Ship of Fools: Eccles: Papal funeral rites-what can we expect?

Thread: Eccles: Papal funeral rites-what can we expect? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000500

Posted by stbruno (# 3505) on :

Not wanting to appear morbid ...but in the likely event of the passing of JPII, what ceremonies will be followed?

[ 14. May 2007, 20:02: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on :

I 'spect I'll cry a bit...

...but other than that, being a Prot I don't know.

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

I expect they'll bury him at some point. [Smile]

Posted by Scotus (# 8163) on :

Can't do much until Tuesday, if he should die before then (it being the Easter Octave and then the Annunciation transferred)

I think there's a novena of requiems & lying in state before the funeral.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stbruno:
Not wanting to appear morbid ...but in the likely event of the passing of JPII, what ceremonies will be followed?

The "Ordo exsequiarum Romani Pontificis", glad to have helped... [Biased]

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

I do not know if they still would be observed (with my taste for theatre, I rather hope they are), but there used to be all sorts of ceremonies unique to the death of a pope. For example, the head of the College of Cardinals would tap the pope's head with a small hammer and address him by his baptismal name three times - and then announce, when His Holiness did not respond, that it was certain the pope was dead. The papal ring would be smashed.

Those unfamiliar with Italian customs, and therefore not seeing that it is a gesture of respect and recognition, should not be shocked when everyone applauds as the coffin is brought to the crypt.

My guess would be that John Paul's rites will be splendid and dignified, but with no special emphasis on the 'royal' aspects (which I so love). You'll remember that he declined a coronation and never used the third person form of address in his writings.

Posted by stbruno (# 3505) on :

Not possesssing a copy of Ordo exsequiarum Romani Pontificis, can someone elaborate?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Well, neither have I not did I find an online version. Hence my attempt at self-irony above...

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

I do not have a copy either... and here I thought my library quite extensive...

There is a terse explanation of some considerations on this Yahoo page, but no online source of which I know about the actual ceremonies. I had not realised that John Paul might be interred in Krakow.

Posted by Maniple (# 2237) on :

The Funeral is to be on Wednesday.

May he rest in peace and rise in glory. Amen

Posted by Treatise (# 4255) on :

I have put the text of the Novena for the Repose of Pope John Paul II and the text of On the Vacancy of the Apostolic See here.

Some resources from Committee on the Liturgy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are here.

-Treatise

[ 02. April 2005, 22:03: Message edited by: Treatise ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I am a little confused.

The Holy Father died on Easter Saturday. I was under the impression that Requiem Masses shouldn't be offered during Easter Week. Today is the a Sunday, and I was under the impression that Requiems may not be offered on Sundays. Tomorrow is the Annunciation, and my impression was that Requiems may not be offered on Solemnities.

However, the press have reported that Requiems were offered yesterday, were offered in S. Peter's Square today, and will be offered tomorrow. Is this them not understanding what a Requiem Mass is, or are they breaking the rules for the Holy Father?

Thurible

Posted by angloid (# 159) on :

Better wait for an authoritative pronouncement from Trisagion or another 'insider' shipmate. I attended the Sunday mass today at Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral, which was almost full to capacity. The liturgy, and succinct scriptural homily by the archbishop, was extremely moving. The notices at the entrance described it as a Requiem, and indeed the collect and other prayers were for +++John Paul. The readings however were those of the day (very relevant as it happens), good anglican hymns were sung, and the eucharistic prayer brought tears to my eyes as the archbishop prayed not only for the Pope but for 'Archbishop Derek Worlock and Bishop David Sheppard' [sic] ... former RC and Anglican diocesans, the latter recently departed.
Tat detail... red vestments were worn: this anglican would have expected white (for Easter) or possibly purple. Any suggestion why not?

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

According to the Abp. of Liverpool on Radio 4 this afternoon (he told the interviewer that he was still wearing his vestments as Mass had only just finished - the ones the Holy Father had worn on his 1982 to Liverpool), Paul VI had declared his desire that papal requiems should be in red because popes should live lives of martyrdom, constantly dying with Christ. Why this is different to the vocation of all Christians I'm not sure.

Thurible

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

[cross-post with Thurible - now I'm really confused!]

As I understand the meaning of the term, the only Requiem Mass for JPII will be the one held with his body present.

Are you people talking about masses offered for him or in remembrance or what?

[ 03. April 2005, 20:57: Message edited by: jlg ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jlg:

Are you people talking about masses offered for him or in remembrance or what?

Hopefully for him, as he has just died, and, according to Holy Tradition, is preparing for/in Purgatory (whatever that might mean). Until (if) a successor of the Holy Father sees fit to canonise him, then no Masses should be said in his honour, or any such.

The Holy Father was a good and holy man, but he has just died. It is not the time to canonise him; that way Protestantism lies!*

Thurible

*There's a delicious irony in saying that about the Pope!

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

But every RC mass is offered for someone or something -- that's the final intercessory prayer: "For (insert name or intention) for whom/which this mass is being offered, let us pray to the Lord>". But this follows a lot of more general concerns about the church and the world in the here and now.

At a funeral (requiem) mass, the intercessory prayers begin with a prayer for the soul of the deceased, followed by entreaties on behalf of his/her family and friends, and then the rest of us, doomed to die as we all are.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I am a little confused.

You need not be.

