The Fascia

There has been 394 years of disciplinary changes to ecclesiastical dress since Urban VIII. The most recent legislation before Paul VI's SRC Decree of Oct. 30, 1970, which abolished the formal fascia but not all use of the fascia altogether and didn't intend to prohibit the fascia for those who deserve to wear it, is Nainfa and Fr. Henry McCLoud. Nainfa and Fr. McCLoud do not mention the use of the fascia by the ordinary secular clergy at all except by irremovable pastors and rectors of seminaries -  "By a decree of Urban VIII, in 1624, the cassock was to be bound with a sash, but in the course of time this rule has fallen into disuse, although some of the orders and congregations (not secular clergy) still observe this law…The sash when worn by prelates is a sign of dignity; when worn by SOME members of the clergy it denotes jurisdiction"…Outside of the Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops & Bishops, Canons, Domestic Prelates, Monsignori de Mantellone, only, "as a sign of ordinary jurisdiction, irremovable pastors and rectors of seminaries as a sign of authority  may wear a black sash of plain silk with black fringes." However, James Charles Noonan says, "sadly, by abolishing the formal fascia, which had existed for nearly three hundred years, the clergy wrongly assumed that the fascia itself was abolished for all but the prelature." 

But, between Fr. McCloud and Mr. Noonan, I would go with Fr. McCloud who was considered an expert and his book on ecclesiastical dress is considered one of the go to classics. Given that the fascia didn't have to be worn within the rectory or church unless some formal event dictated otherwise, most priests wouldn't wear it unless they had to show their jurisdiction, dignity, or livery for some occasion. Nainfa concurs with Fr. McCloud almost word for word and Nainfa had for his source Barbier de  Montault the 19th century expert on Roman School liturgy, ecclesiastical dress, and court protocol par excellence. One should read the chapters on the fascia by Montault, Nainfa and Mcloud, and Noonan's Chapter 18 in his book, "The Church Visible" to see the full development of this. At some point between Urban VIII and Paul VI you have Nainfa and McCLoud insinuating that it became ordinary practice that simple clergy including secular parish priests didn't wear a fascia as an ordinary part of dress unless they were irremovable pastors or the rectors of seminaries. In between Ubran VIII and Paul VI you also have the abolition of abito corto which transformed into abito piano which regularized the wearing of the cassock outside of church property and the rectory. This also might have added to the confusion of clerics since they were not used to wearing the fascia outside of church with abito corto anyways. 

Also, the last legislation on the books about the cassock, is a Constitution from the Roman Synod by John XXIII in 1961, which dictated that the greca or ferraiolo must be worn over the cassock when out and about outside. However, in the summertime the fascia may be worn in place of the greca or ferraiolo. Some say he did this out of silent protest and respect to the abolition of abito corto. Leo XIII before he was Pope, continued wearing abito corto even though abito piano was well established. All this might have influenced the use and non-use of the fascia. All this might have influenced the perception that the fascia could be worn at all times because over the course of time the allowance of the fascia in the summertime to cover the cassock became misunderstood and/or forgotten. There's also more rules to what the cassock can consist of for ordinary priests than just silk buttons. But, in addition to this, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has never made it formally clear, amongst the trad orders who use 1962 Missal, which parts of 1917 code to use and which of 1983 code to use. But from the questions they receive and the ones which they have answered - priests in the groups under the PCED must conform to the ecclesiastical dress laws enforced during the 62 Missal and earlier.

In the liturgy a different fascia is worn which is wider in width and has fiocchi at the end instead of fringes. Nainfa and Fr. McCloud, in their books on ecclesiastical dress, insinuate that it was repealed by universal disuse outside of religious orders, congregations, and irremovable pastors and rectors of seminaries. I have an interesting group photo from 1875 when St. Pius X was spiritual director and confessor at the seminary. The group photo was of the Ordinary, Rector and the staff of ten priests including Fr. Sarto (Pius X). The ordinary and rector had fascias and out of the ten priests, only two were a wearing a fascia and one of them was Fr. Sarto. This photo would indeed confirm to some extent what Nainfa and McCloud teach in their manuals on clerical costume. 

Fascia with fiocchi (worn during liturgy)

 

Fascia with fringe (worn outside of liturgy)

ORDO REGNUM CHRISTIANORUM

ORDO REGNUM CHRISTIANORUM

The Formal Diplomatic Ranking Of The Catholic Nations And Their Monarchs As Originally Established By The Pope - Leader Of The Christian World

The formal precedence for diplomatic legates and ambassadors to and from the courts of kings and emperors was first established in 1504 at the papal court of Pope Julius II on the occasion of the visit to Rome by the English king, Henry VIII. Ambassadors and legates were granted official standing according to how their monarchs were placed on this listing, a custom that remained for more than four hundred years.

