Ship of Fools: Eccles: Papal Audience

Thread: Eccles: Papal Audience 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=000704

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

Mr & Mrs Obama today met the Pope. I've probably aksed this before -- what's the deal with the widow's weeds (which Mrs Obama carries very well I might add).

Apparently this applies to Vatican visits but not Papal visits elsewhere.

Is it Court Protocol or a religious thing?

[ 29. August 2009, 11:21: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on :

I seem to recall that when Her Majesty met the Pope there was some mention of her not being Catholic being the reason for the attire. Beyond that, I don't know.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

It would be interesting to see what ++KJSchori would wear to visit the pope.

Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
It would be interesting to see what ++KJSchori would wear to visit the pope.

A purple cassock, I assume. I can't see her dressing any differently than ++Rowan or any other Anglican bishop on account of her sex. When asked by a journalist from the New York Times Sunday Magazine, she said that meeting Pope Benedict would be 'really interesting'. I'm not sure in what sense she meant that, but I agree that any papal meeting with a female bishop would, indeed, be very interesting.

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:
I seem to recall that when Her Majesty met the Pope there was some mention of her not being Catholic being the reason for the attire. Beyond that, I don't know.

Can't be that, as Spanish Infanta got her doily out also.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I wonder if it is to show they are NAFF in the technical sense, and thus avoid the appearance of scandal - being a woman meeting with the pontiff privately. (Possibly dating from the days when the papacy was occasionally inherited.)

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Googling "what to wear to meet the pope" turns up a USA Today piece which says it's traditional, at least as of 1913. Tradition for men appears to have updated itself to no longer require evening dress with white cravat, what's up with that? Nary a peep on why this is the tradition, for men or women. So much for my crack investigative skills [sic].

I do like how the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia specifies that the veil is to be worn on the head.

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

As I remember, all women must wear veils and that kit, but only Catholic queens and the wives of Catholic sovereigns are granted the right to wear white, known as the privilège du blanc, at the Vatican. Currently, the privilège extends to the queens of Spain and Belgium, in addition to the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg. All others ladies must wear black on such visits.

There have been some slip-ups (if you want to call them that) to this protocol. Cherie Blair (wife of then-British PM Tony Blair) wore white at an audience a few years back. I think the current queen of Jordan wore something that was whitish-grey, and maybe also the empress of Japan did as well.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Certainly, I recall that when HMQ meets the Sovereign Pontiff in the Vatican she wear black.

Wives (non-Catholic) of Heads of State do so as well. Perhaps Mme Blair thought that, as a Catholic, she should not wear black. I am sure that the Pope would have been too polite to comment.

Perhaps when Mr Harper of Canada meets (met with) the Pontiff, he wore sackcloth and ashes. As posters in another thread would seem to want to to do [Big Grin]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

But leave it to Jackie Kennedy to look absolutely fabulous!

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Re the white: girls under the age of 12 also wear wear the white.

My parents were granted an audience with Paul V1 when the old man was posted to Rome in the 1970s, and form the photos i see that Dad wore a dark suit and Mum the full catastrophe ( the floor-length mantilla was borrowed). The 3 of us were in Rome at Christmas the same year and we were able to attend midnight Mass at St Peter's Basilica. We were all togged up in long black (mainly because it was so bloody cold) but we did note that the Ambassadors to the Holy See ( the Aussie Ambassador at that time had a dual posting in Vienna) and their wimminfolk did the full bit-the men in white tie tails and decorations and the ladies swathed in a way seldom seen these days outside Tehran.

m

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
It would be interesting to see what ++KJSchori would wear to visit the pope.
A purple cassock, I assume.

No, body armour, and carrying some kind of automatic weapon.

It's the only way she'd be able to fight her way in! [Big Grin]

I don't imagine an invitation will be forthcoming in the terribly near future.

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

Unless he wants to borrow those PB vestments!

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Only if the audience takes place on Halloween.

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Unless he wants to borrow those PB vestments!

Why would he want to do that when he has such lovely ones of his own? [Big Grin]

Posted by Laetare (# 3583) on :

St Chad
the link you put up in 'ones'
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/Pics/B16_ugly_blue_vestment_Mariazell.jpg
doesnt seem to work for me. [Confused]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

On the tangent of terrible vestments, whenever liturgical artists (or whatever you call them) wax melodic with the high flown symbolism their vestments, I know we're in trouble.

