Maniples

In another entry someone asked if maniples can be used also for Mass with the Novus Ordo.

So… can they?  

(The answer is yes, but… you can post some details.)

Please stick to maniples for this discussion.  Thanks! 

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Maniples

  1. Although the wearing of the maniple was made optional circa 1967, and there is no mention of the maniple in the current edition of the General Instruction, it still signifies, as far as I know, that the wearer has been ordained to holy orders.

    Its use is not required in the Novus Ordo, but it has never been abrogated or banned.

    Therefore, there is no reason why a bishop, priest or deacon may not wear it during the celebration of Mass.

    But its use is restricted to those who have been ordained to one of the three orders mentioned above.

    If, therefore, the role of subdeacon were performed (if that’s the right word) by a man not in orders, say a man who had received the ministry of acolyte, he would not wear the maniple.

  2. Jeff Pinyan says:

    The only thing I know is that Tres abhinc annos (http://www.adoremus.org/TresAbhinc.html) n. 25 says “The maniple is no longer required.” No more, no less. Where are the vesting prayers, liturgically speaking? Are they in the Missal? If so, has the prayer when donning the maniple been expunged?

  3. Carl H. Horst says:

    In the definitive text on the ceremonial life and protocol of the Church, James-Charles Noonan, Jr. observed although “[t]he maniple . . . has been abolished . . . [t]he Pontifical Council (sic) Ecclesia Dei has granted the use of the maniple to the members of the Fraternity of St. Peter, who still retain pre-1969 vestments.” Noonan, Jr., James-Charles, THE CHURCH VISIBLE, Viking 1996, at. 341. By logical extention one would suppose that other traditional clergy groups would enjoy the same permission.

  4. berenike says:

    You can buy them, usually separated from any stole or whatsit they may have been made to go with, in the shop with old lace and so on that is on the south side of Edinburgh’s Grassmarket, at the west end thereof.

    FWIW :-)

  5. Richard T says:

    It hasn’t been abolished, but most priests today do not have the right to wear it.

    The maniple is the liturgical sign of rank of a subdeacon (see the Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09601b.htm). Therefore it shouldn’t be worn by anyone who hasn’t been ordained sub-deacon.

    Previously all priests had been ordained subdeacon, so could wear the maniple, but the subdiaconate was abolished by Pope Paul VI’s apostolic letter Ministeria quædam of 15 August 1972.

    The reason the Fraternity of St Peter can retain the maniple is that they have retained the old forms of ordination, and so their priests have all been ordained sub-deacon as part of their formation. Very few other priests ordained since 1972 have been ordained sub-deacon, therefore they aren’t entitled to wear the maniple.

  6. dcs says:

    Very few other priests ordained since 1972 have been ordained sub-deacon, therefore they aren’t entitled to wear the maniple.

    So Fr. Z. and all other priests ordained in the new rite aren’t allowed to wear the maniple?

  7. Brian Crane says:

    Following the rationale presented in this BCL Newsletter for the manatergium — that based on a CDW response to a dubium, that which is no longer explicitly mentioned is to be taken as suppressed — then it would seem that the maniple is also suppressed.

    http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/082002.shtml

  8. Richard T: It hasn’t been abolished, but most priests today do not have the right to wear it. The maniple is the liturgical sign of rank of a subdeacon (see the Catholic Encyclopedia,) Therefore it shouldn’t be worn by anyone who hasn’t been ordained sub-deacon.

    Of course priests and deacons can use a maniple.

    And the FSSP does NOT ordain subdeacons in the way they were ordained before the reform of the minor orders, no matter what ceremony they go through. In the Latin Church since Ministeria quaedam the order of subdeacon was suppressed (for good or ill).

    In any event, priests who weren’t ordained to the subdiaconate can use the maniple.

  9. Peter says:

    “who still retain pre-1969 vestments” from Noonan, Jr., James-Charles, THE CHURCH VISIBLE.

    Come on! What is that supposed to mean? Vestments made with good taste? He has made a mistake.

  10. rk says:

    As far as definitive texts of the Church go, I think we should look to documents themselves instead of a single book (the Church Visible). The documents are produced by the Vatican and have the fullest weight.

  11. Christopher says:

    Peace be with you!

    As a note, in the whole of the Article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, we learn that the Maniple is of the Office of Bishop, then to Priests, then to Deacons, and then later to the Sub-Deacons. It is an evolved use. Since the Sub-deacon is not, then there is no maniple for him, but the others still would.

    The right to wear it is not by the ordination of the Sub-diaconate and following from that, but that the sub-deacons may wear it in so far as they became a Major order.

    May God bless you.
    Holy Mary protect you.
    -Christopher

  12. Jeffery says:

    From my research into this topic it is possible to go in either direction.

    The first answer is that, yes it is permitted, that it was made optional by Tres Abhinc Annos in 1967, and since then there has been no mention of it. Thus it use is seen as optional. This line of thought is also applied to the use of the biretta and burse. I held to this position until recently.