Despite the disappearance of many of these sovereign states today (either by natural circumstances or illegal revolutions), this table is actually still recognized as the foundation of the established modern order of precedence for nation-states with diplomatic standing with the Holy See. Modern ambassadors still receive their precedence, in part, due to this ancient formula, although, naturally, adaptations have been made in the modern era. The royals on the list below are under the authority, dominion, and spiritual care of the Pope. Usually, throughout history, some of these Titles are simultaneously held by one person, usually the Holy Roman Emperor. 

1. Imperator Caesar – Holy Roman Emperor (Imperial & Royal Majesty*, Most Apostolic Majesty -Rex apostolicamus.) 2. Rex Romanorum – King of the Romans 3. Rex Franciae – King of the Franks (Most Christian Majesty – Rex christianissimus). France is known as the Eldest Daughter of the Church. 4. Rex Hispaniae – King of Spain (Most Catholic Majesty – Maxime Rex Catholicus). Spain is known as the Catholic Monarchy (Monarchia Catholica) 5. Rex Aragoniae – King of Aragon 6. Rex Portugalliae – King of Portugal (Most Faithful Majesty – Rex fidelissimus). 7.  Rex Angliae – King of England 8.  Rex Siciliae – King of Sicily 9.  Rex Scotia – King of the Scots 10. Rex Hungariae – King of Hungary 11. Rex Navarrae – King of Navarre 12. Rex Cipri – King of Cyprus 13. Rex Bohemiae – King of Bohemia 14. Rex Poloniae – King of Poland 15. Rex Daniae – King of the Danes (Denmark)

16. Dux Britanniae – Duke of Brittany 17. Dux Burgundiae – Duke of Burgundy 18. Dux Bavariae – Duke of Bavaria 19. Dux Saxoniae – Duke of Saxony 20. Marchio Brandenburgensis – Margrave of Brandenburg 21. Dux Austriae – Duke of Austria 22. Dux Sabaudiae – Duke of Swabia 23. Dux Mediolani – Duke of the Milan 24. Dux Venetiarum – Doge of Venice 25. Duces Bavariae – Dukes of Bavaria 26. Duces Franciae et Lotharingiae – Dukes of Lorraine 27. Dux Borboniae – Duke of Bourbon (France) 28. Dux Ferrariae – Duke of Ferrara

The list does not include the duchies that came about in the late baroque era and modern era before the collapse of Catholic Temporal power. These include the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the Duchy of Luca, the Republic of Venice, etc. etc. When these existed they fell under the corresponding titles on the list. The list also doesn’t include the King of Jerusalem since at the start of the 13th Century the King of Jerusalem was de facto the Holy Roman Emperor and also claimed, de facto, by the King of Spain, because, at one point, Spain was part of the Holy Roman Empire. The monarchs who are the King of Jerusalem would never dream of actually having their throne in Jerusalem. As an aside, within the hierarchy of the Church, it wasn’t until the reign of Bl. Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) that the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem physically sat and lived in Jerusalem.

Interestingly, those monarchies – and democratic nation-states founded after the formulation of this list – take precedence after those sited within the original listing and within each class of monarchical form of government, with empires being superior to kingdoms, grand duchies superior to sovereign duchies, and sovereign duchies superior to principalities, and princely comital domains and democratic systems, following in sequence.

After the 16th Century, due to the Protestant revolution, when Christendom was cleaved, Roman Catholic monarchs were always advanced above non-Catholics within each class of monarchy in terms of ambassadors, while non-Catholic sovereign and heads of royal houses were not generally received into the papal presence until the last years of the reign of Blessed-Pope Pius IX (1846-78).

The few republican forms of government in existence prior to the advent of the twentieth century followed all types of monarchical government (they were not like the liberal republics of the revolutions beginning in the late 18th Century. They were ruled by a Doge), with the Republic of Venice, Roman Catholic Serene Republic of San Marino and the many minor Catholic City-States found within Italy. They take precedence above all other modern republics no matter their size or import.

Today, this formula remains mainly ceremonial since in modern times, all nations accredited to the Holy See now receive the same degree of recognition.

N.B.:

* - Given that the Holy Roman Emperor was at different points in history and today the holder of multiple royal titles, sometimes being the king of multiple countries, his title is Imperial and Royal Majesty.

* - On a personal note, unfortunately, the Tsar of the Russian Empire doesn’t make the list because Russia ceased to be a Catholic Kingdom in the late 14-1500s. A little before Pope Julius II made the list. (“Endless references to the thousand-year estrangement between Rome and Moscow display ignorance of the fact that 1,000 years ago the Patriarchate of Moscow did not exist. It was created in 1589. Even the position of Metropolitan of Moscow goes back only to 1448. The creation of the Moscow Metropolitanate was a direct reaction to the fact that the Church of Kyiv (Kiev) had re-established full communion with Rome at the Council of Florence through Metropolitan Isidore. The Metropolitan of Kyiv, Petro Akerovych, had attended the First Council of Lyons in 1245. Moscow cannot claim the history of the Kyivan Church as its own and simultaneously ignore such momentous moments in that history. Furthermore, the Kyivan Church re-established full communion with Rome in 1596 through the Union of Brest, an explicit revival of Florentine models of unity, only to be beaten back by rivals who did not accept this Union” – Fr. Andriy Chirovsky).

