|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Whither the maniple?
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
Once, when serving at a pontifical low mass in a parish other than my usual one, I laid out the vestments for the Bishop (I'd spent a good deal of time finding a decent set), which included a maniple. He happily vested in the alb, stole, and chasuble but when it came to the maniple he snarled (there is no other word) 'I'm not wearing THAT'. What, I wondered, could cause an otherwise mild mannered cleric to react with such vehemency to a simple strip of cloth.
I know from the internet that I am not alone in lamenting the general decline in maniple wearing. It is, after all, the distinctive vestment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the only one unique to that celebration. It is also the symbol of clerical service, being a fairly obivious version of the towel worn over the arm by a servant (and, indeed, by the acolyte at the lavabo in the mass). I don't mean to cast aspersions on the character of priests who don't wear maniples (I know many otherwise excellent priests who do not), but it seems odd that it would be this, of all vestments, that the modernists should reject, and reject so vehemently. Why?
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
The constant vigilance you have to exercise when wearing the dam' thing so that you don't knock over the chalice (or any number of other things) might have something to do with it.
[ 19. July 2012, 11:02: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The constant vigilance you have to exercise when wearing the dam' thing so that you don't knock over the chalice (or any number of other things) might have something to do with it.
I don't see that. Well, I kind of do when they take the form of those ugly things that are not only extremely short but fan out into the shape of a shovel-head that seems designed to brush everything on the surface of the altar. However, the proper ones that are comparatively slender and sufficiently long - at least a foot - that there is no concern about them even touching the surface of the altar (for they are held back from causing any accident by the edge of the altar) seem to require far less vigilance.
Clergy have managed with them for centuries so I'm not sure why it is suddenly a problem today. I would hardly call such opposition to maniples the scourge of our times but it certainly seems very odd.
[ 19. July 2012, 11:10: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boat Boy
Shipmate
# 13050
|
Posted
Yes it is rather odd that priests who wouldn't dream of saying mass without an alb, stole and chasuble react almost angrily to the suggestion of a maniple. It is just as symbolically important as any other vestment.
I think you're both right in suggesting that the main argument given is that it could knock things over, but that the longer ones usually found with gothic chasubles pose no such problem.
Posts: 151 | From: The deep south (of the Home Counties) | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
When I got into catholic worship that meant following the ritual directions of the Vatican, which at that point had dropped the maniple.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Who was it who had the signature, "No maniple: no Mass"? I thought that was inspired.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
When I got into catholic worship that meant following the ritual directions of the Vatican, which at that point had dropped the maniple.
The Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum has never 'dropped' the maniple (or, indeed, the biretta). It has simply no longer requires them (in the Ordinary Form). As things stand, tt is up to the discretion of individual priest whether to wear them or not.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
... those ugly things that are not only extremely short but fan out into the shape of a shovel-head that seems designed to brush everything on the surface of the altar ...
... are, I'm afraid, my (limited) experience of maniples. That shovel-head end serves no purpose other than for Belgian nuns to show off their embroidery skills, and to foist on the priest something that from a distance makes it look like he's carrying a handbag of a garishness favoured, perhaps, by ladies of less than spotless repute.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
... those ugly things that are not only extremely short but fan out into the shape of a shovel-head that seems designed to brush everything on the surface of the altar ...
... are, I'm afraid, my (limited) experience of maniples. That shovel-head end serves no purpose other than for Belgian nuns to show off their embroidery skills, and to foist on the priest something that from a distance makes it look like he's carrying a handbag of a garishness favoured, perhaps, by ladies of less than spotless repute.
I'm sure I don't know about such things. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
For those not in the know, we're discussing these versus these.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
My take on this is the, for whatever reason (maybe no very good reason at all) the maniple has become a badge of churchmanship within Catholic Christians.
"He wears maniple! He obviously eats babies for breakfast as is more right-wing than Ghengis Khan!!"
Training for ordination is rather like being at public school: there is a great deal of moulding you into being a certain type of person; learning the markers of what is and is not acceptable within "your tribe". Clothing is a key part of this and it is invariably the clergy who thus react strongly one way or the other to such matter while the laity don't see what the fuss is all about.
When the real reason for not doing something is as above (and so unspoken, an agreed understanding of the tribe) the arguemnts for or against given invariably don't really make sense, if analysed. Plenty of priest have worn maniples for centuries without having to have a special server to stop then knocking a chalice over...