*scrunches up face* "Oi think moi work harkens back to the solitude of the temptation in the desert and Jesus calling on the wi'ttle children. It puts in moind the feminimity of the Deity...."

Zach

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:

quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
It would be interesting to see what ++KJSchori would wear to visit the pope.
A purple cassock, I assume.
No, body armour, and carrying some kind of automatic weapon.

It's the only way she'd be able to fight her way in!

I don't imagine an invitation will be forthcoming in the terribly near future.

What a delightful fantasy! I can just imagine ++Katherine in SAS kit, storming the Vatican, throwing open the doors of Pope Benny's office and showing them all who's boss.

[ 11. July 2009, 15:54: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
What a delightful fantasy! I can just imagine ++Katherine in SAS kit, storming the Vatican, throwing open the doors of Pope Benny's office and showing them all who's boss.

I am thinking something along the lines of a girl version of The Bishop.

Zach

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
On the tangent of terrible vestments, whenever liturgical artists (or whatever you call them) wax melodic with the high flown symbolism their vestments, I know we're in trouble.

*scrunches up face* "Oi think moi work harkens back to the solitude of the temptation in the desert and Jesus calling on the wi'ttle children. It puts in moind the feminimity of the Deity...."

Zach

And I notice you've given said artiste an Essex accent. Yet I reckon that our PB's vestments were made in America ("Look for the union label...it says we're able to make it in the USA").

Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Unless he wants to borrow those PB vestments!

Why would he want to do that when he has such lovely ones of his own?

I can't say that I'm a huge fan of ++KJS's taste in vestments, but +++JPII had some so bad as to make both hers and the ones in that photo look like classic and elegant designs. Just picture these words in your mind: 1970s, polychromatic, shiny artificial fibers, disco.

P.S. There can be no doubt about who would win a no-hold barred fight between the Most Rev'd Katherine Katharine Jefferts Schori and His Holiness Benedict XVI. Even if she weren't several decades younger than he, she would still win. She is a most formidable primate.

[ 11. July 2009, 17:10: Message edited by: Patrick the less saintly ]

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
But leave it to Jackie Kennedy to look absolutely fabulous!

Indeed! Elizabeth II cut a wonderful figure as well. Ah, those were the days. . .

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Indeed!

My Lord, old John XXIII was a roly-poly old geezer, wasn't he?

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Indeed, bless him.

m

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NatDogg:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
But leave it to Jackie Kennedy to look absolutely fabulous!
Indeed! Elizabeth II cut a wonderful figure as well. Ah, those were the days. . .

One questions the wisdom of being all dressed up to meet an old guy in bathrobe and slippers.

Posted by Oremus (# 13853) on :

Or indeed his boss who whilst on earth probally nothing more elaborate than an old tunic and a pair of sandals!

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Indeed!

My Lord, old John XXIII was a roly-poly old geezer, wasn't he?

True enough - hence the fact that he gave his first audience with a makeshift cassock as all the ones Gammerelli's had provided weren't quite equal to teh task of housing him!

Does anyone have any pictures of the queens of Spain or Belgium exercising their privileges?

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Toujours la politesse...

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oremus:
Or indeed his boss who whilst on earth probally nothing more elaborate than an old tunic and a pair of sandals!

But not anymore, we trust!

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

Does anyone have any pictures of the queens of Spain or Belgium exercising their privileges?

The fabulous Queen Sofia at the Mass inaugurating B16's pontificate.

... and the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg

Dowager Queen Fabiola of Belgium at a Papal Mass....

and behaving appropriately [Big Grin]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Dowager Queen Fabiola of Belgium at a Papal Mass....

Is it just me, or does it seem like Her Majesty is a tad unfamiliar with her missalette?

[ 12. July 2009, 14:47: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Dowager Queen Fabiola of Belgium at a Papal Mass....
Is it just me, or does it seem like Her Majesty is a tad unfamiliar with her missalette?

It looks to me like she's got a bodice-ripper type book hidden in its cover. She's just too interested for it to be a missalette.
[Snigger]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Not that particular lady; she and her late husband Baudouin were THE pious royal couple. She's getting on a bit and might need to peer through the specs.

The rest of the congo don't appear to be terribly interested...

m

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
One questions the wisdom of being all dressed up to meet an old guy in bathrobe and slippers.