You are quite correct regarding Masses for the Dead in the Octave of Easter and on Solemnities of the Lord. Normally no requiems during the Triduum, nor except for funerals during the Octave and on Solemnities...which is why Angelo Card. Sodano celebrated the Mass of the Second Sunday of Easter at St Peter's this morning.

These sort of liturgical rules, which appropriately place the celebration of the annual memorials of the events of our salvation ahead of any other memorial, are often ignored for pastoral reasons...hence the requiems for the Holy Father. Red is the colour for papal mourning according to the Pontificale, IIRC.

Posted by stbruno (# 3505) on :

Being glued to CNN for the last few days I too was struck by the fact that the Mass in St Peters was in fact the Mass appropriate to Divine Mercy Sunday (recently mandated by JP2) with White vestments, despite being referred to by the media as a requiem. (BTW the gospel readings were the same as those used in the 1961 Missal for Low Sunday -the former feast celebrated on the day). So i was surprised to see that Westminster Cathedral was celbrating mass in red.

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :

The Mass in Vienna was celebrated last night at 7pm, with the Cardinal and clergy vested in black, and other clergy present in purple stoles. Apparently, there were 7,000 people there, as well as the president, chancellor, party leaders, ex-president &c., &c.*

From the mass - Christoph Cardinal Schönborn

(*Incidentally, I was most delighted by the fact that in a space which became as cramped as the cathedral, these people could walk entirely unprotected and unmolested through the middle of a large crowd of voters without something inappropriate happening.)

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

Here is a page with information on Papal funerals.

FCB

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

Bumping this up partly because I'm sure there's much to say about it.

I haven't seen the funeral (I'm at work - you can tell, can't you) and wondered whether it was a Mass in the sense I understand the word - with the bread and wine bit (to put it rather badly)? If so, who took Communion - presumably not the 2 million people present, or even all the (Catholic) VIP types? Or isn't this the way Requiem Masses are "done"?

Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :

Didn't get up at 4 am to see it so I'm wondering if there's a video available somewhere?

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

If there isn't a DVD soon, I'd be surprised.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

I did get up at 4 am and it was a Mass with communion offered to those who were able to get close enough to receive -- i.e. actually in St.Peter's Square. There were 300 priests distributing communion. I figue that if each of them had 200 hosts (just a guess), then that was communion for 600,000. This liturgy was, of course, extraordinarily large, but the Vatican is very experienced at organizing Masses for vast numbers, so they are pretty efficient about it. The priests giving communion each has a ciborium with hosts in it that he holds during the Eucharistic prayer and then, as the Our Father begins, they start moving into position to distribute communion. Not surprisingly, communion was given in only one species.

I was struck by the fact that most of the people that they showed on television received on the tongue, not in the hand. There seemed to be a very large number of Poles in the Square, and I don't believe that the do communion in the hand in Poland, so this might account for it.

I must say that I found the whole thing extremely moving. Ratzinger did an excellent job with his homily. And when the crowd started chanting "magnus" at the end -- as they did at the funeral of Gregory the Great -- I got chills.

FCB

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I must say that I found the whole thing extremely moving. Ratzinger did an excellent job with his homily. And when the crowd started chanting "magnus" at the end -- as they did at the funeral of Gregory the Great -- I got chills.

I agree - the homily, in particular, was extremely moving (even if the music was not top quality.) And I, too, was surprised that so many people were receiving communion on the tongue.The BBC coverage included commentary by Eamon Duffy, which I found especially delightful. For example, there was an explanation of why John Paul requested that he be buried 'in the ground' - I wish I could remember it verbatim.

There was quite a notable ceremony involving chants and blessings by the Eastern rites.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
IThere were 300 priests distributing communion. I figue that if each of them had 200 hosts (just a guess), then that was communion for 600,000.

Doh!

Make that 60,000.

FCB

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ultraspike:
Didn't get up at 4 am to see it so I'm wondering if there's a video available somewhere?

The BBC have key moments on their website.

Thurible

Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :

Thanks, CNN is replaying it again tonight at 7pm so I'll catch it then.

Posted by angloid (# 159) on :

I saw a lot of it and agree with FCB and NO. But I missed the communion, and heard later that the first person (after the assembled cardinals etc) to receive was Brother Roger of Taize. Can anyone else confirm this? If so, it's an amazing gesture.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
I saw a lot of it and agree with FCB and NO. But I missed the communion, and heard later that the first person (after the assembled cardinals etc) to receive was Brother Roger of Taize. Can anyone else confirm this? If so, it's an amazing gesture.

I cannot remember if he received immediately after the cardinals, but most definitely remember his being, at the least, one of the first (presumably because he had to be wheeled.) And it is amazing!

During the communion, the cameras focussed largely on people from 'the crowds' (many young) receiving. I do not recall attention to heads of state and other dignitaries (perhaps because so few are RC, and seeing the Catholics receive would be awkward, with everyone seated together. I cannot remember how that was handled specifically.) One of the commentators mentioned the RC rules about communion to explain ++Rowan's exclusion.

Posted by Zar (# 4647) on :

I too missed the Communion. But, out of interest, how would they justify giving Communion to Brother Roger? I know some members of the Taize Community are RC priests, but Brother Roger is/was a Lutheran. In Taize itself RC Mass is offered to all without anyone batting an eyelid, but I would have thought things would have been different when a Taize Brother went to the Vatican?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

I listened to the service on the radio and was very disappointed with the standard of the choir. I've heard many Parish Church choirs do better, and the Credo was so flat it was painful.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zar:
...but Brother Roger is/was a Lutheran.