Another example is the difference between wearing fish symbol and wearing a crucifix: there is not really any good reason why one or the other should denote catholic/evangelical, it's just worked out that way.
So, for some clergy, to wear a maniple is the vestment equivalent of wearing a Manchester united shirt in the stand of Manchester City.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
I will sigh with pleasure when I see a maniple worn. It comes as part of a set of euchies and makes it complete.
And my liking for it doesn't denote a particular extremity of churchmanship.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
It was ungracious of (S)'s visitor to refuse to wear what had been laid out for him.
If he suspected he was being sent up, the best response is not to rise to bait.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
You tired old tat-queens are so misguided as to think "No maniple, no mass." Who cares if the priest drapes a gold rag over his arm just to crumble up some bread? I don't think God does.
It's really the amice that makes the mass.
[ 19. July 2012, 13:47: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boat Boy
Shipmate
# 13050
|
Posted
Of course, an amice is only valid if apparelled...
Posts: 151 | From: The deep south (of the Home Counties) | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
Of course, an amice is only valid if apparelled...
You speak as though there's some other sort. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
NatDogg
Shipmate
# 14347
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You tired old tat-queens . . .
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 139 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I am not really bothered whether surplice and stole or Eucharistic vestments are used by the celebrant at Communion, but if the latter are to be used, I am rather pleased to see a maniple laid out for me. It is in the 'nice to know someone still does things properly (TM)' category
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You tired old tat-queens
I am not old!
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Does a left-handed priest wear a maniple on the right arm?
I'm generally for simplicity in such things so prefer not to wear one. Plus if one is wearing a wide-sleeved alb it is next to impossible to get one on, at least without it looking hideously out of place.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Our current priest-in-charge has reintroduced the wearing of the maniple (if the particular Mass set has one.....and we made sure that our new white High Mass vestments do...).
He has been asked about the significance of the maniple on more than one occasion, so it's been an opportunity for a bit of teaching. Our Hon. Assistant Priest also wears a maniple if it's available.
All very seemly and edifying!
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Does a left-handed priest wear a maniple on the right arm?
They're ordaining left-handed priests now? What next?
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have only worn a maniple twice - they get in the way and could cause spillages of the MPB.
Antiquated, obscurantist nonsense, I stopped putting them out on the vesting chest when i was a sacristan in 1971.
It seems to me that this is precisely the sort of angst to which the OP was referring.
Some of us have a different view of something that is of such antiquity in terms of the celebration of the Mass. We know for a certainty that they were already used in the sixth century, and they also appear to have been in use as early as the fourth century, in St. Sylvester's time. For many of us, that is meaningful and theologically significant. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I like antiquated nonsense. I like getting a real newspaper, I like watching black-and-white noir flicks, and I like writing with a fountain pen. And I think maniples look good.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's really the amice that makes the mass.
Is that why I've heard (second-hand) of priests of old boasting that they can say Mass "amice to amice in 17 minutes"?
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fradgan
Apprentice
# 16455
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Does a left-handed priest wear a maniple on the right arm?
--------
They're ordaining left-handed priests now? What next?
Dogs marrying cats, I tell you!
--------------------
"From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it." - Groucho Marx
Posts: 37 | From: San Gabriel | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Who was it who had the signature, "No maniple: no Mass"? I thought that was inspired.
It is popularly attributed to Dorward in Compton McKenzie's "Parson's Progress". But he was of course only quoting our own dear Maniple.
--------------------
Collecting Catholic and Anglo-
Catholic books
Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boat Boy
Shipmate
# 13050
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I like antiquated nonsense. I like getting a real newspaper, I like watching black-and-white noir flicks, and I like writing with a fountain pen. And I think maniples look good.
Quite (though is buying a newspaper really antiquated?)
Posts: 151 | From: The deep south (of the Home Counties) | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
(though is buying a newspaper really antiquated?)
Oh yeah.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Does a left-handed priest wear a maniple on the right arm?
They're ordaining left-handed priests now? What next?
I suspect I would, were I ordained.
However, thanks to the infamous Lambeth Conference resolution 5.335, as one who accepts my left-handedness, nay even celebrates it, that course is not open to me.
Of course, whether or not you have a maniple affects how you lay out vestments. With it, maniple, stole and girdle form IHS; without it, you recourse to stole and girdle as alpha and omega.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I suspect the dropping of the maniple in Anglican circles is based on its adoption in the first place - Rome did it. I am aware that it was part of the Sarum rite, but you know what I mean.
