Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
If a priest can dress up like Barney to celebrate mass; when the hymn can be a remake of the Brady Bunch theme song; when just about any kind of heterodox nonsense can take place, then maybe a little biretta is no big deal.
I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but on the other hand it's not like anyone in authority really seems to give a damn. Maybe it doesn't matter much anymore when it comes to little things like a biretta, eh?
Let's not fall into the perennial trap that got us into this mess, eh? Time to stop being chumps.
Michigancatholic,
Well, first off they can't dress up like Barney, and they aren't to be using secular melodies. That is an abuse.
This thread isn't about that though.
Please, let's focus.
I have a very vague recollection of reading or hearing that the priest can wear his biretta in the new rite until he gets to the sanctuary, at which time he must remove it.
Am I making that up?
What does Bishop-elect Elliot say in his books?
I say, if a traditional priest wants to use either the maniple or the biretta at the NO, He should use them.
If the liberal priests have dressed up (or down) howeverway they've wished, the traditional minded should be able to dress likewise.
I've even noticed some Cardinals (2 USA) and a few from Europe wearing on occasions of ceremony either the scarlet or purple cloak with shoulder cape and black fur collar, as well as the "Capello Romano" or Roman platter hat in scarlet or purple felt with a gold or green cord.
Paul VI in a whim, upon the advice of liberal liturgical wreckovators right after Vatican II dismantled most all ceremonial and ecclesiastical dress, sweeping away centuries.
Regardless of Him, some have brought bits and pieces back. And I hope it continues.
"I've even noticed some Cardinals...."
If it is not possible to find an explicit statement of the non-licitness of something, one may assume that it is licit, especially where it has been the the custom.
I'm not a ceremonialist, but I see the Oratorians of St. Philip Neri wearing birettas all the time, though never maniples. I think birettas are allowed.
Birettas and maniple are worn during Mass at Brompton Oratory, including birettas during the Epistle and psalms at Vespers.
Where hoods are worn by monastics, caps are worn by others. There is nothing to preclude the custom
There's an assumption (and regrettably I don't mean of the BVM) in RC culture that the liberals have got a lot of mileage out of over the past 40 years: make a practice optional and it's as good as suppressed. They played that game with fasting and meat on Fridays (once an RC marker in the English-speaking world and still well remembered) and I believe that's the case here.
It's not a matter of mixing the old and new missals which you're never allowed to do.
The maniple and biretta are optional therefore you may use them.
I have a very vague recollection of reading or hearing that the priest can wear his biretta in the new rite until he gets to the sanctuary, at which time he must remove it.
Which sounds about the same as in the traditional missal. Remember at Low Mass the priest hands his hat to the altar boy as soon as he enters the sanctuary and it remains off until the very end.
Do you mean he can't wear it sitting in the sedilia in the sanctuary, the practice at High Mass in the traditional missal? That he may wear it only in procession?
Birettas and maniple are worn during Mass at Brompton Oratory, including birettas during the Epistle and psalms at Vespers.
Where hoods are worn by monastics, caps are worn by others. There is nothing to preclude the custom.
Thank you.
I have to look up the document on this but, I checked on the maniple and the only thing I saw was that it was no longer required it was not supressed. So I have ordered maniples to go with some of my vestments for myself and the deacon. I wear the biretta for the entrance and the recessional. I don't wear it during the liturgy.
I think that this is a question to which there is no straight answer to be found.
The CDW famously stated in Notitiae in the late 1970s that where the rubrics of the 1970 Missal are silent or ambiguous it is not to be inferred that the former practice is to be observed. Now, does this mean that everything old that is not explicitly provided for is abrogated? No one seems to agree on this. Many have proposed, for instance, that the Host and chalice should not be elevated in the manner of the old rite, but rather a mere few inches above the altar, since the rubrics state simply that it is to be shown to the people and when Mass is celebrated versus populum they can see it perfectly clearly without a signicant elevation. But papal practice suggests otherwise.
The CDW is today a more traditional outfit than it was in the late 70s and if questioned today about minutiae such as maniples and birettas it would probably take a pretty liberal stance. michigancatholic's comments may have been exaggerated for rhetorical effect but I think the basic point is on the mark: all manner of strange things go on at a typical Catholic Mass that are not explicitly proscribed in the rubrics. The rubrics arguably don't proscribe the use of Asian-style bowls of incense rather than thuribles, and this has become a fad in certain circles. So what's the big deal about a hat and a napkin?
The NO missal does not mention the maniple or biretta, but at no time were they abolished.
I am surprised that the biretta should be under question in this way, as it is (at least here in England), relatively widely used.
Maniples were never abolished, either, although they are something of a political statement, however. It has been joked that wherever the unpopular Bishop B**** in England goes, birettas sprout like mushrooms, due to his opposition to any form of liturgical nicety/authenticity.
Andrew.
But wild abuses like the Barney incident OFTEN occur, Shawn, and that is exactly the point.
Hum "Here I Am, Lord" to yourself a little bit and you will realize you ARE singing the Brady Bunch theme song. And it's shoved on us with regularity, with USCCB approval.