My mam taught me it's important to show respect to your elders, and that includes dressing up before you go meet them, even if they're-- you know.

[ 12. July 2009, 23:54: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
One questions the wisdom of being all dressed up to meet an old guy in bathrobe and slippers.
My mam taught me it's important to show respect to your elders, and that includes dressing up before you go meet them, even if they're-- you know.

Aw, come on Spiff. You just want a chance to wear a mantilla without looking insane. [Ultra confused]

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
One questions the wisdom of being all dressed up to meet an old guy in bathrobe and slippers.
My mam taught me it's important to show respect to your elders, and that includes dressing up before you go meet them, even if they're-- you know.
Aw, come on Spiff. You just want a chance to wear a mantilla without looking insane.

Who doesn't? [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NatDogg:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Aw, come on Spiff. You just want a chance to wear a mantilla without looking insane.
Who doesn't?

My grandmother wore a mantilla everyday. I'm just sayin'.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Ditto; both my daily-communicant grans wore black mantillas to Mass until well into the 80s. Me Mum wore one for solemn and awfuls (such as Dad's requiem in 1987) mainly because the old man liked them ( and provided them for both his mother and his mother-in-law). Dad's mother lived in country Victoria for many years and was the only woman in Mount Beauty who wore such headgear in church; it was her excuse to throw all her hats on a bonfire in the back yard, aided and abetted by my aunt. Mantillas were uncommon in pre-V2 Oz; most women and girls wore hats to Mass; veils and mantillas were considered to be somewhat woggish. It wasn't until the mid-70s that Catholic women and girls got rid of the headgear.

m

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
Ditto; both my daily-communicant grans wore black mantillas to Mass until well into the 80s.

As did my one RC gran.

[ 13. July 2009, 02:22: Message edited by: Martin L ]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

That doesn't surprise me, as it seems that the fashion for mantillas for non-Italians/Spaniards/Latinos caught on early in the USA . Dad must have seen them for the first time when he was posted to NYC in 1957.

m

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

Oh, my grandma didn't just wear a mantilla for mass. She wore it everywhere everyday even around the house. My grandma was from a place and generation where shawls were everday clothing. In the ancestral village some women wore the rebozo . Other women, like my grandma, wore the mantilla.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
That doesn't surprise me, as it seems that the fashion for mantillas for non-Italians/Spaniards/Latinos caught on early in the USA . Dad must have seen them for the first time when he was posted to NYC in 1957.

m

Who said she was non-Italian/Spaniard/Latino? [Big Grin]

Her practice probably originated in the old country.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Neither of us.

m

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Out of curiosity, what would an American, non-Catholic woman, wear if invited to be present at a large Papal Mass? Say she were an ambassador or something or even, uh, the Secretary of State? Black+black mantilla?

Tangent: Does Hilary even have a black pant suit let alone dress? [Confused]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

At a Mass( as opposed to an audience) there would be no strict regulations.

There were various political heavies (male and female) who attended the various Papal Masses here in Sinny during the WYD shindig last year and they were in "Sunday best"the only head coverings in sight were being worn by the (mostly from overseas) trad female religious who also attended.

At St Peter' s Basilica such eminent ladies would be expected to observe the below-knee length skirt/sleeves to the elbow/head covering rule that is still enforced for any female who puts her nose around the door there, whether for mass or not.

m

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

Does anyone have any pictures of the queens of Spain or Belgium exercising their privileges?
The fabulous Queen Sofia at the Mass inaugurating B16's pontificate.

... and the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg

Dowager Queen Fabiola of Belgium at a Papal Mass....

and behaving appropriately

Wowee!

Thanks for that, that's made my day Father [Big Grin]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Those pics have convinced me ( despite the exception made for well-born ladies), that white is definitely only for virgins-and young ones at that.

Very well-bred mutton dressed up as lamb, I'm afraid, and to hell with protocol.

m

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Well yes, it is all a bit Miss Haversham.

But still interesting...

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

When did the rule begin? Until the railway age, there can have been very few royal ladies who made the journey to Rome; it would have been very difficult for most of the Italians, let alone the Portuguese. Did the rule perhaps extend to masses celebrated by papal legates/nuncios, as on such formal occasions being he who had sent them?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
Those pics have convinced me ( despite the exception made for well-born ladies), that white is definitely only for virgins-and young ones at that.

