From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
Dear Father,
I am about Duck Duck go’d out on this and still can not find any answers. I attend weekly mass at an institute of Christ the King oratory and in our mass’s after the priest reads the gospel in Latin he not only removes his maniple before reading the Epistle and Gospel in English and delivering his sermon but he also removes the outer vestment (Dalmatic ?) and leaves it folded on the altar. What is the symbolism in not only removing the maniple but also the dalmatic? All I was able to find on line was that this was practiced by some Dominicans but by the same token they leave the maniple attached while delivering the sermon. Help! I am stumped and it’s driving me crazy!
The dalmatic is the vestment of the deacon, while the chasuble is the vestment of the priest. You probably saw the priest take off his chasuble and maniple before the vernacular readings and sermon.
Before the Conciliar reforms the repetition of the readings in the vernacular and the sermon in the vernacular were not considered to be part of the Mass. Therefore, there was a customary way to demonstrate that the priest was, for a moment, stepping out of the Mass: the removal of the maniple and perhaps also the chasuble.
And as often happens pragmatic things and actions can, over time, take on symbolic meanings. It could be that in some places for ease of ascending a narrow or lofty pulpit or ambo, it was best for the priest to remove his vestment so that he wouldn’t be hindered and it wouldn’t be damaged.
It occurs to me that in the beginning of a Pontifical Mass, the bishop doesn’t put on his maniple until after he says the Iudica psalm. That could be connected. Also, at the Requiem Mass the sermon is preached after Mass and before the absolution.
As for the Dominicans, well… they are a peculiar lot with their own odd and endearing ways. I can’t speak to their maniplology, but I bet one will soon jump in!
In the post-Conciliar way of seeing things, the sermon or homily is considered to part of the Mass. That seems to be a nod to the way Protestants do things. Remember: since classic Protestants don’t have the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, their emphasis is on Scripture and preaching and singing every note of every verse of every hymn.
Mind you, there is no rubric in the traditional form of Mass that directs the priest to remove either maniple or chasuble to preach. This is a custom. Some might say it should not be done because there is no rubric. O’Connell, for example, was strongly against it, reminding us that a bishop preaches fully vested, etc. On the other hand, there are no rubrics for lots of the things we do and do so with a happy heart because they are customary.
My view is that the removal of the maniple is a good thing. Chasuble? Sure, if Father wants to do that, fine. The removal of the vestments made you think, didn’t it, dear reader? “What’s up with that?” You were pushed to pay attention and then seek understanding. The removal of the maniple before leaving it, lonely, at the altar is a way of signaling to the congregation that something different is about to take place. It is, as a matter of fact, in the vernacular readings and sermon, that the priest is more “his own man” than at any other time. At all other time during Mass he is under strict control concerning his words and gestures.
Again, custom, not obligation. Practices will vary.
Loading ...
The maniple thus serves as a symbolic, but also physical, bookmark. (Just a bit of levity)
One of the priests in our diocesan TLM rotation removes the maniple and places it carefully over the Missal. I’ve never seen the removal of the chausable.
I have to say that I don’t remember seeing the maniple removed during Pre-Vatican II Masses in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. Admittedly, I was nine years old when the Council convened and eleven when the first changes in the liturgy were implemented in 1964, but I think I’d remember that visible gesture.
The removal of the chasuble seems to be a Institute of Christ the King thing. They probably picked it up from a one-time French custom. The SSPX, despite their French speaking origins have dispensed with many such things and even their use of the biretta varies (those who knew the Archbishop are more inclined not to wear it). I am grateful to ICKSP for providing the Holy Mass in certain locations not already served but I’m uncertain whether I could deal with their Baroque practices on a regular basis. I often wonder why they haven’t tried to revive the Gallican rabat … maybe because it’s too associated with Gallicanism I suppose.
An interesting and logical reply to the reader’s question. One question in response, though: why would a lover of beautiful liturgy not advocate singing every verse of every hymn? (I assume we are talking about hymns (and hymn tunes) of excellent quality, not—heaven forfend!—anything from the likes of Marty Haugen, GIA, Glory and Praise, etc.) If the poet who wrote the hymn knew what he was doing, he will have created a work of art in praise of Almighty God in every part. Skipping part of what he created thus is really artistic vandalism. Would one eliminate the halos from a Raphael Madonna and Child? Or truncate the text of a sung Gloria or Credo? Or skip phrases of a Palestrina Sanctus? Lovers of the TLM already believe true, good, and beautiful liturgy is worth the time it takes, without clock-watching. I humbly suggest that should extend to the hymns and other music.
[I humbly suggest that you have missed the point of that part.]