    The other possibility is that use of the maniple was no longer permitted after 1969. Again we go back to Tres Abhinc Annos. This document modified the Ritus Servandus of the 1962 Missal, simplifying many things until the new Missal could be published. So the optional use of the maniple applied from 1967 to 1969, at which time the new Missal came into effect. The provisions of Tres Abhinc Annos did not apply to the new Missal which makes no reference to the vestment. Since the two Missals were to be seen a separate with no crossing over, as is evident from the replies of the Congregation for Divine Worship. I came to the position based on the arguments of Deacon Michael Houser, who has posted his line of reasoning on this blog in the past.

    Ultimately, I think it falls into the grey area, as does the use of the biretta and the burse. Now where are the expressly prohibited, yet now where are the expressly permitted in the new Missal. Perhaps and arguments derived from the force of custom could be applied or someone might wish to submitt a dubium to the CDWDS.

  13. Andrew says:

    When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed. Therefore, the multiple and complex gestures for incensation as prescribed in the former Missal (Vatican Polyglot Press, 1969: VIII and pp. LXXXLXXXIII) are not to be resumed.

    Presumably the maniple would come under this interdict. Surely the Holy Father would wear the maniple at new rite masses, if it were allowed?

  14. Christopher says:

    Peace be with you.

    Concerning http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/082002.shtml :

    This document seems outdated and no longer able to be simply read at its face value post-7/7/7. The document only gives conclusions of the questions raised.

    The document, however, states what the the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments wrote. However, I cannot help but wonder that the force of this response is now to be considered void since it reasons that there are two rite, and it is now known that there are, in fact, one.

    Particularly for the aforementioned document from the Congregation :
    “By extension, it may be safely stated that no rite described in a pre-conciliar liturgical book may be introduced into a post-conciliar rite. The suppression of the pre-conciliar rite includes the suppression of all texts and rubrics included in that rite.”

    The Extra-ordinary form was never “suppressed” nor “abrogated: for Summorum Pontificum reads that every priest has always had the right to celebrate the Holy Mass according to the order of the codex of the Council of Trent.

    It seems that, then, given that, we can no longer assume that those liturgical norms given in the older liturgy, where the new rubrics are silent, the older ones are still permitted, for it is clear and law that the older form, in no way at all, was ever suppressed.

    It seems, at best, a new dubium needs submitted, and without it, there is no clarification of the law, for the law is not what it was when the first responsum ad dubium was published.

    May God bless you.
    Holy Mary protect you.
    In ICXC,
    -Christopher

  15. 1] According to the USCCB site, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments said, “When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed. Therefore, the multiple and complex gestures for incensation as prescribed in the former Missal are not to be resumed.”

    This is so bizarre! Does it mean a priest can incense in anyway he thinks fit as long as he does not do so in the traditional way.
    Isn’t this the principle of discontinuity. It implies we have embarked on a new era in a new Church.
    Isn’t this the mentality pope Benedict is fighting against?
    What is the legislative value of that response in 1975? It was before the CIC was promulgated.

    2] By extension, it may be safely stated that no rite described in a pre-conciliar liturgical book may be introduced into a post-conciliar rite.

    I wonder if the term “rite” being used in with an imprecise meaning throughout the response.
    Aren’t “ceremonies” to be distinguished from “rites?”

    3] “When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed.”

    This does not apply to maniples. The maniple is not a rite. (The use of the manatergium involved a rite of binding hands.)
    If maniples are forbidden what else is forbidden? Wasn’t there once a requirement that albs be of linen? Is it to be inferred that linen albs should not be used?

  16. Bravo, Christopher! Your last post (@4:41) is the most reasonable and sensible one in this whole discussion thread.

  17. Richard T says:

    Sorry if I’ve touched a nerve here, Father, but your reply isn’t up to your usual standards.

    You state that “priests who weren’t ordained to the subdiaconate can use the maniple” without citing any evidence to back up your assertion. Surely if it was the badge of office of a subdeacon (with which he was invested at ordination), then there must be at least a presumption that its use is restricted to those who have been ordained to that office.

    I may be wrong and you may be right, but I’ve put forward a prima facie case; are there no authorities to over-rule it?

  18. Henry Edwards says:

    Of course priests and deacons can use a maniple.

    Of course, indeed. Some of the comments in this blog illustrate convincingly how time can be wasted carefully researching needless questions.

    The real question — in some minds at least — is whether a priest can celebrate Mass without a maniple. Herewith, an anecdote that I hope no one will take as seriously as someone did the last time I told it here.

    After a TLM a woman came into the sacristy and said, “Thank you, Father for a truly beautiful and sacred Mass.”

    “Thank you,” he said.

    “Too bad the consecration was invalid,” she replied.

    “Why?”

    “Because you weren’t wearing a maniple!”

    Turns out the priest, in hurrying to leave his home parish for the TLM, in scooping up his Roman vestment set to rush out the door, had inadvertently dropped the maniple on the sacristy floor, where he found it still laying upon his return.

  19. Daniel Muller says:

    I can never think of maniples without remembering the quotation on the residence door of a seminarian, now a bishop:

    Venientes autem venient in exultatione portantes manipulos suos.