Coronation of Pope Pius VI
Absolute Monarch and Spiritual Shepherd over all Christian Princes

Featurette of an Unknown Thomist

Fr. Carlo Boyer, S.J.

"Carlo Boyer (1939). Boyer was a Jesuit Neo-Scholastic professor at the Gregorian University and a member of the Roman Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. His Cursus Philosophiae manual had an introduction by Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, later to become Pope Pius XII, which praised the doctrine (from Aquinas), the order of presentation, and the treatment of "modern" questions. The presentation is very well ordered, has great clarity using the thesis form, follows the traditional order of philosophical tracts, and is very useful as a class text. Boyer argues very succinctly and to the point. Boyer is useful in his treatment of evolution, he answers both the Neo-Darwinians (Weissmann) and the Neo-Lamarckians. He holds the possibility ("possibilis est evolutio intra plures inferiores gradus classificationis") of evolution "within" the lower grades of classification, such as species, genus, and family. He denies evolution "between" species ("non habetur evolutio ab una specie proprie dicta ad aliam"). He is interested in the origin of the body of man, and denies it originates by evolution ("corpus hominis non est per evolutionem brutorum formatum"). Boyer has an extensive treatment of Charles Darwin, whom he generally opposes. Specific opposition of Boyer relates to Darwin’s view that the sensible appetite is just a complex of sensations; Darwin’s opinion that beasts do not differ essentially from man; Darwin’s view that the whole man, body and soul, evolved; Darwin’s systematic presentation of evolution; and Darwin’s position that God is not demonstrated from order in the world.

Carlo Boyer is also a member of the Roman Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. For example, he wrote for the Academy journal in 1954 in Italian on the proofs for the existence of God given by Aquinas. He noted that atheism and its increase is the scandal of our time. He noted that never before in history has the negation of God been so audacious and so apparently successful. The article on atheism is especially relevant to our presentation of evolutionary atheism. In 1962, he wrote in French for that same Academy journal on "School Liberty." This was an activist article which noted that whoever cares for the good of humanity is very interested in the question of education. This article is especially relevant to our presentation on the evolutionary future of man." - John Edward Mulvihill, S.T.D., D.Min., Ph.D.

St. Thomas Aquinas

The Roman Rite Traced To St. Peter

Fr. Ripperger once said in a lecture that all the Rites in the Church can be traced back to an Apostle except for one. But he didn't mention which one, but he insinuated that the Roman Rite was one of the Rites that does. And, one of the greatest liturgists, Fr. Gihr, said in his magnum opus,

"Already Pope Innocent I (402-17), in writing about matters of ritual to Decentius, Bishop of Guibbio, traces the origin of the Roman Liturgy to the Prince of the Apostles: 'Who does not know,' he writes, 'that what has been handed down by Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, to the Roman Church is still observed unto this day and must be observed by all?' St. Peter, consequently, must be regarded (in a more general sense) as the founder of the Roman Liturgy, for the method of celebration followed and introduced by him was undoubtedly the essential and permanent foundation for its later development and form. 'This liturgy, as yet a tender plant, was brought by St. Peter, the Prince of the Church, into the garden of the Roman Church, where by his nursing care and that of his successors, assisted by the Holy Ghost, it has grown to a large tree, and although the trunk has long ago attained its full growth, it nevertheless shoots forth in every century new branches and new blossoms' (Kossing)…The most ancient inventories of the Roman Liturgy we possess are in three Sacramentaries, which bear the names of Pope Leo I (440-61), Gelasius I (492-96), and Gregory I (590-604)…The above named Popes faithfully preserved the ancient formulas."

So, one can even say, in its core structure, the Roman Rite goes back to St. Peter himself. Some Catholics don't realize when they say, "The Mass," it is a shortened formula for "The Mass of Apostolic Tradition." Having a Rite that goes back to the Apostles was severely attacked by the New Liturgical Movement, especially by Parsch, Jungmann, and Bouyer. We are talking about an antiquity that must be revered and respected. Hence, the anathema attached to Quo Primum.

The Council of Trent and St. Pius V knew of this revered antiquity in the Liturgy and how it transmits the faith from age to age. He knew the Tridentine revisions were a blossom on the branch of the tree St. Peter planted. Lex orandi, lex credendi. "There is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours. ..The prejudice that imagines that everything Eastern must be old is a mistake. All Eastern rites have been modified later too; some of them quite late. No Eastern rite now used is so archaic as the Roman Mass" (Fortescue).