In the face of this wild variation, I do believe that an discussion over birettas isn't a world-shaking thing. I dare say if the priest shows up, he's clothed in normal vestments and says mass with a little bit of reverence, it might be more conducive to worship than average, biretta or not.
We need to stop engaging in interior decorating while the city is burning.
The Last time the maniple was mentioned in a document was Tres Abhinc Annnos an this simply stated that the maniple was now optional; it never abolished it. Several priests have told me that is is perfectly legitimate to wear the maniple in a NO mass
Indeed, I think the healthiest thing I've seen in the Church is occurring among some of the young, who understand that it's just "a hat and a napkin," and perhaps a political statement, simultaneously. (We have a lot of these symbolic things.)
Young "fogeys" who've done their homework know how the revolution was fought and are not squeamish about dropping back to the ancient Catholic custom of using what's at hand as long as it is not literally stopped. Ergo, on the face of it, one can use a biretta which is simply a traditional cleric's hat, as long as it is not literally snatched off one's head. And in comparison with a "Barney event," it's really really no big deal. No one is going to raid the rectory to destroy the hat, you understand. No edict is going to come flying in from Rome to forbid you wearing black hats with pompoms.
Simultaneously, one makes a statement with a biretta. But that has nothing at all to do with its use as a clerical hat qua hat. One can use the hat and convey a message or not. So it's a bit of silliness to legally infer from the hat, but everyone gets the point. Smart.
Just taking a page from the way the revolution was fought. One might as well learn from disasters, else they only remain disasters.
Tres Abhinc Annos! That's the document I was referring to. Thank You Jude.
Is my memory accurate that a the N.O. Latin Mass at St. Mary Major they wear the biretta?
The Fathers of the London Oratory wear the biretta for Solemn mass in the New Rite, as to the Canons of St. Mary Major in Rome.
James-Charles Noonan in his work The Church Visible (although it does contain some errors) establishes that permission to use the biretta has never been revoked as well he offers the proper method of using the biretta in the Mordern Roman Rite. On pp. 302-304.
The maniple is an optional vestment, never having been supressed. Unfortunately the English translation of Tres Abhinc Annos, seems to weaken the optional use of the maniple. The English translation say, "The maniple is no longer required." Implying that it should no longer be used. It is translated with a negative sense rather than the more permissive and postivie sense of the Latin which says, "Manipulus semper omitti potest." A translation would be, "The maniple can always be omitted." I spoke with Bishop-elect Elliott when I had the chance to meet him and asked him his opinion regarding the maniple. He said there was no problem using one if one wished. Another interesting source regarding the use of the maniple is Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. Now before one groans at the mention of his name, he is actually on the side of the optional use of the maniple. When looking at a law, on can look to the intention of the legislator. Archbishop Bugnini provides needed insight into this question. Twice in his work, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, he specifically says the use of the maniple is optional. On p. 115, "wearing of the maniple was made optional." And again on p. 838, "As for vestments, the maniple becomes optional."
One may question why the maniple was made optional and I wondered this for a long time. I discovered an interesting source of information when I looked up Tres Abhinc Annos in Notitiae. Not only did it contain the text of the document but it also provided a commentary as to why the decisions were made. Here is the Latin of the text.
"Manipulus derivare videtur a 'mappula' romana quae ad ornatum et ad utilitatem practicam adhibebatur. Ea utebantur Consules ad circenses aperiendos. Subdiaconus in Ordine romano I mappulam pontificus accipiebat et ingrendiens acclesiam scholae signum faciebat ut cantum ad introitum inciperet. Quandoque autem, diaconus calicem et patenam celebranti 'mediante mappula' porrigebat (ex. gr. Ordo Stefaneschi, a. 1311).
Mostris temporibus manipulus factus est vestis sacra adhibita a subdiacono, diacono, presbytero et episcopo in ministerio Missae tantum. Tamen, nullis est utilitatis nec practicae nec aesteticae, eiusque significatio non percipitur; dum e contra gestus in actione sacra peragendos impedit."
I wish I had a good translation of the text but I don't. I always wondered what Fr. Z. whould have to say about it.
Gamarelli in Rome makes black birettas. So it must be thought that someone might wear them at some time
There is a difference now between the entrance in the Old Rite and the entrance of the N.O. The former was a prelude to the liturgy (the introit wasn't really begun until the priest got into the sanctuary), so the priest wore head gear, and those in choir kept their head gear (as they did for divine office, I presume). With the N.O., the entrance procession is strictly liturgical. The Mass starts with it (the introit now begins with the beginning of the entrance procession). Thus, the biretta, which is part of street clothing, doesn't have a role, in my opinion, in the Mass, and shouldn't be worn during entrance procession, exit procession or any other part of the Mass. (Brompton Oratory have non-concelebrating priests in choir wearing the biretta, I presume).
As far as the maniple is concerned, I think it's safe to say it's a liturgical vestment like the alb, chasuble, stole, dalmatic. Since it hasn't been mentioned in any document after Ad tres hinc annos (1965), and is specifically omitted from the Roman Missal in force since 1969, I think it's safe to say it's not supposed to be used. Has any Pope used it in a N.O. Mass since 1969? No.
I think the practice of bishops blessing the congregation in the former "entrance processions" are like the biretta. They are not really related to the Mass. The N.O.'s entrance procession is part of the Mass, and thus the bishops' blessing doesn't really fit in.
