Vestments and Liturgy

I was reading about the history of the development of vestments today, spurred by the very good New Liturgical Movement article on folded chasubles (and broad-stoles, which apparently were originally just a form of the same) as used by deacons and subdeacons on stational/penitential days.

The preservation of this practice up to the 1950's shows how conservative the liturgy was for so long. Especially I think, though perhaps counter-intuitively, their "fiddleback" forms. Not that I like the fiddleback forms at all (in fact, I think they look totally ridiculous; I much prefer the more ample original forms.) And yet they serve as a demonstration of just how consistent the preservationist impulse was, inasmuch as the distinction was maintained even when the evolving form of the chasuble itself got rid of the whole original need for folding in the first place (and the "folded" form became basically just a bizarre-looking vestigial technicality).

However, all this got me thinking and looking into the history of vestments in general. And I realized the history of their evolution is rather convoluted, inasmuch as several pieces evolved from other pieces, but then were "redoubled" with both the earlier and later forms maintained.

For example, the surplice is just a shortened form of the alb. And yet the Latin liturgy now has a place for both (the former as choir-dress, the latter for use by the liturgical ministers themselves; though what an acolyte should wear becomes sort of gray-area in that regard), and the rochet is just a specialized style of surplice. The biretta originally came from the academic cap, and is thus somewhat "in competition with" the idea of a hood (the distinction that developed between them is now is usually one of secular clerics vs religious).

If the stole were originally a form of insignia given to clerics by the Empire, the pallium (and Eastern omophor) itself is basically a specialized form or more elaborate version. And yet, archbishops now wear both stole and pallium, though this is not terribly logical given that they are essentially the same vestment. Yet this "redoubling" of it was not always the case, as this article points out: "It is worthy of notice that the four popes who are represented in the same mosaic wear the pallium but no stole. The one seems to exclude the other. And as a matter of fact the ordines of the ninth century in describing the costume of the pope omit always the stole. One can readily understand that who bore one of these insignia should not wear the other."

Something else the Pope used to wear (and, even more anciently, all bishops and even some priests) called the subcinctorium seems (in a more ancient form as a decorated belt) to have redoubled the cincture, yet originally might have actually come from the same thing as the Eastern epigonation, which is said to come from a ceremonial thigh-shield given by the Byzantine Emperor with ceremonial swords (except clerics, of course, would not receive arms, and so only received the shield). And yet there are also suggestions of a connection of both to liturgical hand-towels (like the maniple) or, other sources say, "purses" for carrying alms or credential-papers (like a celebret). Of course, these various interpretations are not necessarily mutually exclusive if the original thigh-shield also concealed a small bag in which various things (including alms, papers, and handkerchiefs) could be carried.

In fact, several vestments reserved to the Pope are basically just extremely exaggerated forms of regular vestments. The mantum is just a big cope, the falda (the stupidest looking thing, I think) seems to be just the hem of the alb exaggerated, the fanon apparently just an ornate form of amice. And yet the Pope came to eventually wear an amice and fanon. Even the papal tiara, of course, is shaped like a mitre, and recalls the "crown" mitres of Eastern bishops, yet it came to be seen as basically the Pope's temporal crown as head of the Papal State(s), rather than a strictly speaking liturgical vestment like the mitre (except that one time that John XXIII used it as a mitre in the celebration of a Byzantine liturgy).

One good thing I sometimes think emerged from the liturgical reforms was the simplification of prelatial liturgy and all the various little distinctions of rank therein ("Oh, only the Pope gets to wear the fanon!" "Only the Ordinary gets a seventh candle!"...big frickin' deal!) or all the merely "ornamental" ministers (like the assistant deacons) thrown in there when a bishop celebrates from the throne.

Very often, these were later accretions of the bishop's princely (or pope's monarchical) court. Not that the local traditions of such courts are not themselves valuable in some sense, I think they can be whimsical at least, but they are clearly not essential to the liturgy itself (silver trumpets playing during the elevation at the Solemn Papal Mass at St. Peter's, for example, or the use of a separate book for a bishop containing just the Canon), and liturgical tradition should clearly take precedence.

I definitely don't generally like liturgy to be cluttered (and that's the distinct sense one gets when reading about many of these accretions) by these sorts of more secular developments from an age of ecclesiastic temporal power. On the other hand, part of me feels like...they existed for quite some time, and thus like they should never be discarded completely. Maybe a few days a year could be designated for such more Renaissance and Baroque ceremonial, just not very often.

In practice I think much of it was only used for "special occasions" anyway. And I think that's fine. Too much of those sort of arbitrary (if showy) additions can take away from the noble simplicity of the Roman Rite. If the parish liturgy is really supposed to just mimic the pontifical liturgies as much as possible, and if Western bishops in the Dark Ages were taking their cues from the practice at Rome, creating these later petty (and functionally useless) distinctions based on administrative "rank" while letting the original purpose of older things like the stational churches and the folded chasubles fall into ossified vestigiality even at Rome itself...strikes me as something of a reversal of priorities.

Trads who worry about silver trumpets at Papal Masses (or silver buckles on priestly shoes) need to get their priorities straight (and, probably, get a life). It is really much more important to get bishops actually leading the liturgies (including hours of the Office) in their cathedral again, or actually restoring vestigial liturgical practices, than to fawn over all these sorts of things like the cappa magna, or camauro, or affected ICRSS choir-dress and other such cosplay.

All these other garments ("house dress," "academic wear," etc.) are the product of the "secular" ecclesiastic/clerical culture, and while the traditions of that culture can have a value and an aesthetic appeal in their own way, or provoke a certain historical or academic fascination for some (though not myself, really), there is no need for them to be as conservative as the liturgy itself (though the question of choir dress and the "courtly" accretions to pontifical liturgies sort of straddle that line). Many of them were only from the 18th and 19th centuries anyway.

These other things (including the structure of the Curia, the Papal court and household, the papal awards and knightly decorations, the three successive Papal Anthems in the 1800's, etc) were really more often related to the temporal aspect of the Papal States, never so standardized and always more evolutionary (and less "logical" than the liturgy).

So I'm not too concerned about them like I am about the liturgy itself. Even if, were I in charge of the Papal Court or Household, I wouldn't have just thrown them out in a revolutionary manner like Paul VI. I'd greatly downplay them given that the Papal States have been reduced to the Vatican (which I'm starting to think was a good thing), but my traditionalist inclinations and aesthetics would still probably lead me to be somewhat restorationist towards them (at least for "special occasions") as long as they could have some sort of logical order imposed on them, as long as they didn't seem just arbitrary or superfluous, and as long as they didn't make things too cluttered...