Very well-bred mutton dressed up as lamb, I'm afraid, and to hell with protocol.

m

Irrespective of the respect with which one may view the Holy See and the Successor of Peter, the idea of court dress for zee laydeez and the pope granting "audiences" is laughably and appallingly archaic. The pope can't at once hold himself out as a head of state and as a bishop who is servant of the servants of God, and then grant "audiences" like some monarch with a court that includes Ladies appearing in fancy dress.

At the end of the day, the whole pretence is just a little, well...

[Projectile]

-making.

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NatDogg:
Indeed! Elizabeth II cut a wonderful figure as well. Ah, those were the days. . .

Every inch a queen.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Them's the breaks.

Never mind,most of us Romans don't either.

m

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Dowager Queen Fabiola of Belgium at a Papal Mass....
Is it just me, or does it seem like Her Majesty is a tad unfamiliar with her missalette?
It looks to me like she's got a bodice-ripper type book hidden in its cover. She's just too interested for it to be a missalette.

Not that particular lady; she and her late husband Baudouin were THE pious royal couple. She's getting on a bit and might need to peer through the specs.

The rest of the congo don't appear to be terribly interested...

Yeah. I'll take aside the dude standing behind her in the 11:00 position and teach him how to present himself in church.

[Axe murder]

[ 13. July 2009, 13:32: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Irrespective of the respect with which one may view the Holy See and the Successor of Peter, the idea of court dress for zee laydeez and the pope granting "audiences" is laughably and appallingly archaic. The pope can't at once hold himself out as a head of state and as a bishop who is servant of the servants of God, and then grant "audiences" like some monarch with a court that includes Ladies appearing in fancy dress.

At the end of the day, the whole pretence is just a little, well...

-making.

I don't think it's a pretence at all. It's quite legitimate. The Holy See is the inheritor of centuries of continuous history and tradition. In that respect it's less open to accusations of pretense than non-RC churches that adopt early 20th c. RC worship and practices.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

You're comparing apples to oranges, Pancho. I'm not talking about liturgical practice, but rather the pretences surrounding the monarchial aspects of the papacy and papal court. They're past their sell-by date. The pope would do well to behave as a modern head of state rather than a theocratic monarch of the type that have otherwise long since passed from the scene.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

Who says they're past their sell date? It's fine it it makes you feel uncomfortable but I don't feel uncomfortable with it nor do I sense a widespread discomfort among the hoi polloi either (writing as one of the hoi polloi ). He is a head of state. He the head of a hierarchy. He does hold a unique office. In the past 40 years none of the remaining ceremonial seems to have gotten in the way of the Pope's job as far as I can tell.

I don't think the ceremonial surrounding the Queen of England is past it's sell date either, or around the King of Spain. I doubt the ceremony and protocol arround the Dalai Lama is that "up-to-date" either.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:

At St Peter' s Basilica such eminent ladies would be expected to observe the below-knee length skirt/sleeves to the elbow/head covering rule that is still enforced for any female who puts her nose around the door there, whether for mass or not.

m

How long since you've been to St. Peter's? This is the dress code I remember -- no mention of hats.

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
dress code

Is it possible to get a mantilla in those colours?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
dress code
Is it possible to get a mantilla in those colours?

Not sure. No doubt it is possible to get a leotard in that... erm... hue... but I'm not sure I'd want to try to gain entry to the Vatican whilst wearing it (says he, fondly remembering the shenanigans that he last visit to the Holy See entailed [Big Grin]

)

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

1975, Hart and another 34 years would be too soon.

You arenot wrong re hats, but a head covering does give some cachet to the would-be pious femme-unless it happens to be a hijab or a gypsy scarf-the Italians don't care for either!

m

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Of course, burkha & hijab would completely fit the dress code for a private audience.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

I suspect that a burkha would be considered impolite, since it is outdoor dress for pious ladies whose husbands would not be allowing them to doff it once inside.

The hijab is quite another matter as it can be combined with anything from a full overcoat to jeans and long-sleeved T shirt (One sees all manner of variations in Sinny)

m

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You're comparing apples to oranges, Pancho. I'm not talking about liturgical practice, but rather the pretences surrounding the monarchial aspects of the papacy and papal court. They're past their sell-by date. The pope would do well to behave as a modern head of state rather than a theocratic monarch of the type that have otherwise long since passed from the scene.