First off, let me declare an interest: I wear the maniple normally at Mass and I wear the biretta at our more solemn Mass on Sunday (and increasingly at other times.)
Biretta - no problem surely. You see them on Cardinals in Rome so the custom is clearly allowed. Remember that in Liturgical matters, custom, including "contrary custom" is important.
Maniple - I take the view that it was not abolished but merely made no longer compulsory. The Tres Abhinc Annos text says that it has no practical or aesthetic purpose. Well I can't see that any vestments have a "practical" purpose. Their practical purpose disappeared long ago and they were preserved for reasons of giving due solemnity to the Liturgy. As for aesthetic purpose, that is only part of the story. Vestments and liturgical actions have also taken on various allegorical meanings as was capably explained by Fr Barthe at the CIEL conference at Oxford last year.
A deeper question is the extent to which the Liturgical norms will be able to preserve the semblance of consistency. Liturgicam Authenticam is a clear repudiation of much that was in Comme le prevoit. If the much hoped-for Motu Proprio comes out, it will contradict the clearly stated view that the Traditional Rite was abrogated.
It will be good if finally the CDW or the Pope himself can say of some matters of liturgical discipline "We got that bit wrong." To say that we got things wrong for 30 years or so is far less damaging than continuing to say that we got things wrong for a thousand years.
Observing,
Interesting that you mention the blessing by a Bishop during the Entrance Procession.
The Ceremonial of Bishops, n. 128 says:
"As the entrance song is being sung, the procession moves from the vesting room to the sanctuary in the following order: . . . the Bishop, walking alone, wearing the miter, carrying the pastoral staff in his left hand and blessing with his right."
Here in Saint Paul, MN, the priests and deacons at St. Agnes always wear the biretta in both the processional and recessional. If you don't know St. Agnes, check out their website:
www.stagnes.net
Look under the desktops link for pictures.
It is a NO parish that is very traditional, I often imagine that this is what an organic development of the TLM would look like for the most part.
I'm amazed that no one has submitted a dubium to the CDW to clarify either of these issues.
Birettas were made OPTIONAL for clerics of non-episcopal rank (priests, deacons) in 1964! They were NEVER abolished, suppressed, or even "laid in abeyance" (which is one step before suppression).
I can't speak on the subject of maniples other than to say I asked one of my parish priests way back in 1979, and he simply said they were "no longer used", but nothing more specific than that.
Birettas are indeed merely optional in the NO. There's no reason why they can't be worn now.
If you wear a biretta, you remove it prior to going up to the altar, just like in the Old Rite, with one minor difference: unlike the Old Rite, the altar server, upon taking the biretta from the priest, no longer kisses the priest's hand. That's the only thing they abolished. Nothing else.
You are most welcome fr. mike
Why, Zadok? It's a hat.
Just to make certain people are clear, my intent here is not that I am proposing they aren't valid to use. Rather, my own feeling is that these are not abolished.
The reason I am throwing it out here, is because ideally what I'd like to find is some text which clarifies this, so that I might submit it to the original place which stated they weren't permitted.
However, I need to go with something in hand to make the case.
Fr. Finigan,
Always a treat to hear from you on here. Fr. Barthe's discussion of the symbolism of vestments a la Durandus was very inspiring.
Since we are talking about the use of vestments. There once was a website by a seminarian named Joe Shelter who attended Conception Seminary and one of the sections he had on it was all the documents since the Second Vatican Council on vestments. Alas the site disappeared, but not before I saved the majority of the material. I decided to take it upon myself to resurrect it. I've done so slowly, in between all my other tasks. I guess its in good enough shape to let people take a look.
Most of the translations are the official ones, with the except some that have yet to be translated.
http://www.jefferybebeau.com/ves...ents/
index2.htm
If Joe Shelter is out there it would be great if he could contact me.
"Thus, the biretta, which is part of street clothing,"
No it is, "house clothing", the saturno is for the street.
Sorry this is a bit off topic... I've just written an essay that looked at Durandus' symbolic interpretation of various vestments. Perhaps NLM might look at this aspect of the use of liturgical vestments: is it made-up theology, or does it have something important to say?
The immemorial custom of wearing the biretta and the maniple has never been explicitly abrogated, therefore both may be worn.
Observing
I think you are misrepresenting the procession a little bit. It is true that in modern High Masses in the Pian rite often the Introit does not begin until after the priest reaches the sanctuary, but this is only because often when the faithful are able to have a sung Mass these days, they like to include the Asperges, which was only done before the principal Mass on Sunday. If there was no Asperges, then it is right and, in fact, laudable to begin the Inroit as the Ministers proceed down the church. Thus, there is nothing aliturgical about the procession, and nothing that would make the birretta somehow inappropriate in the Modern rite.
The 1967 document Tres abhinc annos says, "The maniple is no longer required."
Does this mean that it is optional? Is there a more recent document on the matter? I don't know.
