in art and aesthetics. We fear the faithful are largely Philistines [regarding which style of vestments they prefer]. Moreover, the Latin races are not likely to submit gladly even in this matter to the Teuton. [...]

If the Holy See so ordains, priests will all exchange our aniline-dyed, fiddle-shaped vestments for modified Gothic of subdued, esthetic hue. But many will do so with heavy hearts and there will be heavy hearts, too, among their people. It is hard to part with old friends, and the modern form and the bright colors have many to love them. For, after all, as Andrew Lang, singing in ‘The Galleries’ the charms of the two schools of art, confesses: ‘You still must win the public vote, Philistia!’ ” [32]

Examples of a proposed three-tiered system of vestments, in the Ecclesiastical Review, March 1910, page 351. This system was devised by Bishop Wilhelm von Keppler of Rottenburg, Germany. [33]

Through the first decade of the twentieth century we find records of the use of Gothic vestments across America. In 1910, Gothic vestments were in use in St. Mary’s church in Portland, Oregon. The Tabernacle Societies of the cathedrals in Baltimore and Cincinnati, which funded supplies and furnishings for parishes too poor to afford them, regularly produced Gothic vestments during these years. [34]

In 1914, the general American situation was summarized as follows: “[d]uring the last few years there has been a steady advance, especially in our larger city churches, towards a more exact observance of the rubrics and the carrying out of the solemn services of the Church. One of the notable features has been a closer approach, in the matter of vestments, to the old Roman usage, and many churches have adopted altogether the use of the so-called Gothic (old Roman) chasuble in place of the violin-shaped garments introduced by Gallican enterprise.” [35]

Example of Gothic vestments being given to bishops as gifts. Source: NCWC News Service, May 28, 1923, wire copy page 15.

Parishes were proud to own fine Gothic vestments and hefty sums were paid out for the best sets from American and European retailers. They were also frequently given as gifts by various parish or diocesan groups to their priests and bishops. For example, in 1922 the St. Anne Married Ladies’ Sodality at St. Mary's parish in Dayton, Ohio paid $900 for an imported set as a Christmas gift to their pastor (equal to $16,345 in 2023 when adjusted for inflation). [36]

By 1924 they seem to be in widespread and regular use, at least in certain parts of the country. In Cincinnati alone there are multiple examples of Gothic vestments mentioned in less than 12 months: at the Student’s Crusade Castle chapel, at the parishes of St. Margaret of Cortona and St. Agnes, and even at the Cathedral. [37]

This concludes the second article in this series. The third and final article will explore the use of Gothic vestments between 1925 and 1957 and offer conclusions concerning the whole series.

NOTES (numeration continued from previous article):
[15] The Nottinghamshire Guardian, April 22, 1870, page 2. The set was donated by nuns of Cologne, Germany and was valued at between £400-500 in 1870, or £39,180 adjusted for inflation as of June 2023.

Continue Reading this Article. . .