    Ps. 125:6

    In fact, I enjoy reading the entire psalm in this context. ;-)

  20. cor ad cor loquitur says:

    I was at an early Mass this morning in the church of St Mary Magdalen, London, where Fr Martin Edwards celebrated in the ordinary form, in English. He wore a maniple, which he removed before preaching the homily and then put back on again. Is this the usual practice with a maniple?

    (It was a lovely, reverent service, by the way, with a fine homily. Fr Edwards faced the people during the liturgy of the word, then turned ad orientem for the eucharistic prayer (Roman canon). After the dismissal, we sang the Salve Regina in Latin. An interesting example of Fr Z’s idea of the “gravitational pull” of the older form of Mass on the newer.)

  21. Christian says:

    May I point out that Paul VI’s instructions accompanying his suspension of the minor orders specifically states that anyone who receives the lay ministry of Acolyte has the right to vest as a Subdeacon. This document was written 4 years after the promulgation of the new Mass, so is part of the rules for that Mass. Thus not only can anyone with that ministry wear a maniple they can also wear a tunicle.

  22. Joshua says:

    In a certain Australian diocese, the local FSSP priests concelebrate at the Chrism Mass – and wear maniples. It seems that they are making a point.

  23. Christian says:

    PS: Taking off the maniple for the sermon is, indeed, the correct practice.

  24. CarpeNoctem says:

    Of course priests and deacons can use a maniple.

    Except for rare instances, none of the minor orders or tonsure have been conferred as such since 1972, but those ordained priests and deacons without these ceremonies since then do not lack the ‘powers’ or ‘dignity’ of these offices. Today law expicitly connects the clerical state with the reception of diaconate. To say that a priest or deacon may not wear the cassock or surplice (clerical dress commonly conferred at tonsure) because he never received tonsure is clearly incorrect. (This may beg the opposite question of when it is appropriate for a [non-clerical] seminarian to appear in this properly-clerical dress, but that is for another thread, I think.)

    Deacons and priests do not receive any of the other minor orders such as exorcist, but that does not prevent them from properly and effectively celebrating the exorcism at baptism or performing a full-blown exorcism or even pronouncing the exorcism over water in the old rite of blessing water. They may similarly serve as an acolyte or as a lector in all celebrations of Mass, new or old, by virtue of their ordination, if anything else. I would think that this is without question, unless one calls into question the validity of post-conciliar orders, which I know some fringe elements (wrongly) do.

    If the books call for a priest or deacon to wear the maniple in a given context, then of course he should wear it, no matter what his ‘vintage’. The current jumble of law and interpretation, I think, is, at best, ambiguous on the use of the maniple in the ‘ordinary’ Mass, but is certainly clear with respect to the ‘extraordinary’ Mass.

    My gut instinct is that the maniple was effectively laid aside by the 1967 post-conciliar instruction and the silence in the 1970 GIRM within this context means that properly one should NOT take up the maniple in the new ritual.

    That being said, my understanding is also that Church law typically concedes a most advantageous interpretation in the midst of true positive doubt.. sorry I can’t point to a canon on this one (anyone?). There do seem to be grounds for legitimate doubt, especially in the current, post-Summorum Church. No, I’m not going to run out and get maniples for all of my vestments, but I’m also not going to look cross-eyed at a priest who makes a good case for using them in the ‘ordinary’ celebration. You can bet the farm that I will have maniples and use them when I begin celebrating the extraordinary Mass soon.

    As for bringing elements of the ‘extraordinary’ Mass forward, I would have no problem with a priest praying the prayers of incensation silently in the present rite, insofar as they do not interfere with the prescriptions of GIRM 277. Indeed, these are prayers I meant to learn some time ago for my own spiritual devotion and edification while celebrating Mass. Outside of the explicit prayers of the ritual in the missal, the Church won’t and can’t specify the prayer of a priest’s heart during Mass… and as long as fitting prayers and practices based on personal initiative do not become a matter of scruple, such prayers would seem as good, if not better than anything else I can offer when incensing. Insofar as they would not interfere with the flow of the current ritual, the aufer a nobis or the placeat tibi would be excellent prayers for a priest to habitually offer in the silence of his heart in the ‘ordinary’ Mass. Now that I have thought this through a bit more, there is no question in my heart that I should start doing this. (This, my friends is, I think, what Benedict is trying to acheive by allowing these rituals to co-exist!)

    I agree that the question of maniples is the matter for a dubium.

  25. Joshua says:

    Fr. Z wrote

    “And the FSSP does NOT ordain subdeacons in the way they were ordained before the reform of the minor orders, no matter what ceremony they go through. In the Latin Church since Ministeria quaedam the order of subdeacon was suppressed (for good or ill).”

    Can you elaborate here? + Bruskewitz I know would disagree. There was a disagreement between him and the FSSP on this point. He insisted that at tonsure they were clerics, and that they had to take vows of celibacy at ordination to the subdiaconate. He insisted that since they had an indult, that Canon law was suspended for them where it directly touched upon the rite. Now the rites for subdeacon and tonsure explicitly state their end.

    So either they are ordaining subdeacons, and a subdeacon is just what it has always been, or they are making a mockery of the ritual. Or at least that is how the argument I have heard goes.