Just a point about the biretta - isn't perhaps the practical purpose to anonomise the priest on his way to and from the Sanctuary, and while he is sitting in choir, given that as the celebrant he will be standing in Persona Christi Capitis? The biretta takes away the individuality of the priest, while emphasising his importance in standing in the place of Christ. In the old rite, we will not see much more of him, given that he will be much more facing God than us. In the new rite we will see plenty of him. However, given the Holy Father's concern (in Sacramentum Caritatis)that the priest should avoid "anything that might give the impression of an inordinate emphasis on his own personality" - would not the reintroduction of the biretta in the NO help to some extent in this respect?
If I recall correctly, In the early 60's ( I was in elementary school, where we attended and sang the daily Mass) some changes were made in the Trinetine rite, such as fewer Masses with Credos being said, the maniple seemed to have disappeared at the same time.
WOW! This is truly hot topic. I would only throw into the mix two things that I have noticed here and there trying to figure out these issues for myself:
1. At the Sunday Capitular Mass at St. Peter's in the Vatican, the canons (main celebrant, concelebrants, and those attending in choir) all use the biretta.
2. In the Holy Father's Chrism Mass homily when he gave reflections on the symbolism of the vestments, he did not mention the maniple nor its symbolism. (I don't think that he did anyway.)
I don't think that you can conclude anything definite from what the St. Peter's Canons do or what the Pope "opts" to say or not say about something that seems to be "optional", but I just thought I'd throw my own proverbial biretta into the discussion.
"The immemorial custom of wearing the biretta..."
Immemorial? Come on now, the biretta evolved from medieval academic garb, the same forerunner of the mortarboard. You can clearly see its origins in European academic headwear. This is hardly immemorial.
Neither the Biretta nor the maniple have been surpressed.
My pastor wears his every Sunday,and has worn both in the prescence of our Diocesan bishop.
God bless you
At the bottem of this page of photos (text in Italian - photo on bottom left of page is best)
http://www.diocesi.genova.it/imm...a=&pag=5&
rpp=20
you can see the ordination of an Auxiliary Bishop of Genoa by the then-Archbishop, Card. Bertone. Prior to the actual moment of Ordination, when he is given the mitre, the bishop-elect wears a purple biretta with his Mass vestments.
Wouldn't the question be:
Was the use mandated before and then omitted?
In a responsum ad dubium dated 1978 (See Notitiae 14 (1978) 301-302, no. 2), the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was asked whether the manner of incensation described in the 1962 Missale Romanum could be used in the Missale Romanum of 1975. The response was in the negative, and included the comment:
It musty not be forgotten that the Missal of Pope Paul VI has, since 1970, supplanted the one called improperly "the Missal of Saint Pius V," and completely so, in both texts and rubrics. 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."
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/inn...ws/
082002.shtml
It sounds to me as if any rubric which appears in the previous books and no longer appears in the present books is to be construed as abrogated and no longer to be observed, not made optional in the Novus Ordo, at least according to this ruling.
Canon lawyers would have to explain whether this has binding force or whether such things can fall into desuetude. Or whether some subsequent ruling has changed it.
Michael Lawrence - In answer to your question, Bishop-elect Elliott references the biretta twice in the CMRR:
Choir Dress sect 137
The biretta is named as a part of the choir dress of monsignori and is customarily used by all clergy in choir in some churches.
--[Footnote: Cf. CB nos. 1207, 1208. It is used in major basilicas in Rome. However the practice of only carrying it seems to be superfluous and inconvenient.]
The Vestments of the Bishop sect 141
The choir dress of all bishops and cardinals is the rabat, cassock, silk sash and socks of the appropriate color, then a rochette, the mozetta, a pectoral cross on the appropriate silk and gold cord, the ring, a skullcap and biretta.
--[Footnote: See CB nos. 63, 1199-202, 1205.]
-
Jonathan: Yes, they use birettas at the Novus Ordo Latin Mass at St. Mary Major in Rome.
Thanks John.
Concerning the Maniple, one priest recently told me that it was the vestment of the subdeacon and may only be worn by those priests who had received the subdeaconal ordination, which was abolished under Paul VI. Thus, almost every priest ordinated after 1970 may not wear the maniple.
Is this true?
IIRC, "immemorial" custom means beyond living memory. "Centenary" custom is beyond 100 years, and traditionally had the deepest privileging.
I was under the impression that the biretta and maniple were options, with the use of the biretta being modified per the prior comment on that point. I don't think they enhance the de-personalizing of the priest; actually, where they are rarely used, they are more likely to have the opposite effect.
In St. Louis, His Grace, the Most Reverened Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke, has allowed the use of the biretta. As regards to the maniple, it has never been suppressed, therefore both may be used.
Concerning the biretta:
The wearing of the biretta is a sign of priestly juridiction. Some old ceremonial manuals note that the priest should where the biretta while hearing confessions.
I think Archbishop Burke wears his biretta when he hears confessions on Holy Saturday.
The rubrics for the biretta in the Novus Ordo are in Noonan's Church Visible. I think it boils down to entrance processions (remove it at foot of the sanctuary), then while seated during the readings, then during the homily except by the homilist (one difference with the old rubrics), then off again from the Offertory to when the Host is returned to the tabernacle after Communion, off again for the final prayer, then on in procession.
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
Fascinating topic. With regard to the biretta, I have seen it used, though infrequently, still enough that I have always presumed it to be licit in the Novus Ordo. As many point out here, the custom still seems to exist.
