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)
Hello Mr. Wolfe, I thoroughly enjoyed your piece on the fascia and other notes on traditional Latin clerical dress. I would love to read more. I am very much traditionally oriented toward pre-Pius IX clerical dress along with a vision of true Tridentine-baroque dress that is modest, sober, and yet triumphantly upholding the fullness of Catholicism. In response to your piece I have the following for you: do you think that the decree that you mention is truly from the SRC? Or was it the CDW? Wasn't the SRC transferred to the CDW in '69? Was this during the transition period? Also, I think it would have been a good idea to refer to Pope Leo XIII as Cardinal Pecci when talking about his use of the abito corto. I think it was Pope Pius IX who abolished the abito corto. I think it would be a good idea to mention him instead of " between Urban VIII and Paul VI." It is interesting to note that you mention "outside" in reference to John XXIII and his "decree" on clerical dress. The definition of outside is implicit earlier in your piece but I am not sure of your intended audience. Perhaps it would be a good idea to indicate that "outside" refers to both the intention of going out away from the property and also in fact doing so for more than what prudence would dictate is unnecessary for the use of the Greca. Another is that the 1917 code mentions that a "short black coat to the knees" is necessary when walking outside/on the street. It is interesting that Bouscaren in his commentary on the code indicates that at least around the time of the mid 40s there was a general practice of wearing a coat which did not even extend to the knees. In thinking about this we can see that this is one of the last vestiges of the abito corto. It is interesting that we see two customs now a days namely that of wearing the greca or coat extend past the knees and of some priests wearing a short coat that does not extend to the knees, but out of all of these coats it is undeniable that the most traditional practice is that of wearing the black frock coat to the knees even though in itself it is not traditional to wear the frock coat with the cassock. This adds to the confusion of proper clerical dress and to the perfect vision of clerical dress altogether. Could you imagine it: a cleric outisde with cassock, biretta, and frock coat, or cassock, tricorne, and frock coat? What are we doing? Bring back the abito corto!
ReplyDelete2nd Part to Previous Response: The PCED was clear to say that the only matter of traditional dress to be worn is that which regards sacred vesture. And so, the PCED only dealt with sacred vestments. The real question is what canonical consequence is there for using the "wrong" clerical dress? In most places for a long time the enforcement of clerical dress has been lax. I believe this has much to do with the Council of Trent's clause which says something akin to; that clerical dress should be modest, dignifying, and simple. And this is what we read in the 1917 code and in the decree of the S. Congr. Council of July 28, 1931. It all of these the only comment that refers to the strictness of clerical dress is that if the local ordinary admonishes a cleric he has one month to amend before dropping ipso iure from the clerical state, if in minor orders. Thus, to wear improper clerical dress is different from wearing no clerical dress. And, to drop from the clerical state, which is outside of maybe a venial sin the only consequence that is mentioned in regard to violating clerical dress, one must be formally admonished by the local ordinary. This means that tacit approval or virtual approval is sufficient for wearing older clerical dress as we see from the behavior of the noble, virtuous, and traditional Cardinal Pecci. In fact, and on another note, the local ordinary can give concessions for clerical dress in general for his diocese or region and also as part of the approval of local liturgical or clerical customs of a certain place. It is interesting that you say that the fascia with fiocchi is used during the liturgy. I think this is a limited view, for on one hand the fiocchi was altogether abrogated by Pius IX and on the other before Pius IX it was worn in the liturgy only in so far as the cassock was not worn outside. If it were the fiocchi would be worn with it.
ReplyDeleteI thought John XXIII required the mantellone, or black clerical cloak outside.
ReplyDeleteI thought John XXIII required the mantellone, or black clerical cloak outside.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1960 Roman Synod John XXIII prescribed:
Delete- Tonsure
- Cassock
- Roman Collar
- Sopprana or Ferraiolo/winter cloak (1)
- Cappello Romano
(1) In the summertime the Sopprana and Farraiolo may be replaced by the fascia. In ecclesiastical usage there are two seasons — winter (All Saints to Easter) & summer ( Easter to All Saints).