But is this simply an American and (I assume) a republican speaking? The Pope is a head of state, and the Vatican City is a monarchy, albeit an elective one, so I would expect to see some monarchical practices that visitors are expected to observe. In the same way people attending a state banquet at Buckingham Palace are expected to wear white tie, even it it's not their practice at home.

[ 14. July 2009, 16:00: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
But is this simply an American and (I assume) a republican speaking? The Pope is a head of state, and the Vatican City is a monarchy, albeit an elective one, so I would expect to see some monarchical practices that visitors are expected to observe. In the same way people attending a state banquet at Buckingham Palace are expected to wear white tie, even it it's not their practice at home.

A pope is not going to be treated as a monarch by many republicans until he starts wearing once again the symbols of the monarchy. [Big Grin]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
dress code
Is it possible to get a mantilla in those colours?
Not sure. No doubt it is possible to get a leotard in that... erm... hue... but I'm not sure I'd want to try to gain entry to the Vatican whilst wearing it (says he, fondly remembering the shenanigans that he last visit to the Holy See entailed )

I don't know, the whole thing makes me hope one day I'll be invited to a private audience with whomever is warming the Chair of St. Peter so I can wear a purple sateen pantsuit.

Notice that it's rarely the Pope getting cranky, it's usually some bureaucrat or publicity hound.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
A pope is not going to be treated as a monarch by many republicans until he starts wearing once again the symbols of the monarchy.

A riding in the appropriate papal vehicle of choice !

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You're comparing apples to oranges, Pancho. I'm not talking about liturgical practice, but rather the pretences surrounding the monarchial aspects of the papacy and papal court. They're past their sell-by date. The pope would do well to behave as a modern head of state rather than a theocratic monarch of the type that have otherwise long since passed from the scene.
But is this simply an American and (I assume) a republican speaking? The Pope is a head of state, and the Vatican City is a monarchy, albeit an elective one, so I would expect to see some monarchical practices that visitors are expected to observe. In the same way people attending a state banquet at Buckingham Palace are expected to wear white tie, even it it's not their practice at home.

The POTUS gives white tie dinners as well, but the laydeez don't show up as though dressed either for first communion or like Spanish widows in mourning! Really, though, I'm just being petulant. However, the female dress for these papal audiences and other gala events does impress me as just a wee bit sexist in A.D. 2009.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You're comparing apples to oranges, Pancho. I'm not talking about liturgical practice, but rather the pretences surrounding the monarchial aspects of the papacy and papal court. They're past their sell-by date. The pope would do well to behave as a modern head of state rather than a theocratic monarch of the type that have otherwise long since passed from the scene.
But is this simply an American and (I assume) a republican speaking? The Pope is a head of state, and the Vatican City is a monarchy, albeit an elective one, so I would expect to see some monarchical practices that visitors are expected to observe. In the same way people attending a state banquet at Buckingham Palace are expected to wear white tie, even it it's not their practice at home.

But since the Pope is presented as being, not only a successor of the apostles, but as the exclusive "Vicar of Christ on earth", should perhaps he not call to mind that the one of whom he is considered to be the vicar clearly told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Combining the ecclesial role with the earthly political role is horrible, I think, and has led to a lot of grief and manifestly un-Christian behaviour.

PS: The post isnt a reply to pre-cambrian. I just quoted it to help establish context.

[ 14. July 2009, 17:47: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The pope can't at once hold himself out as a head of state and as a bishop who is servant of the servants of God

But, like it or not, he is both of those things.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The pope can't at once hold himself out as a head of state and as a bishop who is servant of the servants of God
But, like it or not, he is both of those things.

The last prince-bishop? Where have they all gone?

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The POTUS gives white tie dinners as well, but the laydeez don't show up as though dressed either for first communion or like Spanish widows in mourning!

Don't forget Mexican grandmothers. Is wearing a mantilla for the Pope all that different than dressing like an English gentleman of a certain era for the President of the United States? Maybe you're just used to white tie and not mantillas. Sort of like Americans who believe they speak English without an accent.

quote:
However, the female dress for these papal audiences and other gala events does impress me as just a wee bit sexist in A.D. 2009.

What's a wee bit sexist about a mantilla?

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
However, the female dress for these papal audiences and other gala events does impress me as just a wee bit sexist in A.D. 2009.
What's a wee bit sexist about a mantilla? [/QB]

That the President can meet the Pope bareheaded but his lady wife has to cover up her head 'cause she has girly parts.

