Ship of Fools: Whither the maniple?

Thread: Whither the maniple? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024865

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

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?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

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 ]

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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 ]

Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on :

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.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

When I got into catholic worship that meant following the ritual directions of the Vatican, which at that point had dropped the maniple.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

Who was it who had the signature, "No maniple: no Mass"? I thought that was inspired.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

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.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

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.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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]

For those not in the know, we're discussing these versus these.

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

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.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

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.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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 ]

Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on :

Of course, an amice is only valid if apparelled...

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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]

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You tired old tat-queens . . .

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

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

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You tired old tat-queens

I am not old!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

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.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

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?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

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]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

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"?

Posted by Fradgan (# 16455) on :

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!

Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :

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.

Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on :

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?)

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
(though is buying a newspaper really antiquated?)

Oh yeah.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

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.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

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.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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 ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

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.

Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on :

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!

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

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.

Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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".

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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 ]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

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

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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]

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

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).

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

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.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.)

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I stopped when the rubber band broke.

AtB Pyx_e

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

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

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

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?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
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

I understood that the Church of the Province of South Africa -- or at the very least, one of its bishops -- ordained subdeacons during the later 20th Century. Where was your subdeacon ordained, PD? I wasn't clear on that from your post.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

Why was the subdiaconate suppressed by Rome? In many ways, it seems the most inexplicable of the liturgical 'reforms' of the last century. That is to say, I can understand the reasoning behind most of the other reforms (and I even agree with some of them), but not this is a mystery to me.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

No call for it, guv.

Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Why was the subdiaconate suppressed by Rome? In many ways, it seems the most inexplicable of the liturgical 'reforms' of the last century. That is to say, I can understand the reasoning behind most of the other reforms (and I even agree with some of them), but not this is a mystery to me.

I presume it was to highlight and strengthen the antiquity and primacy of the three-fold ministry.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Ministeria Quaedam makes excellent reading on this point. Paul VI made the change essentially because:

1) The bishops asked for reform of minor orders in their vota submitted prior to the council;

2) While it does certainly clarify the special status of the threefold order, he seems to be more concerned about organizing instituted lay ministry around the poles of ambo and altar, word and sacrament.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

At the risk of Hostly Admonition, may I say that I rather favour the idea of 'blue-scarfed gentlemen' being regarded (as they were by St. Percy the Blessed) as 'Clerks in Minor Orders'! It would look good on my CV (if, at my age, I need one....) or on my passport.....

Seriously, my fellow-Reader and I occasionally act as Deacon and Sub-Deacon if we have an especially High Mass, but neither of us assume stole or maniple. For my part, I'd certainly be afraid of knocking summink over.......

Ian J.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
At the risk of Hostly Admonition, may I say that I rather favour the idea of 'blue-scarfed gentlemen' being regarded (as they were by St. Percy the Blessed) as 'Clerks in Minor Orders'! It would look good on my CV (if, at my age, I need one....) or on my passport.....

Seriously, my fellow-Reader and I occasionally act as Deacon and Sub-Deacon if we have an especially High Mass, but neither of us assume stole or maniple. For my part, I'd certainly be afraid of knocking summink over.......

Ian J.

At a presentation regarding the latest (expensive) relaunch of Licensed Lay Ministry in our Diocese (at Diocesan Synod) I stood up and asked the Bishop whether he could do something truly prophetic, catholic and ecumenical by reinstituting the Subdiaconate instead. He found it less amusing than those who had put me up to the question did...

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
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.

That's all fine Michael, but since I was responding to comments you made about hankerers after Rome and your assertion that it's a particular rite that matters my point stands: your post can only be understood in the context of the Orthodox Church. Why? Because the Orthodox have subdeacons but the subdiaconate does not exist in the Anglican Church and has been suppressed in the Catholic Church.

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

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?

It's again one of those things that are extrapolated from principles and not directly ruled upon by GIRM. However, one needs also to keep an eye on the other important text which directs liturgical norms, namely the Ceremonial of Bishops. There it is explicitly mentioned:

quote:
22: Presbyters taking part in a liturgy with the bishop should do only what belongs to the order of presbyter; in the absence of deacons they may perform some of the ministries proper to the deacon, but should never wear diaconal vestments.

It references Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, for this:

quote:
28. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.