As far as the maniple, I've tended to presume that even though it wasn't ever explicitly suppressed, that doesn't mean it's OK, because there is an entirely new missal which nowhere mentions it. Thus, one could argue that to add the maniple in the current Missal would be unwarranted. (Otherwise, one could use the argument from silence to re-introduce twenty-plus signs of the cross in the Canon!)
On the other hand, the current Missal says nothing of the biretta either, so it would seem they should stand or fall together. I would very much like to see the place where Bishop-Elect Elliott approves of the maniple, as I would say he counts as an "approved author" nowadays.
As for the quotes from Abp. Bugnini, I don't have the book with me, but what part of the memoirs are those words from? Is he referring to the 1970 missal (in which case it would seem the maniple is clearly an option) or simply to one of the intermediate stages of reform in 1965 or 1967 (in which case the maniple, while optional then, may have been abrogated in 1970)?
I do know that the instruction "Ut Sive" on the vesture of prelates and other ecclesiastical dignitaries supresses the purple tuft on the biretta of monsignori so it seems to presume its continued use in some fashion.
I cannot find a mention of the maniple anywhere in the GIRM and so would presume it has been supressed,
especially in light of the 1978 clarification in "Notitiae" regarding the the rubrics of the 1962 Missal vis a vis the Novus Ordo.
Mike,
I know Archbishop Burke wears choir dress to hear confessions; I'm not sure if he had the biretta or not. However, if one can wear it at Mass, it would seem to be appropriate for confession a fortiori.
Thank you Michael J. Houser for your insightful comment. Much appreciated!
Msgr Alliegro: The purple tuft on the biretta was abolished for the now-renamed rank of Chaplain of His Holiness. The amaranth red tuft remains for Protonotaries Apostolic.
There are a few liturgical items not specifically mentioned in the IGMR which are commonly used - they include the missal stand or liturgical pillow, and the burse, and perhaps the microphone. Liturgical law is not codified. It exists in several sources, and indeed sometimes these sources may even be discordant. Nevertheless, one should not assume that with the 1969 Missale Romanum, every previous liturgical law suddenly was abrogated, or even suppressed. When considering liturgical laws we ought to consider all the various sources. At the same time we should remember that custom is the best interpreter of the law. There are several types of custom including the so-called praeter legem custom, and also the contra legem custom. The biretta, maniple, burse and Missal Stand would seem to all fall under the former type of custom. Since none of them have been abrogated, nor their use reprobated; since their use is not odious to the faith in any manner, the use of them can be tolerated provided that they accord with local custom. The manner of incensation if done in the old manner at an altar joined to a wall would fall under the category of a contra legem custom, not because of what appeared in Notitiae, but because in 1984 the new ceremonial of Bishops prescribed the manner in which the altar is to be incensed if it is joined to a wall. That prescription was then introduced into the latest IGMR. To continue to incense in the former manner could only attain the force of particular law as a contra legem custom if its use is continued for a long period of time as specified by the code. If priests will be so strict when it comes to the interpretation of Liturgical law, then I would direct them to rubric #11 in the current Roman Ritual - Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass which states:
The presence of eucharist in the tabernacle is to be shown by a veil or another suitable way determined by the competent authority. As an indication of Christ's presence and as a mark of reverence, a special lamp should burn continuously before a tebernacle in which the eucharist is reserved. According to traditional usage, the lamp should, if at all possible, be an oil lamp or a lamp with a wax candle.
The rubric mention both the veil and the lamp, but if the competent authority has indicated no substitute is would seem that the use of the veil is the primary way in which the presence of Christ is signified, and the candle is secondary in this regard, and an additional mark of honor. The competent authority in these instances would be the Conference of Bishops. I am not aware that any definitive alternative to the veil has been given, or at least I have not been able to find any law which allows a substitute for the veil approved by the NCCB/USCC or USCCB. It would also seem that the perpetual light that burns before the tabernacle would not be a sufficient substitute since the very rubric in question presumes t
How about this...
1. Classical rite: birettas required.
2. Modern rite: birettas optional.
Rev. Mr. Michael Houser,
My congratulations on your recent diaconal ordination. As always you provide a profound depth of insight into complex issues that I have always appreciated.
Alas, the approval of Bishop-elect Elliott was a verbal one.
The topic of liturgical law is a complex one, one that can be highly nuanced, and I believe that this is the case in regards to the maniple. We cannot say that since it is no longer in the GIRM is is no longer permitted. Church law is generally applied in a positive manner, that is once something is permitted is needs to be specifically abrogated. With so many of the rubrics published in the years after Vatican II either surplaned by more recent documents or incorporated into revision it is easy to believe that any of the things refered to by them are "out of date." But since the publication of Tres Abhinc Annos in 1967 making the use of the maniple optional, there has not been any reference to in additional Church documents altering its status, such as the GIRM. As you pointed out the same can be said in regards to the biretta. Some people might say why hasn't the Church said something in regards to the biretta in the post-conciliar rite. It seems to me that the Church doesn't have to, since permission was never revoked in the eyes of the Church to exercise a legitimate option, why say anything? In looking through the Apostolic Constitution of Paul VI and the various other decrees, I cannot find a blanket revocation of things in effect.