Purple sateen pantsuit. And I'd dye my hair to match, it would cascade in lavendar curls down my back...

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What's a wee bit sexist about a mantilla?
That the President can meet the Pope bareheaded but his lady wife has to cover up her head 'cause she has girly parts.

And the President is probably expected to wear a strip of silk around his neck that women aren't expected to wear. I'm not trying to pick a fight over this but Papal Visits are a kind of ritual act so ritual dress doesn't surprise or bother me. It seems like people are hinting that asking lady to wear the mantilla is like asking her to wear the burqa and I think that's a little extreme.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Use of the sedia is not confined to the Pope. Remeber the Hogarth Chairing the Candidate , surely very similar to chairing the newly elected Pope to the fire?

As a joke, I've just shown the photos of royal ladies en blanc to the solicitor instructing me today, as he's from one of the RC firms (and gay). He likes Fabiola and Sofia; as far as La Luxembourg is concerned, he said the photo makes her look rather dumpy and dowdy, dressed in Berlin rather than Paris or Rome. He's a very good lawyer........

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Note that even woman members of the Christian and Missionary Alliance wear the appropriate burqah. I suspect that, given Mrs Harper's ailurophilia, she and His Holiness were able to exchange cat maintenance tips.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

It's an old-fashioned social custom that women wear hats, but it's rude for a man to remain covered: men doff their hats as a sign of respect.

A mantilla is just a lacy version of a hat.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Spiff, the purple pantsuit should do fine as long as the jacket covers your butt. In fact the shalwar kameez would be prefect, since pants suits are just a bit too redolent of office attire.

Just to gild the lily, a purple fascinator would be just the trick, complete with nose veil.

However, remember that purple is not only the feminist colour but also that of penitents, so HH might get the impression that you've come to be shriven;get the laundry list ready!

m

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

TT: mantilla is most definitely not alacy version of a hat.

Hats can be useful : to keep one's head warm, keep off the sun, hide contraband or assist in a disguise. The mantilla does none of the above.

It was one of the happier days of my convent girl life back in 1967 when the metre-square white veils (which were sewn onto an elastic band to keep them on our heads) and which we wore on sundays and feast days to mass where finally canned. The black net triangles we wore on ordinary days and the replacement white mantillas got the chop a couple of years later-the year I finished school.

m

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Whatever you say.

Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
TT: mantilla is most definitely not alacy version of a hat.

Hats can be useful : to keep one's head warm, keep off the sun, hide contraband or assist in a disguise. The mantilla does none of the above.

m

But according to that definition neither is a kippah/yarmulke a hat, which seems at least counter-intuitive. Plus such a definition ignores the ceremonial function - a crown isn't really very useful for any of the thing listed above but I would argue that it is still a hat.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

I'd argue that not only is a crown not a hat, but that even a kippah has its uses. Orthodox Jewish men often keep their crowns very closely shorn (as opposed to the luxuriant earlocks sported by the beardless boys and the beards of those old enough to grow them). A kippah would keep the crown warm in the frightful Eastern European winters. I would not mind betting that those Askenazim took the idea from the Gentile clergy of the time (not that any would admit to doing as much), who often wore such things to keep their tonsured heads warm.

m

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

So are the non-Catholic women dressing in that way just to demonstrate respect to their host?

I mean, the Pope knows that Camilla and the Queen et al aren't Roman Catholics so presumably he's no expectation that they dress as if they are Roman Catholic women? And therefore, isn't he a bit surprized that they appear, looking as if they are? [Confused]

Wouldn't he much rather they dress as they would at a similar religious 'do' in their own Church and country? I can't imagine any sensible person espec. her maj, looking anything less than respectable in whatever she chose to wear in the company of a religious leader? So why does she need to look Roman Catholic when meeting someone who knows she's not?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So are the non-Catholic women dressing in that way just to demonstrate respect to their host?

I mean, the Pope knows that Camilla and the Queen et al aren't Roman Catholics so presumably he's no expectation that they dress as if they are Roman Catholic women? And therefore, isn't he a bit surprized that they appear, looking as if they are?

Wouldn't he much rather they dress as they would at a similar religious 'do' in their own Church and country? I can't imagine any sensible person espec. her maj, looking anything less than respectable in whatever she chose to wear in the company of a religious leader? So why does she need to look Roman Catholic when meeting someone who knows she's not?