  26. Former Altar Boy says:

    While on the maniple subject, I noticed our TLM priest had it off during his sermon and asked him about it after Mass. He told me while he did not know of any strict regulations or other reasons about the practice, it was the accepted tradition in some areas to remove while at the pulpit. Just thought I’d share that with the group in case anyone knew anything on the subject.

  27. Nik says:

    It seems to me the question is whether or not a clergyman may wear a vestment that has never been placed on him at ordination by the bishop.

  28. Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R. says:

    Richard T. wrote: It hasn’t been abolished, but most priests today do not have the right to wear it. The maniple is the liturgical sign of rank of a subdeacon (see the Catholic Encyclopedia,) Therefore it shouldn’t be worn by anyone who hasn’t been ordained sub-deacon.

    This would be correct however you might not be aware of a principle that comes into play here: the greater subsumes the lesser. Therefore, the maniple can be worn by anyone ordained deacon, priest, or bishop. A man ordained a deacon in effect receives all the powers of the lesser orders. So, although any priest ordained using the new ordinal was not ordained an exorcist (for example) he does not need to receive that order to perform exorcisms be they common (e.g. those at baptism) or extraordinary (of a person or place). Originally it was the exorcist who performed these ceremonies at baptism. Although it is never done, in posse one can go directly from being a layman to bishop by being ordained a bishop. Such a bishop would have all the powers of a priest, deacon, and down the line. Again, this is never done but theoretically it could be done.

    As far as “mixing rites” goes, JPII incensed according to the old form and said the prayers. This is evident from watching videos of any of the Masses he celebrated. IIRC there were other elements from the old rite he used as well.

    I strongly believe in Say the Black, Do the Red. However, it seems that we forget the purpose of the red. Remember, the Sabbath was made for man. Man wasn’t made for the Sabbath.

  29. Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R. says:

    Nik, the bishop does not vest a priest or deacon at ordination.

  30. Richard T says:

    CarpeNoctem says that priests can wear the subdeacon’s maniple because they have the powers of the office.

    It is true that priests have the powers that used to be attached to the subdeacon’s office, but those powers have been reassigned to the lector and acolyte – ministries in which the seminarian is instituted, just as he was once ordained subdeacon.

    The office of subdeacon is abolished. Its powers continue to be exercised because they have been reassigned to other offices. But there is no reason why the symbol of the office, the maniple, should continue to exist once the office is abolished.

    CarpeNoctem also says “If the books call for a priest or deacon to wear the maniple in a given context, then of course he should wear it”. Yes, of course; the maniple could be required as a priestly liturgical vestment rather than a badge of office. But the Novus Ordo rubrics do not do so.

    Why does this matter? Because we have to follow the rules, and seek to determine what those rules are. Rules are not optional – or else when we complain about liturgical abuses we are merely expressing our preference over that of another. Perhaps there is a convincing argument that the maniple is still permitted, but I haven’t seen it yet.

  31. St. Alphonsus de Liquori, doctor of the Church says that the maniple, that little piece of cloth that priests place over their left arm during Mass “was introduced for the purpose of wiping away the tears of devotion that flowed from the eyes of the priest; for in former times priests wept continuously during the celebration of the Mass.”

    From the Duties and Dignity of the priest, By St. Alphonsus de Liquori p 217

    BTW, I highly recommend that book by St Alphonnsus de Liquori. It is incredible.

  32. flabellum says:

    With the maniple an IHS can be laid on top of the chasuble on the vestment press. Without it, it has to be Alpha and Omega.

  33. Ruthy Lapeyre says:

    \”In any event, priests who weren’t ordained to the subdiaconate can use the maniple.\”

    I know our pastor is using it for the TLM on Sunday morning and the lady who makes the vestments for the church, (yes …we have one and she is truly talented), has been asked to make some more!

  34. Ruthy Lapeyre says:

    Ah! too early in the morning for me. I didn’t read Novus Ordo in the original post, my apologies.

  35. Pete says:

    “With the maniple an IHS can be laid on top of the chasuble on the vestment press. Without it, it has to be Alpha and Omega.”

    What?

  36. Prof. Basto says:

    The Apostolic Administration St. John Mary Vianney in Campos (Brasil), headed by H.E. Bishop Fernando Rifan also ordains its clergy in the minor orders and subdiaconate.

    It certainly is not a mere mockery of the old rite. Those ordained by the Bishop Apostolic Administrator must be true subdeacons. They have always done it this way and the Holy See has never indicated that they are doing a wrong thing.

    The fact that they follow the same practice of the FSSP indicates, in my view, that the canonical legislation is indeed derrogated by the subsequent special concession of having the Books of 1962 as the “proper” liturgical books of the Administration / Society.
    It seems that indeed Church law is derrogated by the concession when it directly touches upon something that pertains to the new Form of the Roman Rite, and it is understood that Ministeria quaedam pertains to the new use of the Roman Rite, and does not apply to the clergy incardinated in an ecclesiastical body that has the usus antiquor as its proper liturgical form.