In regards to the numerous signs of the cross that existed in the Missal of 1962, they were explicitly suppressed in Tres Abhinc Annos, n. 11 b. "In the Canon, the celebrant makes one sign of the cross over the offerings at the words benedicas + haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in the prayer Te igitur. He makes no other sign of the cross over the offerings."
Though no canonist, I am intrigued by the discussion prompted by the reference to that staggering 1978 rescript from the CDW. As I understand it, the Ritus Servandus of the old Missal was essentially a collection of observed rubrics - this is what is actually done, therefore this is what should be done. The rubrics of the new Missal are of a quite different character - this has never been done before, but the Holy See insists that this is what you do from now on. One set of rubrics derives its authority from custom and 'possession'; the other from law. The 1978 document seems to say that law stands alone, and should not be even interpreted in the light of custom (the hermeneutic of rupture, with a vengeance). Whatever happened to 'consuetudo vincit legem'?
I think perhaps we should look to the excellent article on this blog on Liturgical Custom by Dom Christopher Lazowski, OSB http://
thenewliturgicalmovement....01_archive.html
The legalistic nature we have aquired since the problems of the Protestant reformation are not something to base ourselves upon.
That is why it is so imperative for the future of the liturgy that the Classical Rite (and Dominican, Carmelite, Sarum etc) be restored, so we can have a proper organic develpment.
Were birettas ever mandatory?
And another question- what about the tunicle? The subdiaconate was supressed, but was the tunicle?
Shawn
Could this discussion be extended to the Burse and Veil. I always felt these to be a great loss especially when they were carried to the altar by the priest. I have seen the veil used here in a few churches and in one the chalice/paten was actually set up with a veil the old way on the altar. We have lost so much ceremonial that sometimes mass feels like a staff meeting at my school.
The Ceremonial of Bishops, n125 states that the chalice is covered with a veil. No mention is made of a burse.
David,
The veil is permitted, the 2002 GIRM calls its use laudable. There is not mention of the burse.
It seems that there is a lack of consensus on the use of the maniple and biretta in the current Roman Rite. What can be agreed upon is that their use was required in the 1962 Missal (even then I am not sure about the biretta). The use of the maniple was made optional in 1967 by Tres Abhinc Annos. With the promulgation of the 1969 Missal, in which there is no mention of either, their use is disputed.
Daniel,
The use of the tunic was used in the current Roman Rite until the suppression of the subdiaconate. Here is the reference in the first edition of the GIRM.
http://www.jefferybebeau.com/ves...9%
20English.pdf
When the subdiaconate was suppressed the GIRM was revised to take this into account. When this was done the tunic disappeared from the current Roman Rite.
I have heard of rare cases when celebrating a Solemn Mass with an instituted acolyte, the acolyte wears the tunic, based upon custom.
Yes I too have heard that the tunic is used by instituted acolytes in the NO in some places. This was allowed by the vatican for the classical rite (to speak of the devil they specifically said that maniple was not to be worn by acolytes- which is of course normal whith lay clerks as opposed to ordained subdeacons). But regarding thr use of the tunicle in the novus ordo- I agree that the references to it were deleted after the subdiaconate was, but the tunicle itself wasn't (thoug one could probably assume).
In the places you refer to- does the acolyte wear it only if a deacon is present or at any time?
I believe only when the deacon is present, to recreate the paralell of the 3 sacred ministers at a solemn Mass.
Hello Eric,
I suspect that, like many, you are not familiar with canon law, and understandably so. On immemorial custom, I suggest you examine - perhaps with a good commentary - the Juris Codex Canonici, but here is a translation of the relevant canons from the Holy See website (I direct you to canons 26-28 in particular) :
Can. 23 Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.
Can. 24 §1. No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of law.
§2. A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.
Can. 25 No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.
Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.
Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.
Can. 28 Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law (praeter legem). Unless it makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.
The biretta is NOT a sign of priestly jurisdiction. I have not seen this anywhere and it doesn't make sense since every cleric has the right to head covering. Perhaps the author of the note meant to say the zucchetto. The black zucchetto may be worn by priests and clerics EXCEPT in the sanctuary when it must be put aside except in the case of all ranks of mitred abbots or if a personal indult is given The only sign of priestly jurisdiction I know of is the soutane for irremovable rectors (a rank now abolished).
So the thread continues. This is sooo much fun!!!!
I say both the Tridentine Mass and the Pope Paul experimental liturgy. Here in my parish for all Sundays and Feasts I wear the Biretta in procession and also during the Liturgy of the Word, as do my deacons. I wear the maniple whenever the set of vestments has it included. New chasubles from many Roman outfitters continue to come with cinque pezzi (maniple, burse and veil included). I have always understood that these garments are purely optional. I opt for them.
Fr Redman
An interesting point that I read from Fortesque. He remarks that "the maniple, more than the chasuble, is the Eucharist vestments".
Daniel, you said: "The legalistic nature we have aquired since the problems of the Protestant reformation are not something to base ourselves upon."
I agree. It's a hat.