It's not as if she doesn't have plenty of other hats she could wear. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So are the non-Catholic women dressing in that way just to demonstrate respect to their host?

I mean, the Pope knows that Camilla and the Queen et al aren't Roman Catholics so presumably he's no expectation that they dress as if they are Roman Catholic women? And therefore, isn't he a bit surprized that they appear, looking as if they are?

I think it's not a 'Catholic' thing but a 'Vatican Court' thing. There's an interesting article in the Boston Globe which nevertheless doesn't quite get down to the reason for it.

However, I am inclined to agree with TT that the mantilla is just a hat, after seeing the picture of HMQ in the linked article.

ETA: don't miss the comments in the linked BG piece. A few of them are corkers.

[ 15. July 2009, 16:51: Message edited by: Hooker's Trick ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

I think you've got it in one HT. There is all variety of arcane ceremonial attached to all diplomatic and state affairs. There is as much ceremonial and rules of behaviour surrounding the Head of State as there is surrounding the papacy.

When HMQ or POTUS visit the Pope, they are not engaging in a religious act but in a diplomatic one (albeit with the head of a religious body). Court rules, not religious custom, are in play.

(I haven't read the article to which you linked, but look forward to doing so later).

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

I'm going to respectfully disagree a bit with multipara on the usefulness of the mantilla. It kept dust and smoke out of grandmother's hair as she did her housework and it does give a bit of shade when out in the sun while being lighter than the rebozo or other kinds of shawls. Folded or twisted a certain way it becomes what my mother calls a yagual which is what people in the ancestral village called a type of cushion for carrying loads on the head like baskets of laundry.

Posted by J Whitgift (# 1981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
[...] Court rules, not religious custom, are in play.

I agree with TT. From a secular perspective this is a diplomatic rather than a religious act - the Pope is, after all, a Head of State. As such, Court Rules apply, in this case, those relating to the Vatican - if this were the UK, then the conventions surrounding the Court of St. James would apply. (Diplomacy is about convention and the observation of conventions*, to the outsiders some Diplomatic conventions can seem quite obscure.)

* It may be said in flowery, but it does help prevent unintentional insult. (When von Ribbentrop was German Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, he issued an invite to a reception at the Embassy. This he did in German (rather than in French, as convention demanded). Given the insult and as convention had been broken, each mission RSVP'd in their own language.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I'm going to respectfully disagree a bit with multipara on the usefulness of the mantilla. It kept dust and smoke out of grandmother's hair as she did her housework and it does give a bit of shade when out in the sun while being lighter than the rebozo or other kinds of shawls. Folded or twisted a certain way it becomes what my mother calls a yagual which is what people in the ancestral village called a type of cushion for carrying loads on the head like baskets of laundry.

The matilla, like the hijab and the kaffiah has practical use in the climate/circumstances in which it originated.

However requiring women to cover their heads, wear long sleeves, wear only black or white etc are basically the requirement to wear 'modest' dress.

Now when was the last time you heard of a man being required to dress modestly - as opposed to smartly ?

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I think it's not a 'Catholic' thing but a 'Vatican Court' thing. There's an interesting article in the Boston Globe which nevertheless doesn't quite get down to the reason for it.

It's quite clear from the photos in that article who's wearing the most lace - from the Papal pecs down!

quote:
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kavimieras
The POTUS gives white tie dinners as well, but the laydeez don't show up as though dressed either for first communion or like Spanish widows in mourning!

Of course not. You can't insist on Court Dress where there is no Court, can you? [Big Grin]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:

quote:
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kavimieras
The POTUS gives white tie dinners as well, but the laydeez don't show up as though dressed either for first communion or like Spanish widows in mourning!
Of course not. You can't insist on Court Dress where there is no Court, can you?

Just this type of Court.
[Biased]

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Now when was the last time you heard of a man being required to dress modestly - as opposed to smartly ?

St Peter's. Hart linked to it above, but the Vatican has rules for what one may wear -- no shorts or sleeveless tops for men.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The matilla, like the hijab and the kaffiah has practical use in the climate/circumstances in which it originated.

However requiring women to cover their heads, wear long sleeves, wear only black or white etc are basically the requirement to wear 'modest' dress.

Now when was the last time you heard of a man being required to dress modestly - as opposed to smartly ?