    The FSSP has been doing it for almost twenty years, and the Apostolic Administration of Campos for six years, and certainly the ordaining Bishops know that they are doing is correct. That must be the assumption. Otherwise, the Holy See would have intervened. This interpretation regarding the fact that Ministeria queadam does not aplly to the Campos Administration, to the FSSP, etc., must be well known to the Holy See.

  37. Christopher says:

    Peace be with you.

    Richard T, please take note of my post above, the maniple was only granted to
    the sub-deacon as an evolution from the priest and deacon, and only allowed in
    that the sub-deacon became a Major Order and true clerical state. There was no
    need, then, to re-vest the maniple; however, the maniple properly belongs
    to the priest and deacon, independt of the reception of the Sub-diaconate, which
    is in the same article from which you are reasoning.

    As for the use in Summorum Pontificum. There is an interesting note here. I have
    taken note that in the Decree of Promulgation of the 1969/70 Missale Romanum
    the New Order is only promulgated in law, quatnem opus sit. It seems to me,
    unles there is something that is a techincal meaning to this phrase other than
    its given meaning, that there is one of two thigns which could be occuring.

    It seems clear that the “notwithstanding” is interrupted in its fulletst meaning
    by the attachment of this clause.

    First, it may be that a new ritual was added, and only changed the law in so far
    as it needed. Now, the Church is quite capable of holding many liturgical rituals
    at the same time, even for use by the same people (e.g., the Byzantine Church
    makes use of both the liturgy of St. Basil and of St. John Crysostem). Be that
    as it may, the liturgical ritual under Quo Primum remains in effect without
    specific mention of its abolishment, because it is not contradictory
    for two rituals to exist in the same church in the same sense. It is just
    unusual, thus, it seems, it is not eliminated by the “notwithstanding” which,
    here, is even diminished in its fullest sense (Quite possibly for the sake of
    the liturgy already existing). In this case, the maniple is not mentioned in
    the new ritual, thus, ought not to be introduced.

    Secondly, it could have been that the new rituals were only to affect the future
    use of the SAME ritual continuity, meaning not a ritual independent of that of
    Quo Primum, but, instead, and updating. But, here, the “quatnem opus sit” only
    needs to mention where changes are made, and thus the “Codex Rubricarum” still
    stands as it had and is only changed where it is explicitly mentioned by the
    liturgical book makes mention of change for the new form. Thus, where there is
    silence, continuity must be assumed.

    In the past, under other indults, the two rituals were forbidden to be comingled,
    and thus the rubrics remained independent, and they were understood as two
    rituals. We are now informed that the old form was never abbrogated and always
    permitted to be used. This does not answer which of the two situations existed
    prior to Summorum Pontificum, explicitly. Though, it seems they were two
    simultaneously existing rites in the same Church, but this is unclear- and,
    moreover, it seems that unless a previous edition of the same rite were to be
    considered not to be used in law, they still retained force of law in permission.
    But, most importantly, whatever the status of the two rites prior to 7/7/7, they
    are, now, one rite. It seems then, where the older is, and the new does not
    explicitly mention, all things are to be assumed to be continuous and all law
    that considers them seperate to lose any force for they lose all reason. And
    the law which had forbidden comingling has been abolished, even a further note
    to this end.

    Following, I would conjecture that the priest ought to be assuming himself to use
    the maniple in the new form for they are, now, one rite, of one law. Where the
    new form is governed by the GIRM, where the GIRM is silent, the Codex Rubricarum
    still applies. (Though, there was a 1967 law introduced to this that allowed the
    relaxation of the maniple to an “optional” vestiment). One rite, one law.

    May God bless you.
    Holy Mary protect you.
    -Christopher

  38. Michael says:

    Pete,

    Before priests starting grabbing their own vestments out a the closet, it was the sacristans job (and still in in more traditional places) to lay out the vestments for him. Everything was folded in a certain way to make it easy for the priest to vest. The alb goes on top, with the sleeves folded like a fan, and underneath it it the cincture laid out in the shape of the letter S, maniple (I) and stole (H) arranged to form the the initials of Jesus on top of each other. Without the maniple, you would just have HS, which means nothing, so you have to make the initials Alpha and Omega instead.

  39. Matthew Mattingly says:

    I think priests should be able to wear maniples as part of their vesture. As to a comment I read about “vesting prayers”, I know that this was mandatory and done by every priest before Vatican II. I even saw cards printed that gave the prayer in Latin to say when putting on the alb, amice, maniple etc.
    What about the amice? I don’t think priests wear that vestment amymore either. Do they?

  40. Henry Edwards says:

    In a certain Australian diocese, the local FSSP priests concelebrate at the Chrism Mass – and wear maniples. It seems that they are making a point.

    I doubt. It surely would never occur to them that there\’s a point to be made by wearing a maniple. Nor to think of celebrating Mass without one. Nor that on a blog somewhere young tyros are even now pouring forth precious words on the subject.