Another corrosive thing that happened (or maybe just intensified) with Vatican II = the need to look every twitch up in a document someplace. I can understand how it happened. I've done it myself--looked it up to copy and paste it online. It's how half this reform has been initiated--I'm convinced of that. HOwever, it can get out of control and become sheer legality. Be aware.
George,
This is interesting, and to a certain extent I concur.
It should be remembered that in all Pontifical Masses, both high and low, in the Classical Rite, the Bishop does not put on the Maniple until AFTER he is done saying the prayers at the foot of the altar. He then only puts on the maniple as he is about to ascend the altar.
This shows clearly the fact that the prayers at the foot of the altar are not part of the mass itself, but rather a "fore-mass." Since they are not part of the mass, the bishop does not wear the priestly vestment until after he is done with this part.
I've served for Fr. Z twice at a conference, and he has used the maniple that was made available to him on both occasions - so maybe that answers the question about how he feels about the matter! He also made use of his own personal biretta on both occasions before, during and after Mass.
I cannot help but notice that most references to the appropriate legislation on these matters are in English. I'm sure none of us need reminding that they are officially codified in Latin, which is the proper language to determine the will of the lawgiver. That discrepencies can arise between the two, has recently been the subject of Father Zuhlsdorf's commentaries on the post-synodal exhortation on the Eucharist. The problem is not limited to that particular document.
While a certain English text -- I cannot say which -- may imply that the maniple has been supressed or is otherwise not used, I am informed today by a knowledgable priest (who has been known to visit this forum now and again), that the Latin original clearly allows its continued use.
(Now, where is the good Father when I need him?)
I don't like to go with "because a priest told me so." I think we have all seen that is not always going to give us the truth.
Sounds like a dubitum to the CDW needs to be made.
... Or a motu proprio needs to be released :)
The former was a prelude to the liturgy (the introit wasn't really begun until the priest got into the sanctuary)
Observer, that's not correct. The Introit was sung as the priest (Pope) processed into the Church, which is why there are plenty of verses available (though today never used.)
The singing of the Introit during the procession was an innovation of Pius XII. Previously, it was enjoined that the Introit should not be started until the priest reached the foot of the altar and began the prayers.
Also, someone earlier mentioned a bishop (Apb. Burke? - recently) wearing his biretta with vestments. Actually, a bishop (unlike a priest) was NEVER permitted to wear his biretta with vestments, but wore the skull cap alone (when not mitred).
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
The reference to Archbishop Burke wearing a biretta was to hearing confessions in choir dress. Of course, a biretta is part of the appropriate choir dress of a bishop, though as you rightly point out a bishop should not wear it to celebrate Mass. I have never seen Abp. Burke wear it when celebrating Mass (although it is legitimate if attending in choir).
Though in ancient days, the introit was sung in procession, was it not?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
08081a.htm
according to this it was alwas originally a processional
The singing of the Introit during the procession was an innovation of Pius XII. Previously, it was enjoined that the Introit should not be started until the priest reached the foot of the altar and began the prayers.
According to the New Advent cite from Matthew, Pius XII actually revived an ancient practice. So from earliest times through roughly 1000AD, it was sung as a processional. For the next 1000 years it was truncated, beginning when the priest got to the altar.
Yeah, but lots of folks seem to think that even if Pius XII revived an ancient practice, it was "the beginning of the disaster". That's how they look at the revised Easter Vigil liturgy, for instance.
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
I didn't even know that Pius XII had the introit sung during the procession; all the classical rite Masses I've been to don't begin the introit until the priest begins the prayers at the foot of the altar. When was this change made?
I have to say, this seems like one instance where reviving an ancient practice isn't such a bad thing. I have a hard time seeing what one could object to about singing the introit during the procession, other than perhaps the fact that it removes the opportunity for a vernacular hymn, which often is sung at that point in indult parishes.
That New Advent Article was by Fortescue by the way.
I don't think your summarry is entirely correct, dad29. It does say it began to be truncated in the middle ages but does not say that its use as a processional was abandoned until Pius XII, which, considering the richness of the Medieval liturgy and the different uses, is highly unlikely.
Michael J. Houser, your query demonstrates a good point- liturgical directives from the Vatican weren't always followed in the pre conciliar era either, nor is the minituae of the tridentine mass the same all over the world at the moment.
In Sydney, (as far as I can remember)the FSSP masses have a processional introit and no birettas (and rarely fiddlebacks-its quite medieval in style- very beutiful!)
check out these pics from sydney
http://
thomasperegrinus.blogspot...01_archive.html
Here is the logical argument against the use of the maniple.
1. GIRM lists the vestments that the priest is to wear, and the maniple is not included.
2. GIRM explicitly states that the priest on his own authority cannot add anything to the Mass.
3. Therefore, the maniple, being an addition to the rubrics of the Mass, is forbidden.
Simple, clear, unassailable logic.
RP Burke:
The issues regarding what law prescribes as compared to custom has been covered above. But the GIRM also doesn't tell the priest to wear underwear either, surely your false syllogism doesn't carry over to such absurdity?
Ah, Malleus, again the absurd parallel to underwear, which -- being invisible -- has no semiotic value. So much for that.
Its not the Mass but at St. Peter's in Rome the Canons wear the Biretta to throughout Vespers removing it only for the Gospel Canticle, and the priests in choir carry their birettas
RP Burke,
It doesn't seem to be an addition of their own initative if it is a long standing tradition of the Church.