I think "was".

Posted by Zar (# 4647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Zar:
...but Brother Roger is/was a Lutheran.
I think "was".

Well, it would greatly surprise me if he had been formally received into the Roman Catholic Church...because the message given out by Taize, as I've understood it, is that the communion of Christians as the Body of Christ is something that transcends denominational boundaries. I would therefore have thought it odd if Brother Roger, having founded an ecumenical community, had suddenly felt it necessary to switch allegiances from one wing of the Church to another.

It may well be that he's not 'officially' a Roman Catholic, but feels that as a member of the worldwide Church and a regular recipient of the RC sacrament in Taize, he's entitled to receive. However, it would be pretty monumental if the Vatican condoned that - though I guess if he'd been brought forward to receive they couldn't very well turn him away!

[ 08. April 2005, 17:24: Message edited by: Zar ]

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zar:
it would be pretty monumental if the Vatican condoned that - though I guess if he'd been brought forward to receive they couldn't very well turn him away!

I find is somewhat (i.e. highly) unlikely that someone simply slipped him into the communion line. I am sure that no one was in that line who was not vetted before hand.

I don't know if Br. Roger was ever officially received into the RC Church, but I do know that Max Thurian of Taize was.

FCB

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

For those who missed the broadcast, Cardinal Ratzinger's homily is available at the BBC site.

I have no idea if Brother Roger was received into the RC Church, but fully agree with FCB that there was nothing spontaneous about the queuing. Perhaps (assuming he still is Lutheran - Roger, that is, not FCB) he has received permission to participate, generally or on this occasion.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

I should like to ask a further question - which I know some of you are very qualified to answer. Having just read a thread in Purgatory about the Prince of Wales, then a Yahoo link regarding leaders from the Mid-East , it seems to me that there is a good deal of uproar about who shook hands with whom at the pope's funeral. Of course, enemies, those censuring actions, and so forth grasped hands only because of where the Vatican had seated them.... if John Paul is already in the heavenly courts, I can picture this great man of peace looking down and pushing a button...

My questions: (1) is exchanging the peace with another in any way an endorsement of the others' positions and (2) would it ever be acceptable to refuse to do so (for reasons of such disagreements, not because of fearing someone who had SARS may have coughed into his palms)?

Posted by Sarum-mental (# 9300) on :

Can anyone explain two liturgic particularities of the the Papal obsequies ? First, why was the Credo used? There was a point where the Credo was not used in requiem Masses--has this changed? And, second, the responses to the Agnus dei and to the Lux aeternam were for the intention of a third person singular--give him rest eternal rather than the usual give them rest eternal. This seems subtle but it would seem to make the Pope a special case rather than a humble servant like the rest of us. Oh, and EWTN Radio commentators reported that Frere Roger had, indeed, swum the Tiber so to speak and become a Roman Catholic at some point in the past.

Posted by Zar (# 4647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarum-mental:
Oh, and EWTN Radio commentators reported that Frere Roger had, indeed, swum the Tiber so to speak and become a Roman Catholic at some point in the past.

He may have done, on the same basis as Max Thurian (thanks for bringing him in, FCB). Having read more about the latter, it would appear that after Vatican II (at which both he and Roger were Protestant representatives) he felt the RCC to be inclusive of the Protestant churches. Hence he did not consider himself to have renounced his Protestantism on becoming a Catholic.

Apologies for dragging this out, but having been to Taize several times, I'm intrigued by the way it relates to the different Churches and especially to the Vatican.

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

Aha!

A fellow Sarumite! (or perhaps just someone from Salisbury [Big Grin]

)

Either way, welcome aboard!

Posted by stbruno (# 3505) on :

Can anyone confirm whether two Eastern patriariarchs particpated in the Mass (I don't mean those who are Eastern rite catholics). CNN suggested that the Apostolic Patriarch of the Armenians and another were to be involved.

And I was blown away seeing Orthodox, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus all assembled at St Peters in what was a truly amazing gathering.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarum-mental:
And, second, the responses to the Agnus dei and to the Lux aeternam were for the intention of a third person singular--give him rest eternal rather than the usual give them rest eternal. This seems subtle but it would seem to make the Pope a special case rather than a humble servant like the rest of us.

Actually, the third person singular was used generally in a Requiem Mass (which is an actual funeral, not, for example, a Mass for all the departed in November). The plural is used otherwise.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

Newman's Own - thank you for that link to the transcript of Cardinal Ratzinger's homily. I kept losing track of what was being said as I kept finding that the moment I managed to get tuned into the Italian and start to pick up the sense and the flow of it, the English translation kept chipping in. I kept losing my concentration as I couldn't cope with the two languages simultaneously, and I kept tuning out the Italian to listen to the English. As the English was a paraphrase/summary rather than a direct translation, I lost it rather!

Anyhow, I have a video recording of most of the service (I got timed out on the final bit and lost the final removal of the coffin back into St Peter's; it cuts out at the point at which the cardinals start to depart from around the coffin). I am very happy to lend this out if anyone wants to borrow it.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
Newman's Own - thank you for that link to the transcript of Cardinal Ratzinger's homily. I kept losing track of what was being said as I kept finding that the moment I managed to get tuned into the Italian and start to pick up the sense and the flow of it, the English translation kept chipping in.