  41. While I certainly enjoy the discussion, there is certainly some confusion in what can and can’t be done in the Novus Ordo. I’m a bit disappointed that Fr. Z. would say “yes” but then leave it to the internet to explain, because so far, I see reasonable answers for both “yes” and “no.” This also seems to contradict a former post by Fr. Z. stating you can’t mix the forms of the Mass:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/10/quaeritur-mixing-elements-of-the-old-with-the-new-and-saying-for-many/

    And the dubitum about the old form of incensation of the gifts being abolished (and being replaced with just three swings in the Ceremonial of Bishops) would seem to have some overarching abolitions of other actions from the older use being done in the Novus Ordo. I just fear that overly zealous priests are going to read this post and start introducing unpermitted traditional elements into the Novus Ordo which will distract and confuse the laity (I’ve already seen this being done with other elements of the Mass), or worse yet, gain the attention and ire of bishops who could legitimately correct the unpermitted traditional abuses, but in the process give doing legitimate traditional things a bad rap.

    One of the points of Summorum Pontificum is that the Novus Ordo needs to get it’s act together instead of being done in such a sloppy manner as it has been the last forty years. The last thing we need is for the Novus Ordo to be done in just as sloppy a manner but with “tradional” abuses. Because, sad to say, many bishops will crack down on that. I do think Fr. Z. needs to clarify this issue with what he knows, since he seems to infer that he does have an authoritative explanation.

    A suggestion would be that we need to not only know what traditional elements can and can’t be done in the Novus Ordo, but also have reasons on why certain things can be done. If priests are going to be able to bring more reverence and legitimate traditional things into the Mass, they need to be able to defend their actions, especially if they are going to have bishops or diocesan liturgical offices who are less favorable to traditional things giving them heat about it and saying they are not allowed to do these legitimate things.

    So, Fr. Z., what’s the correct reason in this case?

  42. Athanasius says:

    Fr. Z wrote:
    And the FSSP does NOT ordain subdeacons in the way they were ordained before the reform of the minor orders, no matter what ceremony they go through. In the Latin Church since Ministeria quaedam the order of subdeacon was suppressed (for good or ill).

    In any event, priests who weren’t ordained to the subdiaconate can use the maniple.

    My only problem with this is that the said orders are practically Apostolic. I don’t think they can be suppressed. Rome can decide to discontinue them, but they can not be suppressed. Theoretically Rome could discontinue the office of diaconate, and just ordain straight to the priesthood. But that could scarcely suppress one of the major orders since it is also apostolic. The Council of Trent taught concerning this:

    “…and from the beginning of the Church the names of the following orders and the duties proper to each one are known to have been in use, namely those of the subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter, though not of equal rank; for the subdiaconate is classed among the major orders by the Fathers and the sacred Councils, in which we also read very frequently of other inferior orders.”
    -Council of Trent, Session XXIII Chapter 2. (Denzinger 958)

    Thus yes, the Pope has the right to decide not to use the minor orders, but it can not stop others from doing so since they are of apostolic origin. This is also the opinion of Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and his rationale for ordaining seminarians with the minor orders for so many years.

  43. Daniel Muller says:

    What about the amice? I don’t think priests wear that vestment anymore either. Do they?

    We may trying the patience of Father Zuhlsdorf, as he asked to stick to maniples. But I could not resist.

    In principle, the priest’s street clothes should be covered for Mass; likewise, any jewelry [!] such as wristwatches [!] should not be visible. Obviously a [white] cuff or the sleeve or hem of the cassock, shoes and at times socks might show. Standard albs, some as open as surplices, do not cover the clerical collar, so they must be supplemented by amices. Theoretically, modern albs (e.g., “cassock-albs” or — horrors — “Velcro tabs” or “chasu-albs”) moot this need.

  44. Ceremonial of Bishops #65 says almost exactly what Daniel Muller said:
    “Vesture of Priests and other ministers: #65 … An amice should be put on first if the alb does not completely cover the minister’s street clothing at the neck.”

    Back to maniples.

    Can laity or priests submit “dubita” to the CDW or does it have to go through bishops?

  45. Greg Smisek says:

    Re: Acolytes and maniples

    Christian wrote: May I point out that Paul VI’s instructions accompanying his suspension of the minor orders specifically states that anyone who receives the lay ministry of Acolyte has the right to vest as a Subdeacon.

    Ministeria quaedam [Latin text] says nothing at all about vesture. Perhaps you are thinking of the fourth norm established by that document:

    Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the whole Latin Church, namely, those of reader and acolyte. The functions heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the reader and the acolyte; consequently, the major order of subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops.

    Where vesture for the acolyte is prescribed is in the 2002 GIRM, n. 336:

    The sacred garment common to ordained and instituted ministers of any rank is the alb, to be tied at the waist with a cincture unless it is made so as to fit even without such. Before the alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be put on.

    And n. 339 (England & Wales translation):

    Acolytes, lectors, and other lay ministers may wear the alb or other suitable vesture that is lawfully approved by the Conference of Bishops (cf. no. 390).

    In the U.S., the norm has been specified, with the recognitio of the Holy See, as follows:

    In the dioceses of the United States of America, acolytes, altar servers, lectors, and other lay ministers may wear the alb or other suitable vesture or other appropriate and dignified clothing.

