FROM THE TIMES OF LONDON ABOUT B16 AT WYD.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Based on what I keep hearing, this “softer side” is actually who the former Cardinal Ratzinger has always been. My sense is that people who don’t really know him wrongly construe his hardline orthodoxy to bespeak a stern, bullying personality… which probably speaks as much to misguided attitudes about orthodoxy as anything else.
On a much more trivial note, I wonder, what was the “surplice” which blew over the Pope’s face? I don’t believe popes wear surplices as a rule, or even rochets for that matter. Anyone see the incident and know the answer? Anyone have a link to a picture of it?
Robert,
I don’t have a picture, but it was the white shoulder cape (I think it is called) that he wears over his cassock. If I recall correctly, this took place somewhere between the airport and the cathedral, on the day of his arrival. For a number of minutes, the wind kept blowing the shoulder cape upward, so that his face was completely covered. He had to hold the edge of the cape down to keep it from happening. He was clearly amused! “Here I am in Cologne, and
wouldn’tya know…”
Kirk,
Thanks for that information. From your description, it sounds as though it was the shoulder cape of his simar that was giving him a hard time. I think the technical term for this part of the simar is “shoulder cape.”
Evidently I was wrong about popes not wearing rochets. About midway down this page, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~acolyte/Roman%20Catholic%20Vestments/surplice.html, you can see a photo of John Paul II wearing a rochet. Oops.
If anyone is curious about all these things, you can go to the following pages for more information. (WARNING: sensitive readers should know that two of these pages show prelates incorrectly wearing the surplice instead of the rochet. Those weak in their faith take note.)
Surplice:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~acolyte/Roman%20Catholic%20Vestments/surplice.html
Mozzetta:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~acolyte/Roman%20Catholic%20Vestments/mozzetta.html
Rochet:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~acolyte/Roman%20Catholic%20Vestments/rochet.html
Simar:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~acolyte/Roman%20Catholic%20Vestments/simar.html
And some other things:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~acolyte/Roman%20Catholic%20Vestments/#1
From bad to worse:
If the Pope “never wears choir dress,” and if bishops are to wear the rochet rather than the surplice, then it is doubly strange that when Pope Benedict first appeared on the loggia of St. Peter’s, he wore the mozzetta and state stole over a surplice. (I just checked my video of the election: full sleeves!)
I don’t know about these rules. Maybe they become flexible in the first minutes of a pontificate, when you have to make the former cardinal look different and you don’t yet have really well-fitting attire of the “correct” type…
Yep, he sure is wearing a surplice. Glad I was sitting down when I looked. Maybe they didn’t have a suitably-sized rochet ready to hand? After all, the Grand Inquisitor wasn’t supposed to have a chance to be elected. Or maybe it’s that dastardly—I mean, progressive—Archbishop Marini. That’s it: he planned this just to embarrass the Pope. Actually, at one I’m-more-Catholic-than-the-pope-or-I-would-be-but-he’s-not-really-the-pope-since-we-haven’t-had-a-canonically-elected-pope-since-Pius-XII site I read all sorts of sinister things about the ultra-progressive “Benedict XVI,” apparently deduced principally from two facts: he forewent a coronation and his coat of arms is all wrong—no triregnum surmounting it and way too busy, unlike the simple, elegant arms of the undoubtedly-genuine Pius XII.
What a splendid conversation; hope it is not too late to opine. Part of the difficulty regarding the rochet (and this was true of many of the Lord Cardinals, as you will note from papal election coverage in the media) is with the vestment manufactuer. One of the very well known vestment makers, who has been at service to the Holy See since the time of +Paul VI, has created a “tertium quid.” As a matter of distinction, the rochet and surplice should have, respectively, narrow and wide sleeves. In the case of the latter, these should be fairly tight fitting, something in the manner of a traditonal alb. The problem is that the sleeves on these “newer” versions of the vestment (which I might are otherwise quite classy) are of in-between widths. This is unfortunate and confusing.
With regard to papal choir dress the popes have, at least for the last five centuries, used a rochet (or something like it) along with a mozetta (today only the bright magenta-colored one of silk) for certain occasions. (Cf. Anthony Quinn when he played Pope Kyril in Shoes of the Fisheman to confirm the pre-1970 usage.)
It also seems that in some instances bishops would, today, indeed wear a surplice. The rochet, as a vestment implying jurisdiction is never worn without something over it–like a mozetta or mantiletta (which also imply the grant of jurisdiction from ecclesisatical office or episcopal ordination–or the nomination for these.) Since this would form part of choir dress, it would not be used in the case of administering the sacraments or otherwise in performing a “ministry of assistance” (i.e. server, Master of Ceremonies, etc.). I think that Msgr. (Archbishop) Piero Marini, the papal MC, is the best example of this usage–except that he wears his pectoral cross with the chain rather than the cord, the former being used only when wearing a cassock, simar or clerical suit.