The same happened to me! (In fact, silly though this is, I nearly wished there were no translation.... of the Italian or the Latin... which, under the circumstances, shows I need a little more gin in order to be logical..)

I forgot to mention this earlier. The Creed is not required, but not prohibited, in the new order for funerals. It was not included in the 'old' Requiem (parts of which I dearly love... that Pie Jesu and Dies irae...)

The music was absolutely dreadful. (Not that the Sistine Choir shall ever be competition for, let us say, Westminster Cathedral.) I'm going to blush and admit something that I probably could only admit on this board. [Hot and Hormonal]

(Bracing myself - some of you are going to hate this...) Splendid though some aspects of the ceremonies were, wonderful though it was to see all those representatives of every faith (and all those enemies seated next to each other), and despite this being a tribute to John Paul's papacy which was incredible, I was disappointed on one count. It has been many years since the last papal funeral, and somehow I was picturing splendour. (I recited the prayer along with the crowd, sometimes lapsing into the Tridentine versions.) But it still was the type of liturgy I grew to dislike in my later Roman days - crap music where (so it seemed) everyone had to sing everything.

The deacon from Birmingham who chanted the gospel was about the best musically for the day.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

quote:
The music was absolutely dreadful...
The deacon from Birmingham who chanted the gospel was about the best musically for the day.

Agreed. I can understand that things might go a little flat if left to their own devices, but the choir had the organ chipping in every so often to bring the pitch back and they still managed to start the next repsonse out of tune...

Still, despite the quality of the music, I found the whole thing moving.

[ 08. April 2005, 23:10: Message edited by: kingsfold ]

Posted by angloid (# 159) on :

Among the most moving was the sight of the very plain coffin with the Bible on top. In conjunction with the reports of the Pope's will (ie. nothing to leave), and the dignity without pomposity of the liturgy (I understand NO's nostalgia for more 'show', but in wouldn't have seemed appropriate IMHO), it said a lot about the man and hopefully about the sort of church that a new pope will have to lead.

Having said that, don't the new funeral rites encourage the use of a white pall over the coffin?

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
But it still was the type of liturgy I grew to dislike in my later Roman days - crap music where (so it seemed) everyone had to sing everything.

I'm not sure that they expected everyone to sing everything. Rather, what they seems to do is to try to make sure that everyone had some part they could sing in everything (e.g. polyphonic psalm verses with a chanted congregational response. I agree with you that it didn't work, either aesthetically or, from what I could see, liturgically (not many people were singing). I think a better solution would have been simply to let the choir do some parts and let the congregation do others.

quote:

The deacon from Birmingham who chanted the gospel was about the best musically for the day.

I also thought the litany of the saints was beautiful. Funny how it was the parts without the choir that came off best.

FCB

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I also thought the litany of the saints was beautiful.

Me too. I found that very moving, and a wonderful witness to all the teachers, matryrs and saints through the ages. Absolutely beautiful.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

A wonderful experience to behold! Rest eternal to him, indeed - the Litany of the Saints, especially...

I think we can even overlook the dreadful concelebration vestments!

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think we can even overlook the dreadful concelebration vestments!

Dreadful? Man, you haven't seen dreadful.

I actually liked them better than Ratzinger's chasuble.

FCB

Posted by Ger (# 3113) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:

The music was absolutely dreadful. (Not that the Sistine Choir shall ever be competition for, let us say, Westminster Cathedral.)

I watched the BBC feed of the requiem mass rebroadcast by TV1 here in New Zealand.

I can agree in part with Newman's Own.

* I have never heard the Sistine Choir live - only in broadcast or CD; I have heard the Westminister Cathedral choir live and in recording. I agree - no competition. A Papal Chaplain of my acquaintance has heard both live and concurs - no competition.

It would be interesting though to hear the Westminster Cathedral choir deal with an open-air situation. A fair comparison requires similar circumstances!

* Yes I consider the Deacon who proclaimed the Gospel did an excellent job. Clear, measured and punctuated using appropriate inflections. Even with my rudimentary latin I could follow.

* Additionally I felt the cantor for Psalm 23, while not as good as the Deacon, did a more than adequate job.

I cannot agree with Newman's Own assessment that the music was absolutely dreadful.

Certainly if a comparison is made with the music for state occasions within the Anglican Communion at for example Washington Cathedral (Reagan's funeral), Westminster Abbey (Queen Mother's funeral, POW funeral), St Paul's Cathedral London (Churchill's funeral, the Wales wedding) and Wellington NZ's St Paul's Cathedral there was not the same panache, accuracy of performance and so on.

I suspect that yesterday in Rome there was a desire for and expectation of "congregational" participation in the music, in the mass setting - something not expected at Anglican state occasions. And from the crowd shots on the TV there did seem to be clerical and lay congregational participation. As John Harper, Director-General of the Royals School of Church Music wrote in the latest (March 2005) issue of Church Music Quarterly (page 14) "You cannot have the angels, archangels and the company of heaven singing, and then either mutter the Sanctus or leave it to the choir or music group."