    One could argue that “other suitable vesture” for the acolyte includes the tunic. Apparently in the U.S., this judgment of suitability is left to the diocesan bishop, pastor, or priest who is celebrating Mass.

    Prior to Ministeria quaedam, the 1969/1970 GIRM (n. 301) did prescribe the tunic for subdeacons, but it was silent regarding the maniple, just as for priests and deacons.

    A 1993 PCED reply (Prot. N. 24/92) stated that the usage of instituted acolytes acting as subdeacons “may continue to be tolerated” at Masses celebrated according to the 1962 Missal, and it is explicitly stated that the maniple is not worn in that case. While this was a private reply under the then-current indult, not the norms of Summorum Pontificum, it is reasonable to assume that PCED will reconfirm this interpretation (Fr. Z. can attest that it was not an isolated reply).

    While the vesting of acolytes in tunic in the usus recentior is worthy of consideration, there is the following caution in the interdicasterial Instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio (1997), art. 6:

    In the same way, the use of sacred vestments which are reserved to priests or deacons (stoles, chasubles or dalmatics) at liturgical ceremonies by non-ordained members of the faithful is clearly unlawful.

    Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion which can spring from anomalous liturgical practices. As the sacred ministers are obliged to wear all of the prescribed liturgical vestments so too the non-ordained faithful may not assume that which is not proper to them.

  46. Paul says:

    “Can laity or priests submit “dubita” to the CDW or does it have to go through bishops?”

    My understanding is that though anyone can write for a kind of “semi-official” response from a Roman Congregation, only the reponse to a dubitum submitted by a bishop is official and has the force of law.

  47. Scott N. says:

    flabellum: “With the maniple an IHS can be laid on top of the chasuble on the vestment press. Without it, it has to be Alpha and Omega.”

    Peter: What?

    I’m sure the original poster was referring to the custom of laying the maniple, stole, and cincture on top of the chasuble on the vesting table so that the first three vestments form an IHS Christogram, and how the lack of a maniple would negate this design.

    He or she is wrong, however: when I used to help out at my parish as a sacristan/MC, and the maniple and chasuble were out on the sedilia for after the Asperges Me (I am referring to Tridentine Masses here), I was still able to create an IHS, Chi Rho, Alpha Omega, etc, with just the stole and cincture.

  48. caeremoniarius says:

    As a Master of Ceremonies of no slight experience in the Extraordinary Form,
    I am perplexed by all of this talk about “liturgical origami,” to coin a phrase, when laying out vestments. The stole, maniple, and cincture do *not* have to “spell” anything–whether it
    be IHS, Alpha and Omega, or A[ve] M[aria]! No reputable liturgical author “in diebus illis” ever prescribed such a thing (I know A. Reid has interpolated this bit of fussiness into the “new” Fortescue). Certainly in Wigratzbad we were simply informed (in 1989) that the cincture was to be laid out as an “M”, doubled with the tassels to the right, so that the Celebrant could pick it up easily (we did not aid him in vesting); the stole was in the form of a “W,” for the same reason (convenience); and the maniple was laid, fringe/tassels pointing up, in the middle of the stole.

  49. Nik says:

    Granted the bishop himself does not vest a priest or deacon at ordination, but the deacon or priest is vested in the complete Eucharistic vestments of his office by the end of the service. It seems to me the fact that maniples have been omitted for so long presents a problem.

  50. Dan says:

    This thread is right up there with the old “how many angels can sit on the head of a pin” argument.

  51. Nik comments, “It seems to me the fact that maniples have been omitted for so long presents a problem.”
    First, what is “so long?” The less than 40 years of non-use by a number (but not all) of priests and deacons is a mere blip on the radar of Church history compared with the length of time the maniple has been in use.

    Secondly, many bishops have not vested the newly ordained with the maniple because it is “not necessary” (as it has been pointed out in Tres abhinc annos). Keeping faithful to the principle of continuity rather than discontinuity the fact that this option has not been used, does not create a law against its use. (If that were so, should we conclude that the Roman Canon is forbidden in some churches where no one ever hears it used?)

    Meanwhile, how does the following logic sound?
    There is a moral principle that, in doubt, the condition of the possessor is better. Law binds until it ceases to be law. Since the law declares that the maniple is “not necessary,” it is certainly not wrong not to use it. However, liberty acts freely until a new law is promulgated. Therefore, since the maniple has been in use in the Roman Rite, it enjoys the right of presumption, and can certainly be used unless a certain law is promulgated forbidding its use.

  52. Patty Lou says:

    On a lighter thread drift note~

    Belated Happy Birthday!

    Like a fine wine, some things get better with age – cheers!

  53. Alex says:

    The rationále was not abolished either by the imposition of the New Missal. The fanon was not abolished either. As far as the legislative texts do no state anything about the maniple not being forbidden, its use may be presumed, even though I would state it is no longer required in the new form liturgy.

  54. Alex says:

    Father Z.,

    You are incorrect in asserting that the order of subdeacon was “abolished” in the Latin Church by Ministeria quaedam. In fact, because of the difficult situation of the Latin Church in China, Russia etc. it was stated that the minor orders were merely no longer to be conferred. The Fraternity of St. Peter indeed does use the subdiaconate, ordains to this holy order, has them recite their vow of celibacy, exactly as it was everywher “before 1972″. In China until 1981 the underground Church ordained subdeacons, along with following the 1964 revision of the Tridentine Mass in Chinese (and Latin). The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association did so until 1998, if I am correct.