To Public Savant’s comment: The chasuble is not universally removed by ICRSP priests. If they remain at the altar, it isn’t, such as at daily Mass where they preach only briefly. If the lectern is in the sanctuary, the custom varies. They don’t revive the rabat because they’re Roman, and the Roman church went with what is admittedly a French custom, wearing the cassock daily, for everything, with the collar that we know nowadays as the Roman collar.
As to the Baroque elements of the liturgy as celebrated by the ICRSP, it grew on me, but they appreciate things from all eras and different places. They have neo-Gothic, actual Gothic, classical churches… Their apostolates in Lille and in Montpellier include a church built in the 1700s, whereas their church in Orléans is from the Middle Ages with a Second Empire choir.
In any case, the members of the ICRSP are not French, nor Italian, nor whatever else, but Catholic and Roman; in fact, because French vestments are so easy to find in France, that’s what they wear, but most of the priests, having been schooled in romanitas (in fact, the subject of the most recent issue of the seminary’s annual magazine), have at least one truly Roman chasuble. To be sure, there are innovations; they prefer the sung Mass with incense and servers to the truly Roman sung Mass with no ceremonies other than those of low Mass, but I think it’s clear that they’re not Baroque, they’re not French or Italian, but they are indeed Catholic and Roman.
ah, alas. I forgot one thing. The custom arose so as not to wipe the chasuble against the steps of the pulpit, and since only derogations like the prayers after low Mass (or, in the US, the rite of marriage) permit one to wear the chasuble outside of Mass, removing the vestment emphasizes the interruption as it is still practical to remove the vestment.
Now, one might say that it’s unnecessary if there is no pulpit or no steps, but the ICRSP is fond of doing things so that when they *do* happen, people don’t forget; this is why they hold the priest’s chasuble to incense the altar. It seems fussy, but it’s in the rubrics, and if they don’t do it, it’s more difficult to remember when he wears a cope or, more importantly, a fuller cut of the chasuble.
As for the underlying question whether the sermon is part of the Mass, I think the pretty accurate answer is “er, well, sort of”.
Vatican II is right that it (somewhat) is; but the preconciliar theory is that it is not so much.
It is to a slight degree more part of the Mass than the Leonine prayers, the Blessing For Good Weather or the concluding Marian anthem (which are not part of Mass at all).
Hence, in the old rite, the custom to remove at least something should be kept, but a custom to dress down to the bare cassock (being the teacher’s dress) with biretta, which rightly nowhere exists, should not be introduced. The rest is, as far as I gather, a matter of taste.
(I’ve seen the chasuble removed occasionally, but the usual thing is to keep it on. I haven’t ever seen a priest preach with maniple, including the Novus Ordo, because there they don’t wear it in the first place.)
David, although I don’t agree with your contention I have thought that the composer/writer worked just as hard getting the last stanza right as the first. If the whole hymn isn’t sung I will simply continue to read them all, and embrace them while the organ ceases. Ok with me.
I have commented before and I will do so again, that while I am not a prophet I do play one on the internet. I think God in his mercy will allow these two men to die on the same day, or at least in close proximity so that there will be no doubt about the next conclave.
Of course depending on who would be elected there could be those that would say it is not legitimate because Anti-Pope Francis appointed cardinals when he shouldn’t have and so the next pope would be elected by ineligible Cardinals and not be valid. but that is putting faith in politics not in God.
If however the College of Cardinals is tainted then there couldn’t really be the election of another valid pope. Then we would get into the prophesy of St. Malachy who said the last pope would be Peter the Roman (ie. Bishop of Rome not Vicar of Christ) which happens to coincide with Francis. :-/ hmmmmm
Hi Matt R,
A few points that I will address since you mentioned me.
I never said that the Institute priests remove the chasuble whilst preaching from the altar or the other circumstances you mention. Since we are talking about the blogpost above it’s pretty clear that’s the context so I stand by what I said that it seems to be something peculiar to them. My mention of the rabat was partially jocular because they have revived other clerical clothing customs. This is a conversation I’m not about to take very seriously.
I am very familiar with many of the churches used in the Institute apostolate, including former protestant ones. You can have Baroque practices if Mass is offered outside so I’m not sure whether that was to address anything I said or if it was an entirely new point.
There is no doubt, however, that despite the nationality of the individual Institute priests that there is a strong French influence with them. Maybe I know more of them than you and maybe I’ve assisted at more of their ceremonies in Europe than you but anyone who has experience of their priests and apostolate would say the same.