I think the music at Rome was appropriate in style for congregational participation (I am not familiar enough with the repertoire to comment on the actual setting used) and seemed to match what occurs in Roman churches I have observed in the US, Australia, New Zealand (I sang in a massed choir at a rugby ground for the 1985 or was it 1986 Papal visit) and the UK. In other words it would have been familiar to Anglo-Western followers of the Roman tradition. Contrast that with the Uniat ceremonies.

There was the additional musical performance problem that the mass was sung in the open air - a notorious problem performance problem for choirs - in a liturgical setting so Cwm Rhondda at Cardiff Arms Park is not a fair comparison.

No, if music is the hand-maid of the liturgy, I cannot agree with Newman's Own that the music was dreadful.

In passing: -

* While I am not a fan of His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, I must say that as principal celebrant his celebration was a mass well sung with dignity, clarity and catching the mood of the congregation near and far.

* Can anybody put a name to the Sistine Choir director?

* Who was the organist and what instrument was he playing?

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think we can even overlook the dreadful concelebration vestments!

Thank you, dj! I refrained from mentioning them only because I'd already been bad enough about the music. They were rather dreadful.

I think it was Angloid who mentioned that the simplicity was very appropriate to John Paul himself - and that is quite true. The plain coffin and gospel book captured the man, as it were. I'm just one who loves the more royal aspects... but, then, he refused a coronation as well... (yes, also appropriately - it would not have suited him.)

The litany was done well - I smiled at the commentary about how, during the litany at a papal funeral, there could be mention of everyone canonised or beatified by that pontiff. Had that provision been observed, it would have run to Tuesday.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

Welcome, Ger. I have heard the Sistine Choir live, and they would never have won any awards.

When it comes to music, if I had my way everything would be rather like an Anglican state funeral... and would not be ruined by so much congregational participation. [Razz]

But bear with me (I know you're rather new here). I am a transplanted, Franciscan peasant (with a background in music), so I suppose that, deep down, I'd like a royal funeral (though not a royal life.)

I constantly whinge on the boards about RC music being ruined by 'everyone must sing everything.' Actually, in Italy as a rule, the music at services is not very good, but there is much enthusiastic joining in - and somehow it works even better outside. [Smile]

Posted by Sarum-mental (# 9300) on :

At least the Eastern rite lot looked properly kitted out--and the Greeks can sing. Part of the choir problems came from the wind which distorts sound terribly, fatigue (they've been singing all week after all) and placement--I could never tell where the choir actually was (presumably under an arch somewhere which can make the physical marvel of sound one's enemy as well as one's friend). I thank Elizabeth for her comments on the plural/singular debate. Lamburn is firm on the plural in Ritual Notes (but that is his Anglo-catholic perspective vis-a-vis the communion of saints).

Posted by aig (# 429) on :

I wondered if the choir were inside somewhere with the organ, rather than outside (They looked inside on the BBC coverage which I watched from beginning to end (and again in the evening as Mr aig had been at work). I'm glad other people thought their intonation was dreadful - I thought something was wrong with my hearing - everytime the organ kicked in it appeared to be in a different key.
I thought the choice of music was very traditional - the people did not appear to know the mass setting and were not joining in. They might have been better having a large (Polish?) youth choir to sing the popular items and got the Sistine Choir singing the rarified stuff in tune.
Did anyone else notice the lack of black priests (or laypeople) doing anything much. This appeared to be a lost opportunity. (I won't mention the lack of women..... I wouldn't know where to start).

Posted by angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aig:
Did anyone else notice the lack of black priests (or laypeople) doing anything much. This appeared to be a lost opportunity. (I won't mention the lack of women..... I wouldn't know where to start).

Anglican big occasions are not noted for their ethnic or gender inclusivity either. I suspect this is yet another example of what someone on a Radio 4 interview this morning called 'soft racism' (and sexism). But it's especially disappointing from an organisation that calls itself 'the Catholic church'. The gender issue one can understand, but the other?

But then 20 of the current cardinals are Italian... how many African? 4? 10?

I was intrigued by newspaper photos this morning which suggested that the coffin being lowered into the grave was not the same one as that carried into the basilica from the mass. Anyone know of an explanation for this?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think we can even overlook the dreadful concelebration vestments!
Thank you, dj! I refrained from mentioning them only because I'd already been bad enough about the music. They were rather dreadful.

I think it was Angloid who mentioned that the simplicity was very appropriate to John Paul himself - and that is quite true. The plain coffin and gospel book captured the man, as it were. I'm just one who loves the more royal aspects... but, then, he refused a coronation as well... (yes, also appropriately - it would not have suited him.)

The litany was done well - I smiled at the commentary about how, during the litany at a papal funeral, there could be mention of everyone canonised or beatified by that pontiff. Had that provision been observed, it would have run to Tuesday.

Having whinged about the vestments (and yes, FCB, I know that they get much, much worse than that, but a little hyperbole never hurt... many people), I must say that I thought the colour worked very well. Had everybody been kitted out in black or violet I think it would have given a dourness out of keeping with the Holy Father's joie de vivre.

I was actually asked about the colour and was able to wield my Ship knowledge into play... "aha, [sez I], according to Pope Paul VI..." I felt quite a smartypants...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Zar:
...but Brother Roger is/was a Lutheran.
I think "was".

From reading a different board: his status is "is".

The first person receiving communion from Cardinal Ratzinger at JPII's funeral was thus a Lutheran. Of course, a special Lutheran - Prior of Taize!