However, Rome seems to be adopting it again in some places. It is said (and very few actually know) that the pope now wears one at his private morning mass. He is quite interested in tat unlike his predecessor Pope John Paul II who couldn't care less and sacked Msgr Virgilio Noe, his first MC, for fussiness quite soon after his pontificate was inaugurated. Msgr Noe became the archpriest of St Peter's, and later a cardinal. So he was in a position to exercise his own sartorial desires with impunity.
I have heard it said by a priest that he especially likes to wear a maniple on Maundy Thursday.
If there is one laid out and with the set, then it makes sense to wear it. If not, then don't. Again, it doesn't quite 'go' with the more usual eucharists, but as in All Saints, North Street, York, which uses the English Missal, it makes sense to wear it.
I am not sure according to the old rite whether it should indeed be laid out for the bishop in the sacristy. It used (well in the Dominican rite) to be assumed by the bishop at the altar after the prayers at the altar steps.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have only worn a maniple twice - they get in the way and could cause spillages of the MPB.
Antiquated, obscurantist nonsense, I stopped putting them out on the vesting chest when i was a sacristan in 1971.
As the maniple in the Latin rites is the distinctive vestment of the subdiaconate, one might just as easily say that subdeacons are nothing more than antiquated, obscurantist nonsense. As this ancient order is still alive and well, I see no reason to do away with the vesture of those ordained to it.
Unless, of course, the subdiaconate were to be abolished, from which madness may we be preserved.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Except that subdeacons haven't existed in the Church of England since the sixteenth century. And AFAIK not in the modern Roman rite for the last fifty years.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Yet Orthodox subdeacons have never ceased to exist and since the Western Rites were restored to regular use over a century ago, subdeacons serving in that rite have vested as subdeacons, maniples and all.
My comment was an unapologetic dig at theposition of a certain type of hankerer after Rome but generally, in matters such as this, I try to speak of rite rather than confession, from which perspective, reference to the use of maniples as antiquated and obscurantist is flagrant nonsense.
[ 19. July 2012, 22:42: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Well in your Orthodox world you should, of course, do what is appropriate to your confession and your rite. None of this is of relevance to Anglicans and Catholics, though, is it?
Angloid is correct: neither the Church of England nor the Catholic Church has subdeacons. Pope Paul VI suppressed the subdiaconate in the Motu Proprio Ministeria Quaedam in 1973. The maniple was the vestment given at the ordination to the subdiaconate. Anyone who wears a maniple ought therefore to be able to demonstrate that they were ordained to the subdiaconate.
Those who do so despite the fact that they have not been ordained as subdeacons are, I would suggest, engaged in an affectation.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papouli
Apprentice
# 17209
|
Posted
I agree with TT. If one has been ordained into an order of sacred ministry, wear the currently appropriate/authorized vestments. If one hasn't been ordained, don't dress up and pretend!
I know I've read on here of solemn masses (Anglican or Catholic, can't remember?) that have members of the laity wearing the vesture and performing the ministries of deacons and subdeacons...that would never be tolerated in Orthodoxy. It works the other way too, we would never allow a priest to act as deacon!
Posts: 28 | From: New England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
It most certainly would not have been a Catholic Church. Even one of the more outre ones. I can remember the discussion being about St Clement's, Philadelphia where they had laymen dressed as deacons to sing the Passion on Good Friday.
I think an Anglo-Catholic notion of the subdiaconate developed, making it a lay ministry. This was not, of course, what the historic subdiaconate was at all.
And it is not permissible in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite for priests to act as deacons.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
I don't know,The PCED said that instituted acolytes may serve as subdeacons in the extraordinary form, but without the maniple. (Why two rules? I have no idea) But that priests and deacons serving as either in the extraordinary form do wear the maniple. This predates both Summorum Pontificum though.
Of course, priests in traditionalist orders like the FSSP or the Institute of Christ the King wear them, and neither have subdeacons. (Even if they may perform the rite, the subdiaconate is suppressed,so nothing happens.)
So it's not quite so simple.
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It most certainly would not have been a Catholic Church. Even one of the more outre ones. I can remember the discussion being about St Clement's, Philadelphia where they had laymen dressed as deacons to sing the Passion on Good Friday.
I think an Anglo-Catholic notion of the subdiaconate developed, making it a lay ministry. This was not, of course, what the historic subdiaconate was at all.