I think we need to get out of this rut that every Mass in the world needs to be identicle. Not all liturgical variation constitutes an abuse. Unless something is expressly forbidden, if it has a history in the tradition I don't see why you can't incorporate it. I mean after all isn't this how authentic organic developement occurs. The problems we have experienced over the past forty years are the result of a centralized power play not originally of local abuses. I mean as much as I love Pius V and his Mass, in reality his centralization of the Roman Rite was a modern inovation and a break from the tradition the still continues to this day in the East. The problem is not invovation and inculturization in line with the spirit of the Liturgy but rather blatant disregard for its nature and willful corruption of the rite.
singing the introit at the beginning of prayers at the foot of the altar (instead of the procession) has the practical effect of covering those prayers with music leading directly to the kyrie timing it so that the end of the kyrie corosponds to the intoning the gloria. Singing the introit as a processional inturrupts that flow leaving gaps.
Talking about birettas: have you noticed that nowadays its use is less frequent when you descend the hierarchical scale? You notice this in Vatican celebrations. When there are plenty of ministers asisting in choro you see almost all the cardinals with biretta, some bishops using it, almost no canon or monsignior and absolutely no priest using it. I just thought it was an interesting pattern...
RP Burke, the GIRM doesn't say to wear the amice either and yet it is lawful to do so
As far as I am aware - being an MC at several churches - the biretta is allowed to be worn, especially and particulaly if it is part of a religious habit (which explains the Oratorians. In fact I regulary attend and serve High Mass at the Oxford Oratory), and at Masses of great Solemnity.
The maniple - well there has been a great resurgence especially in Oxfordshire in the use of the maniple at Masses both High and Low (although of course the Novus Ordo doesn't really make that distinction!) and personally I welcome its reappearance as a sign of better things to come!!
Oh and one more thing... as far as I know it can be worn throughout the Litury as well, custom dictating it to be removed as if it were a Bishop's mitre (of course with some differences, for example at the blessing and dismissal etc.
Oh and ANOTHER thing!My Church has also just bought a new set of Roman vestments complete with maniples as a automatic requisite!
and in response to this:
'Immemorial? Come on now, the biretta evolved from medieval academic garb, the same forerunner of the mortarboard. You can clearly see its origins in European academic headwear. This is hardly immemorial.'
I would like to note that it seems to be entirely the opposite situation. The mortar board is, in fact, a descendant of the biretta, most certainly not the origin!
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
Mike re the amice:
While it's not required in every case, the GIRM does say it's to be worn if the shape of the alb is such that it doesn't fully cover one's everyday clothing (or cassock, as the case may be). So it is mentioned as a legitimate option, whereas modern rubrics make no mention of the maniple.
What is a "ceremonialist" and where is such a role found in the rites of the Roman Catholic Church?
Here's my translation of the commentary in Notitiae:
The maniple seems to derive from the Roman 'mappula' which was employed for a decorative and practical purpose. Consuls used it to open the circus games. The Subdeacon in the Roman Rite I pontifical would take the mappula and advancing to the church would make the sign for the schola to being the chant for the introit. And when the deacon would extend the chalice and paten to the celebrant 'the mappula would be in the middle'.
In our times the maniple has become a sacred vestment employed by the subdeacon, deacon, priest and bishop only in the celebration of the Mass. Nevertheless, it is of no use either practical or aesthetic, its significance is not perceived; while it impedes the carrying out of movements of the limbs in sacred action.
If somebody wants to touch up that translation, go right ahead.
Oops. There were some typos in both the Latin from which I was translating and the English translation I came up with above.
Here's something better:
The maniple seems to derive from the Roman 'mappula' which was employed for a decorative and practical purpose. Consuls used it to open the circus games. The Subdeacon in the Roman Ordo I would take the mappula of the pontiff and advancing to the church would make the sign for the schola to being the chant for the introit. And the deacon would extend the chalice and paten to the celebrant 'with the mappula in the middle.'
In our times the maniple has become a sacred vestment employed by the subdeacon, deacon, priest and bishop only in the celebration of the Mass. Nevertheless, it is of no use either practical or aesthetic, its significance is not perceived; while on the contrary it impedes the carrying out of movements of the limbs in sacred action.
Hmm.
The Latin derivative of maniple as far as I was aware is the same as the word in a military sense : a 'fistful', refering to the maniple's humble beginnings as a cloth for wiping the sweat off one's brow. This was certainly the purpose of this piece of cloth when usage of the maniple in the Mass first appears; around the sixth century (though don't ask me for quotes etc. on this one).
The meaning then developed from that into a symbol of the the suffering of Christ, representing the chains that bound His sacred hands, and also becoming an symbol of the 'fatigue of the priestly office' (I can't quite remember where that quote comes from though).
On the subject (though a little earlier on in the discussion) about wearing birettas whilst giving the Sacrament of Confession, I found a little gem.
At one time it was compulsory for the priest giving Confession to wear the biretta whilst giving Penance. I found that the former custom of a judge sentencing a man to death and putting in a black hat has it's roots in this use of the biretta whilst giving Penance. Fascinating!
11 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