Apparently the "Schönborn rule" was applied, in German:

quote:
Wer das Amen zum Hochgebet ehrlichen Herzens sprechen kann, der kann auch die Frucht des Hochgebetes, die Kommunion, ehrlichen Herzens empfangen, der kann auf das Wort des Kommunionspenders - der Leib Christi - mit einem ehrlichen und gläubigen Amen antworten. (My quick & dirty translation: "Who can say Amen to the high prayer with a honest heart, can also receive the fruit of high prayer, the communion, with a honest heart, can respond to the word of the giver of communion - the body of Christ - with a honest and faithful Amen."

Further references are made to JPII's encyclica Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 45. and 46., which apparently allows communion for single persons who honestly so desire. Apparently Fr Roger Schutz has received communion at papal mass before.

Nevertheless, I do not think that this is just "business as usual". I think a statement was being made, publically. Interesting times ahead...

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by aig:
Did anyone else notice the lack of black priests (or laypeople) doing anything much. This appeared to be a lost opportunity. (I won't mention the lack of women..... I wouldn't know where to start).
Anglican big occasions are not noted for their ethnic or gender inclusivity either. I suspect this is yet another example of what someone on a Radio 4 interview this morning called 'soft racism' (and sexism). But it's especially disappointing from an organisation that calls itself 'the Catholic church'. The gender issue one can understand, but the other?

But then 20 of the current cardinals are Italian... how many African? 4? 10?

I was intrigued by newspaper photos this morning which suggested that the coffin being lowered into the grave was not the same one as that carried into the basilica from the mass. Anyone know of an explanation for this?

It was the same one.

It had just been placed within two others since the Requiem Mass: each one having been sealed first.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Sarum-mental, welcome to Ship of Fools!

Please enjoy browsing the other decks and their bulletin boards, and check out, if you haven't already, the posting guidelines. We hope you have a long and pleasant voyage!

Anselmina
Ecclesiantics Host

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

Someone asked me if the red vestments were to match the flag of Poland. [Snigger]

I'll admit to agreeing with the commentator, during the time when the children and young people (in national costumes) were all approaching Cardinal Ratzinger - about how much the kids must have wished it were John Paul himself they were meeting. John Paul was marvellous with children before he became ill. I was deeply impressed by how many youth were at the funeral. (Though, knowing Rome and therefore able to picture more than what was shown onscreen, I shuddered at the thought of how many people were crowded into and sleeping on the streets.)

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aig:
Did anyone else notice the lack of black priests (or laypeople) doing anything much. This appeared to be a lost opportunity. (I won't mention the lack of women..... I wouldn't know where to start).

As to women: a woman read the first reading and three of the petitions in prayers of the faithful (i.e. 50%) were done by women. As to black priests: remember, the Pope is the bishop of Rome. I presume most of the priests distributing communion were the clergy of the city of Rome, among whom there are not very many blacks. I suppose, in the spirit of tokenism, they could have gotten Cardianl Arinze to do something visible -- but who does what in a Papal funeral is pretty much set down in advance by what your job is in the curia (e.g. Ratzinger was the principle celebrant and homilist because he is dean of the College of Cardinals).

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
it's especially disappointing from an organisation that calls itself 'the Catholic church'

Excluding the Latin and Hebrew, the mass was celebrated in something like eight different languages. How much more catholic do you want?

Also, I'm still trying to figure out what people didn't like about the vestments. Is it simply that they were sort of modern looking?

FCB

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

I agree with FCB - I could hardly imagine a service which was more inclusive of languages, and women certainly were not left out (not to mention that no priests read the scripture selections.)

The vestments somehow had a cheap look to them - no richness. Well, at least they were not cassock-albs with wide stoles thrown over them...

It's such fun, now and then, to pretend to be a snob.

Sarum - I forgot to mention this earlier. (Please excuse me if I am telling you the grass is green - it's just general information.) In the 'old' requiem, it was 'grant them rest,' where 'grant him peace' is more recent.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Leaving aside the question of vestments (I thought they looked rather good - the colour certainly seemed appropriate) and the music, was this the best-attended funeral ever?

Numbers vary according to which news report you read/listen to/watch, but I gather that the population of Rome was virtually doubled - and then there's the millions of others all round the world 'joining in'. More than for the funeral of HRH Diana in 1997?

Certainly it must have been the most public Mass ever celebrated......

Ian J.

Posted by stbruno (# 3505) on :

re the concelebration vestments-the roman ones were not at all to my liking-though those worn by the Eastern Rite Catholics were fantastic.

Also Ratzingers chasuble was identical to one worn by JP2 on a picture postcard from the vatican I received 10 years ago. (Perhaps it was the same item)

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
In the 'old' requiem, it was 'grant them rest,' where 'grant him peace' is more recent.

Elizabeth

Your usually faultless memory has, for once, let you down. I have checked the editiones typicae for 1903, 1910, 1922, 1953 and 1962 and it is "dona eis requiem in all of them.

Exits singing In paradisum deducant te angeli...

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aig:
I wondered if the choir were inside somewhere with the organ, rather than outside (They looked inside on the BBC coverage which I watched from beginning to end (and again in the evening as Mr aig had been at work). I'm glad other people thought their intonation was dreadful - I thought something was wrong with my hearing - everytime the organ kicked in it appeared to be in a different key.