And it is not permissible in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite for priests to act as deacons.
I am happy to say that the dreadful and silly aberration of dressing lay choristers in broadstoles for the singing of the Passion on Good Friday at S. Clement's Philly disappeared this year, hopefully never to be seen again. The only justification for the practice that I could possibly imagine is that the broad stole isn't really a stole at all, and that a true deacon keeps his deacon's stole on underneath the broad stole.
As to the Anglo-Catholic theory surrounding lay subdeacons, St Percy contended that the parish clerk should serve as subdeacon when a priest or deacon was unavailable. I reckon some places licensed readers and/or licensed chalice bearers may have taken on the subdeacon role in A-C parishes within certain jurisdictions. However, IME in contemporary practice it just tends to be a senior member of the team of servers at the altar, regardless of any diocesan licensing. In any event, from what I can infer, there seems to have been some thought amongst earlier Anglo-Catholic authorities that the parish clerk -- equivalent of the modern licensed reader -- would serve as subdeacon of the mass as part of his duties as a quasi-ordained churchman (I realise the designation of "quasi-ordination" is a kind of nonsense, but it's the best approximation I can come up with to what they seem to have been on about). Dearmer, IIRC, said the parish clerk could rightfully wear the maniple when serving as subdeacon. Most authorities have said a layman does not wear maniple when "subdeaconing".
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Well in your Orthodox world you should, of course, do what is appropriate to your confession and your rite. None of this is of relevance to Anglicans and Catholics, though, is it?
Of course it wouldn't be in a discussion about what ought to be done in a particular confession. But unless I've misunderstood the whole conversation so far, with the exception of one brief post, that hasn't been the nature of this thread, which has instead been a general discussion about the use of a western vestment and not one specifically about the propriety of its use in Anglican and Catholic churches.
Maybe its just my misreading, in which case I apologise, but in such a general thread about things common to different churches, I don't read comments as being church specific unless people specifically indicate that as their intended meaning.
[ 20. July 2012, 05:11: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I am quietly laughing into my rochet on this one, as I have a real, live Anglican subdeacon in my parish. They were revived for a few years back in the 1990s, as backwash from what the "colonials" do. This chap was ordained during the duration of the pilot scheme.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
At every parish of which I've been a member, the custom is to have a licensed Eucharistic minister act as subdeacon. They do sometimes wear maniples, though, which I suppose isn't technically correct but it's a difficult situation. Perhaps it would be more appropriate, if utterly pedantic, to insist on calling this person 'the licensed Eucharistic minister acting in place of a subdeacon' and to make sure that he does not wear a maniple.
I certainly see no problem with a priest, or indeed bishop, acting as a deacon. Once a deacon, always a deacon, surely? Furthermore, such substitution is explicitly permitted (and very common) in the form of the Roman Rite from which we take most of our understanding of the liturgy. I would say, however, (and I think that most authorities agree with me on this point) that a priest should not act as a deacon when a transitional of permanent deacon is present. Fortescue does, however, suggest that — at a pontifical high mass — the deacon, subdeacon, deacons of honour, and assistant priest should all be canons. I do have to wonder how often this rubric has been followed (I certainly have never seen more than two red tufts among the birettas of these four).
I am very happy to say that I have never seen a lay person dressed as or performing the role of a deacon and would regard that as a grave abuse. I did once go to an Anglican 'sung eucharist' that featured a lay person — a blue scarfed gentleman, but still very clearly an unordained lay person — reading the gospel, which is apparently permitted under the rubrics of the Church of England but which is scarcely consistent with the traditions of either the Western or the Eastern branches of the Church Catholic. It made me quite uncomfortable.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
. I did once go to an Anglican 'sung eucharist' that featured a lay person — a blue scarfed gentleman, but still very clearly an unordained lay person — reading the gospel, which is apparently permitted under the rubrics of the Church of England but which is scarcely consistent with the traditions of either the Western or the Eastern branches of the Church Catholic. It made me quite uncomfortable.
But I'm sure you soon recovered after collapsing on your chaise longue with smelling salts and a restorative glass of gin. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
. I did once go to an Anglican 'sung eucharist' that featured a lay person — a blue scarfed gentleman, but still very clearly an unordained lay person — reading the gospel, which is apparently permitted under the rubrics of the Church of England but which is scarcely consistent with the traditions of either the Western or the Eastern branches of the Church Catholic. It made me quite uncomfortable.