It is worth recalling what the Council of Trent ordered in session XXII
CHAPTER VIII: THE MASS MAY NOT BE CELEBRATED IN THE VERNACULAR. ITS MYSTERIES TO BE EXPLAINED TO THE PEOPLE
Though the mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue. Wherefore, the ancient rite of each Church, approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being everywhere retained, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, or the little ones ask for bread and there is none to break it unto them, the holy council commands pastors and all who have the that they, either themselves or through others, explain frequently during the celebration of the mass some of the things read during the mass, and that among other things they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on Sundays and festival days.
Off topic, but:
“As for the Dominicans, well… they are a peculiar lot with their own odd and endearing ways. I can’t speak to their maniplology, but I bet one will soon jump in!”
That reads like it’s straight out of Tolkien! Wonderful little paragraph, Father Zed.
“maniplology”? Hilltop’s gold star of the day!
Off topic, but:
“As for the Dominicans, well… they are a peculiar lot with their own odd and endearing ways. I can’t speak to their maniplology, but I bet one will soon jump in!”
That reads like it’s straight out of Tolkien! Wonderful little paragraph, Father Zed.
“maniplology”? Hilltop’s gold star of the day!
“Maybe I know more of them than you and maybe I’ve assisted at more of their ceremonies in Europe than you but anyone who has experience of their priests and apostolate would say the same.”
I’m not getting into a competition over who knows more ICRSP priests or who’s been to more of their ceremonies, not without doxxing myself more than I already am doxxed on here. But I know more than my fair share of their clergy on two continents, having spent a *lot* of time with them, and all I was doing was adding context…
I don’t really care or not whether your comment about the rabat was a joke, because the underlying point is that “they’re French,” which is not exactly correct, and that’s my point. I didn’t deny that they have French influences, and I said that they do, but that’s less so in the liturgy than in their overall culture.
You brought up their ostensible love for the Baroque and how you feel about it, but in any case they’re not universally Baroque or, perhaps more accurately, classical…
“Maybe I know more of them than you and maybe I’ve assisted at more of their ceremonies in Europe than you but anyone who has experience of their priests and apostolate would say the same.”
I’m not getting into a competition over who knows more ICRSP priests or who’s been to more of their ceremonies, not without doxxing myself more than I already am doxxed on here. But I know more than my fair share of their clergy on two continents, having spent a *lot* of time with them, and all I was doing was adding context…
I don’t really care or not whether your comment about the rabat was a joke, because the underlying point is that “they’re French,” which is not exactly correct, and that’s my point. I didn’t deny that they have French influences, and I said that they do, but that’s less so in the liturgy than in their overall culture.
You brought up their ostensible love for the Baroque and how you feel about it, but in any case they’re not universally Baroque or, perhaps more accurately, classical…
Our diocesan TLM’s have been greatly influenced by our local ICKSP priests and servers, who were often part of our larger celebrations, pre-Covid.
One diocesan priest might remove his chasuble to preach, another just his maniple.
I was trained to remove the maniple as a matter of custom and always do. As for the chasuble my understanding is that’s an option so if it’s hot it comes off for preaching. The TLM is very sensible and practical.
An older priest told me the maniple was a symbol of Our Lord being tied and led to Calvary, so since He wasn’t bound when He preached we remove it when we preach.
St.Alphonsus Liguori ?? said that the maniple was too wipe away the tears from the priest’s face as he realized the magnitude of what he was doing at the altar.
To Imrahil:
I think it is, to the contrary, clear that the homily/sermon is NOT part of the liturgy, strictly speaking. There’s a full-length treatment of this subject at The Remnant:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/5234-the-homily-is-not-part-of-the-liturgy
Pingback: VVEEKEND EDITION – Big Pulpit
I have never seen a priest take off the chasible to preach at the traditional Catholic Masses that I attend. I think some refer to it as the Novus Ordo, not sure. The priest doesn’t wear a Maniple either, so he doesn’t have to take it off. As a nearly daily server at Mass before VII, I don’t remember the priest taking off the maniple then either. Perhaps they only do it for the old form of the Mass. The traditional Mass, the one million upon millions attend each week doesn’t seem to be so hidebound about old fashioned “do the red.”
Speaking very practically, I’d be fine with a revival of this custom — i.e., removing the chasuble for part of Mass — particularly in the warmer, more humid part of the year.
I suspect that in the days before air conditioning existed, clerics’ amices and albs needed to be laundered MUCH more frequently. And I’m guessing they wore chasubles made as thin as possible?
Still, I marvel at their fortitude, because even with a/c, I still sometimes get overheated, and I’ve had to pull away the amice and “vent off” some of that heat. As much as I don’t like turning into a ball of sweat, even more, I don’t like damaging expensive vestments, or being a distraction at Mass: “Marge, why do you think he’s taking off his vestments?”