On the CNN coverage you could tell they were outside from how badly their music was being blown around by the wind. And since they were quite consistent in how far off they were in pitch from the organ, I think we must put at least part of this down to the vagaries of being miked and recorded outside in a stiff wind.

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :

Could anyone who has heard the recordings of the Sistine Chapel choir in the time of Leo XIII say whether to-day's lot are better or worse?

Posted by Sarum-mental (# 9300) on :

Thanks for clarifying the point about the "eis" question, Trisagion.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

Thank you, Trisagion!

The trouble with my working from memory is that I too often remember what actually was done (in certain settings) than what was authorised. I was thinking more of how 'granting him peace' became more common than 'granting him rest' - I suppose the local tendencies not to refer to rest came from not wishing to appear overly Augustinian. [Smile]

I know nothing of the eastern rites - and was wondering if the chanted prayers at the end were adapted from general Eastern rite practises or in some way specifically to honour a patriarch.

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :

Newman's own asked,

quote:
I know nothing of the eastern rites - and was wondering if the chanted prayers at the end were adapted from general Eastern rite practises or in some way specifically to honour a patriarch.

I'm not surprised you were wondering.... I too was wondering when the US commentators translated the final hymm "Christos anesti ek nekron" into English as "Memory Eternal".

There was an English version of the Byzantine Uniate Rite available not many years ago, translated by Bishop Joseph Riya. If you can find that one, it should answer all your questions--alas, I don't know if it's still in print.

Leetle M.

[ 10. April 2005, 12:38: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I know nothing of the eastern rites - and was wondering if the chanted prayers at the end were adapted from general Eastern rite practises or in some way specifically to honour a patriarch.

According to the Vatican Website, the prayers were taken from the Office for the Dead in the Byzantine Rite.

Posted by boppysbud (# 4588) on :

The Eastern Prayer chanted at the end is the Paschal Troparion.

Christos Anesti et nekron, meaning Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death and on those in the tombs bestowing life.

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:

The music was absolutely dreadful. (Not that the Sistine Choir shall ever be competition for, let us say, Westminster Cathedral.) I'm going to blush and admit something that I probably could only admit on this board. (Bracing myself - some of you are going to hate this...) Splendid though some aspects of the ceremonies were, wonderful though it was to see all those representatives of every faith (and all those enemies seated next to each other), and despite this being a tribute to John Paul's papacy which was incredible, I was disappointed on one count. It has been many years since the last papal funeral, and somehow I was picturing splendour. (I recited the prayer along with the crowd, sometimes lapsing into the Tridentine versions.) But it still was the type of liturgy I grew to dislike in my later Roman days - crap music where (so it seemed) everyone had to sing everything.

The deacon from Birmingham who chanted the gospel was about the best musically for the day.

The choice of music was fine - plainchant eg Lux Aeterna or chant and faux bourdon ie polyphony based on the chant. The performance of it was simply incorrect.

Plainchant is not meant to be performed in that dull plodding monotone. Anyone who has studied chant notation, especially numes, will know that the chant should be flexible and melodic in performance. Chant notation contains many subtleties of rhythym, speed and intonation (even ellision of vowels) that were completely ignored by that choir. They were not assisted by the clod-hopperish chant harmonisations perpetrated by the organist. These bore little relationship to the modes the chants were written in.

But the cardinal musical sin was that they were flat most of the time and missed some entries. I agree that performing outdoors is hard - but pitch is not affected by that. The Credo was not the only thing that was flat. It would be honours even as to whether the men or the boys were the greater offenders.

Newman's Own - I don't understand your comment about "everyone having to sing everything". So far as I could see the only bits the congregation would have been expected to sing were the responses to the Mass and to the Litany of the Saints - in other words what is required by the General Instructions on the Roman Missal. There were no hymns.

The high musical points were that Cardinal Ratzinger sang everything required by the liturgy - in the correct pitch (even during the Sanctus while the choir went flat behind him). And yes, the deacon was pretty good.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

Writing in haste...

There were no hymns, but, at least from what I could see (and admittedly most of the photography focussed on the cardinals), there was joining in with the Mass parts.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The high musical points were that Cardinal Ratzinger sang everything required by the liturgy - in the correct pitch (even during the Sanctus while the choir went flat behind him).

I noticed the same thing. Of course, German Catholics have one of the strongest musical traditions in the Catholic Church. I used to love going to Church in Bavaria because of the enthusiastic singing, even in otherwise staid congregations.

FCB

Posted by Dumbledore wannabe (# 9310) on :

Ratzinger is a very gifted pianist - especially good at Bach. He sings a "good Mass" - if only the Sistine Choir did.
My college room-mate and I once bought a record of the SC Choir. We were so excited to hear the RC version of Kings. We ran back (sad gits that we were), put the record on... listened... and decided maybe it was supposed to be on 45 rather than 33. None of the settings made it sound any better. That record didn't even make a good frisbee.

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

I had not high expectations of the music so was not let down by that, but the only rather unfortunate thing about the whole, very beautiful service, was the cardinals vestments., especially as they flapped up over their heads in the wind. If they'd all worn nice Roman chazzies, like that nice set they've got at Westminster Cathedral, that wouldn't have happened.