But I'm sure you soon recovered after collapsing on your chaise longue with smelling salts and a restorative glass of gin.
I seem to recall that I had a very nice slice of homemade cake and some coffee afterward. The people were welcoming and the liturgy, although not remotely spiky was the sort of dignified MotR liturgy that should be nearly universal but isn't (I think it was bells but no smells, and the celebrant may have been wearing a cassock alb under his chasuble, which should please you) but I can't imagine going there again willingly given the other options on offer. I could get used to modern language rites and even to westward facing celebration (although I find the theology of it dubious), but having a layperson read the gospel did make me uncomfortable. The other reason why I probably wouldn't return is that the sermon was more a trite pep talk than a serious exposition of the Christian faith (does that make me sound like an evangelical? Perhaps, although Anglo-Catholic preachers tend also to take their Christianity seriously).
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I am very happy to say that I have never seen a lay person dressed as or performing the role of a deacon and would regard that as a grave abuse. I did once go to an Anglican 'sung eucharist' that featured a lay person — a blue scarfed gentleman, but still very clearly an unordained lay person — reading the gospel, which is apparently permitted under the rubrics of the Church of England but which is scarcely consistent with the traditions of either the Western or the Eastern branches of the Church Catholic. It made me quite uncomfortable.
A perfectly normal occurrence. Anyone can read the Gospel, lay men and women included. Of course, if a parish is lucky enough to have a licensed Reader then this is an obvious liturgical duty for him or her to take on but it can just as easily be a regular member of the congregation. There is certainly no rule against it and I think a lot of people would be deeply opposed to any such rule being introduced.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I am very happy to say that I have never seen a lay person dressed as or performing the role of a deacon and would regard that as a grave abuse. I did once go to an Anglican 'sung eucharist' that featured a lay person — a blue scarfed gentleman, but still very clearly an unordained lay person — reading the gospel, which is apparently permitted under the rubrics of the Church of England but which is scarcely consistent with the traditions of either the Western or the Eastern branches of the Church Catholic. It made me quite uncomfortable.
A perfectly normal occurrence. Anyone can read the Gospel, lay men and women included. Of course, if a parish is lucky enough to have a licensed Reader then this is an obvious liturgical duty for him or her to take on but it can just as easily be a regular member of the congregation. There is certainly no rule against it and I think a lot of people would be deeply opposed to any such rule being introduced.
It's a vain thing fondly invented. Not only is it not permitted in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches, but it has historically not been permitted in the Church of England either. The rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer assume that one person will do more or less everything, although I understand that, in places like Cathedrals and the chapels of colleges and schools (in the days when many schoolmasters were ordained), it was common for priests to split up the roles, not in imitation of a High Mass, but simply sharing the roles amongst themselves as the found to be convenient.
There are plenty of lessons that may be legitimately read by a layperson: all the lessons at Mattins and Evensong (28 a week), as well as the epistle and, where relevant, the Old Testament lesson at Mass (another 14 a week). Lay participation in this regard does not seem unduly hindered by requiring that the gospel be read by one in diaconal orders, as a was until recently the universal practice of the Church. I think the problem is that the Church of England grossly undervalues the diaconate (the Roman Catholics are far better than us in this regard) and have created the office of 'Reader' which does not correspond exactly to any of the ancient offices of the Church (in terms of 'rank' it seems to be similar to subdeacon, but it's functions are utterly different). This is a problem for those who don't like liturgy that was made up on the spot yesterday.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
There are plenty of lessons that may be legitimately read by a layperson: all the lessons at Mattins and Evensong (28 a week),
Which often include a Gospel reading. So where's your problem? (on second thoughts, don't bother to answer that.)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
I stopped when the rubber band broke.
AtB Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
The question of who reads which lesson at what service is not particularly relevant to the OP. Please return to the topic. Thank you.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
Fr TT as ever, carefully and correctly states the position. It is worth pointing out that an instituted acolyte can act as Subdeacon in the Extraordinary Form, but in such cases should not wear the Maniple. I don't know whether the implication is that a person in major orders acting as Subdeacon should do so, even if they have not been ordained to the Subdiaconate.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
And it is not permissible in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite for priests to act as deacons.
I don't doubt this for a minute, but have been looking for a source for the rule recently, without success. I think it might have been in a former edition of the GIRM. Is it in the current? If not, where can it be found?
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