Hooker's Trick beat me to it but the Vatican has that requirement. I've heard of other places in Italy that have similar dress codes for entering churches.There are frequent arguments on Catholic messageboards over dressing for church, much of it over modesty applying to men (tanktops, shorts, sandals, etc.). Lot's of business in California, especially near the beach, have signs that say "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service". The "no shirt" is part pretty much aimed at men.

My parish priest will ask men to remove their hats during mass. I had a female teacher in elementary school who would not allow boys to wear hats indoors. If she saw someone wearing a basball hat in class she would walk over and remove it herself.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I had a female teacher in elementary school who would not allow boys to wear hats indoors. If she saw someone wearing a basball hat in class she would walk over and remove it herself.

Around here, they all did that. It was quite annoying to not be able to wear my hat to my locker in the morning. Never in my 13 years of government schooling was I allowed to wear a hat in the building.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

No hint of an answer to why all black for women, yet. Surely, surely, someone somewhere has an idea?

Also, does anyone know when white tie for men changed to business suit and tie?

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

I don't know why black for women but maybe for reasons similar to why men wear dark suits to important meetings, or why men's formalwear is black ( and white). Maybe dark colors imply the occasion is a serious one.

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
It would be interesting to see what ++KJSchori would wear to visit the pope.

Not body armour as I thought.

She's disguised herself as one of the Swiss Guard!

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
It would be interesting to see what ++KJSchori would wear to visit the pope.
Not body armour as I thought.

She's disguised herself as one of the Swiss Guard!

Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
It would be interesting to see what ++KJSchori would wear to visit the pope.
Not body armour as I thought.

She's disguised herself as one of the Swiss Guard!

LORD HGAVE MERCY!!!
[Killing me]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
No hint of an answer to why all black for women, yet. Surely, surely, someone somewhere has an idea?

Also, does anyone know when white tie for men changed to business suit and tie?

I believe that Paul VI accepted business suit for informal meetings & briefings. Under J2P2, most of the photographs I saw of him and laymen had them in suit & tie, white tie & decorations coming out only for more official events.

Diplomatic dress is much less formal these days-- most of my diplo/state ceremonial acquaintances in Ottawa do not even have white tie. The only people I have seen in Ottawa in morning dress are the GG's spouse, M. Lafond, the UK High Commissioner and the Spanish Ambassador.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So are the non-Catholic women dressing in that way just to demonstrate respect to their host?

I mean, the Pope knows that Camilla and the Queen et al aren't Roman Catholics so presumably he's no expectation that they dress as if they are Roman Catholic women? And therefore, isn't he a bit surprized that they appear, looking as if they are?

Wouldn't he much rather they dress as they would at a similar religious 'do' in their own Church and country? I can't imagine any sensible person espec. her maj, looking anything less than respectable in whatever she chose to wear in the company of a religious leader? So why does she need to look Roman Catholic when meeting someone who knows she's not?
It's not as if she doesn't have plenty of other hats she could wear.

Well. Yes. That was partly my point. She does have plenty of hats that are perfectly respectable for visiting world and religious leaders in. So I'm not sure what the [Roll Eyes]

are for.

For the other repliers: I can understand the diplomatic court thing. I've no problem with the idea itself, anyway. It just seemed to me to be unnecessary to dress in that way if it was only about Catholic religious tradition - and I don't mean that derogatively. But it's clearly more than that.

So it makes sense to follow the 'rules'; you know when in Rome...!

Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :

Makes good sense, in fact. Then again, have there been paintings of papal audiences prior to the age of photography? Surely we'll find precedent there.

I think national dress, where appropriate, is also allowed for private audience, although I am not sure if black remains worn by the ladies following their national garb.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
It would be interesting to see what ++KJSchori would wear to visit the pope.
Not body armour as I thought.

She's disguised herself as one of the Swiss Guard!

But if she were to have an audience, would she have to wear a black lace mitre?

Posted by highchurc (# 11491) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
It would be interesting to see what ++KJSchori would wear to visit the pope. if she were to have an audience, would she have to wear a black lace mitre? [/QB]

At the very least; and it would have to be as tacky as her others.

Posted by Laetare (# 3583) on :

So all her mitres are 'tacky'?

Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :

How about a compromise: ++KJS can wear black cassock, rochet, black chimere, tippet, and black mantilla. I suppose that that will keep her in the "black for ladies" rule while retaining choir rig (because Da Pope™ is wearing his red-and-white rig).

Then again, I'm just bored.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0