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :

A few comments from someone who has suffered through Vatican/Papal liturgies:

The director of the Capella Sistina is a Monsignor Liberto. He was tapped for the job while the choir director of the cathedral of Naples early in JPII's reign. He's an idiot.

The organ you heard is a portativ they wheel out into the vestibule of St. Peters, then stick a microphone at it. Of course, the instrument in St. Peter's is not much better. It's 4 divisions and there is not a stop on it that doesn't suck.

Remember, these people's first experience with an organ was having martyrs piped into the circus to a jolly tune. So it's not surprising that they have a historical ambivalence to having an instrument that doesn't sound like pig flatulence hooted through a tube.

The powers that be at the Vatican have a love-hate relationship with Gregorian Chant (mostly hate. God forbid they should read Sacrosanctum Concillium). Liberto programs these nasty choral things into the middle of the Ordinary texts and tries to establish a dialogic relationship for precisely the parts of the Mass that should be in directum. Like I said, he's an idiot.

He doesn't know how to direct a choir; he doesn't know how to teach a choir. He thinks he's God's gift to Catholic music.

Subsequent Masses have been equally dire. Msr. Kolino and his Capella Julia are bad enough to make you want to take an ice pick to your ear.

It is an international disgrace that the liturgy for the Holy Father's funeral was so nasty. Moreover, I thought the Greek stuff at the Commendation was peculiar and not particularly well-done, but then, how do you judge that sort of thing? With the wind blowing around their klobuks and whapping them in the face, itsn't not surprising they couldn't keep a pitch.

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :

Not sure I'd share your view of tone and faux bourdon, tomb, but otherwise [Killing me]

and spot on.

Posted by Anabaptist Catholic (# 9284) on :

quote:

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
.....but the only rather unfortunate thing about the whole, very beautiful service, was the cardinals vestments., especially as they flapped up over their heads in the wind. If they'd all worn nice Roman chazzies, like that nice set they've got at Westminster Cathedral, that wouldn't have happened.

Where do all the vestments come from? 160 Cardinals wearing exactly the same thing - do they keep a couple of hundred chausibles in a cupboard just in case? I remember at Cardinal Hume's funeral the concelebrants all had the same gear as well. I presume that liturgical vestments all over the world aren't identical.

I guess all the bishes have a white mitre in their briefcases - but what about the rest?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Now nobody could call me a tat-spotter. All right, lots of people could call me a tat-spotter. But the concelebration chasubles looked very like a design by Pietrobon Bruno, which I rather like. I'm not so sure about Ratzinger's chasuble, but it looked a bit like some designs by Solivari. (Both companies make their stuff available in the UK but if I told you where I'd be advertising.)

Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
I had not high expectations of the music so was not let down by that, but the only rather unfortunate thing about the whole, very beautiful service, was the cardinals vestments., especially as they flapped up over their heads in the wind. If they'd all worn nice Roman chazzies, like that nice set they've got at Westminster Cathedral, that wouldn't have happened.

That is precisely why the whole nasty concelebration business should be done away with. The Cardinals should have been sitting there in red cassock and hat (or biretta if you prefer - I would rather see the Cardinal's Hat make a comeback) and we would not have needed the great long procession of cardinals at the beginning going kissy-kissy on the altar with the wind blowing up their skirts like ecclesiastical Marilyn Munroe's.

The music was, of course, dire but we should expect nothing else. It hasn't been the same since they got rid of the castrati.

Cosmo

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
That is precisely why the whole nasty concelebration business should be done away with.

I dunno. I think services of this size are one of the few times when concelebration has a practical purpose. It does provide a way to bulk-concecrate. The alternative would have been for the altar to be covered with dozens of vessels and then have the distributing clergy queue up right at the heart of the service to get their pot for distribution. IMHO that would have been more untidy.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
That is precisely why the whole nasty concelebration business should be done away with.

I dunno. I think services of this size are one of the few times when concelebration has a practical purpose. It does provide a way to bulk-concecrate. The alternative would have been for the altar to be covered with dozens of vessels and then have the distributing clergy queue up right at the heart of the service to get their pot for distribution. IMHO that would have been more untidy.

I'm sure Cosmo would have preferred non-communicating High Mass.

And I'm sorry to say that my experience of Vatican music is much like Tomb's: it's awful.

That said, I still loved the liturgy and was profoundly moved by it.

FCB

Posted by Dumbledore wannabe (# 9310) on :

Could anyone tell where +++Rowan was placed for the funeral? Not having seen him, I can only assume he must have been afar off on the English Bridge (Anglican relations being what they are - "May you give glory to the God for whom you shall burn")

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anabaptist Catholic:
Where do all the vestments come from? 160 Cardinals wearing exactly the same thing - do they keep a couple of hundred chausibles in a cupboard just in case?

I expect they have whole reserve armies of aged and respectable poor widows eager and willing to make them up in time for the big day.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Not sure I'd share your view of tone and faux bourdon, tomb, but otherwise and spot on.

Wonderful, tomb!

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

I have been aching to ask this - but know that, if the answer is yes, it probably would have to be kept quiet lest a monumental MW report be spoilt.

Were any Ship mates in Rome for the funeral?

Posted by The Geezer (# 5521) on :

I was thinking the same thing, Newman's Own, but dared not ask. If the funeral were MW'd, I'd expect it would have been rushed to posting -- or at least one of us would have been given the raw draft to edit by now.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0