    The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei explicitly stated that the subdiaconate remains in use in e.g. the FSSP, and validly so. Just because something is supressed, does not mean it is abolished or can no longer be conferred validly. The pope does not have the right to entirely abolish holy orders. He could even presume to supress the diaconate, for ordination to the priesthood can be conferred validly per saltum, but such a desastrous decision would not force others to no longer do so, or make them ordain deacons invalidly.

  55. This thread is right up there with the old “how many angels can sit on the head of a pin” argument.

    Indeed – and just as important for taking us a minore ad maius. I have posted an argumentum ad absurdum showing that a strict interpretation of the rule forbidding everything mandated in the old rite rubrics, but not mentioned in the new, would mean that we had to put our albs on back to front when saying the Novus Ordo. (Is your alb back to front?)

    Pope Benedict said “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.” This was the mentality of the 1978 reply in Notitiae and this mentality has been contradicted by Summorum Pontificum.

    This is not just about maniples but about the whole manner of celebrating the Novus Ordo.

  56. Alex: You are incorrect in asserting that the order of subdeacon was “abolished” in the Latin Church by Ministeria quaedam.

    A couple things here. First, I did not say it was “abolished”. I said it was “suppressed”. Read more carefully. The language of  Ministeria quaedam says:

    IV. Ministeria in tota Ecclesia Latina servanda, hodiernis necessitatibus accommodate, duo sunt, Lectoris nempe et Acolythi. Partes, quae hucusque Subdiacono commissae erant, Lectori et Acolytho concreduntur, ac proinde in Ecclesia Latina ordo maior Subdiaconatus non amplius habetur. Nihil tamen obstat, quominus, ex Conferentiae Episcopalis iudicio, Acolythus alicubi etiam Subdiaconus vocari possit.

    The Latin, non habetur, simply indicates that it no longer exists.  In the Latin Church, the subdiaconate is no more.  The PCED cannot make it exists again.

    What the Chinese did in the isolation of Communist China is not a really useful for this discussion.  And no matter what useful or helpful ceremonies the FSSP have along the way, there are no subdeacons in the Latin Church now.

  57. Jordan Potter says:

    Alex said: You are incorrect in asserting that the order of subdeacon was “abolished” in the Latin Church by Ministeria quaedam. In fact, because of the difficult situation of the Latin Church in China, Russia etc. it was stated that the minor orders were merely no longer to be conferred.

    What’s the difference between the minor orders “no longer to be conferred, ” and the minor orders being “abolished”?

    Just because something is suppressed, does not mean it is abolished or can no longer be conferred validly.

    When the Church suppressed the Jesuits, did the Church “abolish” the Society of Jesus or just say that no one can validly belong to the Society of Jesus? Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference.

    The pope does not have the right to entirely abolish holy orders.

    “Holy Orders” refers to the Sacrament of Order, ordination. The minor orders were never one of the degrees of Order — that’s really why they were called “minor” orders. There were no subdeacons in the early Church, nor was it ever an office universal in the Catholic Church, but evolved in the Latin Church. There was a time when there were no subdeacons, and there can be a time when there again are no subdeacons. The question of “validity” doesn’t apply to the subdiaconate the way it applies to Holy Orders, because being raised to the subdiaconate is not a sacrament.

    He could even presume to suppress the diaconate, for ordination to the priesthood can be conferred validly per saltum, but such a disastrous decision would not force others to no longer do so, or make them ordain deacons invalidly.

    I don’t see how the diaconate could be suppressed, since there are no priests who are not simultaneously deacons. Anyway, there has never been a time when ordination to the diaconate did not precede ordination to the priesthood, so it is academic to speculate what the Pope might presume to do in this matter. It’s never happened, and based on the perennial teaching of the Church about Holy Orders, it’s extremely difficult to see how it could ever happen. Holy Orders came to us from Jesus and the Apostles, and how that sacrament is administered is a part of the deposit of faith. The subdiaconate has no such dignity.

  58. Henry Edwards says:

    This thread is right up there with the old “how many angels can sit on the head of a pin” argument.

    Yes, having been with WDTRRS since Father Z started it, this thread certainly gets my personal all-time Head of a Pin Award.

    Perhaps it would have been more fruitful to discuss whether the priest can (or should) take off his chasuble before the sermon — and of course put it back immediately afterwards — to signify that the sermon is not part of Mass, but an interruption to it, during which Mass is “suspended”. This would of course lead to a discussion whether Mass really should be interrupted this way, since almost all sermons we hear detract from rather than support the liturgical action of the Holy Sacrifice.

    But I’m just trying to elevate the substance of this thread a bit, and it would be fine with me if Father Z has the better judgment to close it entirely.

  59. Henry: and it would be fine with me if Father Z has the better judgment to close it entirely.

    ROFL!

    Just for you, Henry!

    o{]:¬)