Now some argue that this note in CB is only a reference to a Pontifical Mass, but I think that is clutching at straws because the principle is actually stronger than simply being a rubric for a Bishop's Mass.

GIRM 114 does say, however:

quote:
For it is preferable that priests who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper to their Order and hence take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.

GIRM allows for concelebrants to perform the ministries proper to the deacon if a deacon is not present (such as reading the Gospel), but they do so as concelebrants - they do not vest as deacons - as the Ceremonial of Bishops makes explicit.

Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Now some argue that this note in CB is only a reference to a Pontifical Mass, but I think that is clutching at straws because the principle is actually stronger than simply being a rubric for a Bishop's Mass.

I'm not sure I'd agree that that is simply clutching at straws - surely it particularly applies to a pontifical mass in order to make clear the collegial relationship between a Bishop and his Presbyters? When the Bishop isn't there that visual point cannot be made, so the need for a Priest who is acting as a Deacon to still be vested as a Priest is less compelling.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
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.
That's all fine Michael, but since I was responding to comments you made about hankerers after Rome and your assertion that it's a particular rite that matters my point stands: your post can only be understood in the context of the Orthodox Church. Why? Because the Orthodox have subdeacons but the subdiaconate does not exist in the Anglican Church and has been suppressed in the Catholic Church.

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

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?
It's again one of those things that are extrapolated from principles and not directly ruled upon by GIRM. However, one needs also to keep an eye on the other important text which directs liturgical norms, namely the Ceremonial of Bishops. There it is explicitly mentioned:
quote:
22: Presbyters taking part in a liturgy with the bishop should do only what belongs to the order of presbyter; in the absence of deacons they may perform some of the ministries proper to the deacon, but should never wear diaconal vestments.
It references Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, for this:
quote:
28. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.
Now some argue that this note in CB is only a reference to a Pontifical Mass, but I think that is clutching at straws because the principle is actually stronger than simply being a rubric for a Bishop's Mass.

GIRM 114 does say, however:
quote:
For it is preferable that priests who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper to their Order and hence take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.
GIRM allows for concelebrants to perform the ministries proper to the deacon if a deacon is not present (such as reading the Gospel), but they do so as concelebrants - they do not vest as deacons - as the Ceremonial of Bishops makes explicit.

As ever, I am much obliged.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

What TT said, except for his suggestion the the Subdiaconate has been suppressed in the Catholic Church. It has been suppressed in the Latin Rite, but not in the other 22 churches sui iuris in the Catholic Church. It is also interesting to note that Bishops of the Latin Rite - including the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and the present Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments - have consistently conferred the subdiaconate on members of certain institutes of apostolic life since 1988. What, I wonder, have they done?

BTW Hart, subdiaconate was not a minor order.

Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
...BTW Hart, subdiaconate was not a minor order.

Not meaning to quibble, but I believe that is only correct for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In the Eastern Rite, like the Orthodox Church, Subdeacons and Readers are ordained by cheirothesia, outside of the Divine Liturgy. Thus they are both orders of the minor clergy in the those churches.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papouli:

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
...BTW Hart, subdiaconate was not a minor order.
Not meaning to quibble, but I believe that is only correct for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In the Eastern Rite, like the Orthodox Church, Subdeacons and Readers are ordained by cheirothesia, outside of the Divine Liturgy. Thus they are both orders of the minor clergy in the those churches.

Yes, of course but since my remark to Hart was about a document relating to the suppression of the subdiaconate precisely and only in the Latin Rite, the point remains.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It is also interesting to note that Bishops of the Latin Rite - including the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and the present Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments - have consistently conferred the subdiaconate on members of certain institutes of apostolic life since 1988. What, I wonder, have they done?

Or, more precisely, what have they done canonically?

Since "ministries" are now conferred by institution rather than by ordination, were they ordaining or instituting? heheheh.

Of course since ecclesia can supplet it can also subtraxit, and where it has engaged in subtraxit I guess it can once again supplet [Two face]

(please forgive the doggerel latin, purely for effect. And to explain "ecclesia supplet" is the principle that the Church can "supply" when something is lacking. Presumably it can therefore also subtract)

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papouli:

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
...BTW Hart, subdiaconate was not a minor order.
Not meaning to quibble, but I believe that is only correct for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In the Eastern Rite, like the Orthodox Church, Subdeacons and Readers are ordained by cheirothesia, outside of the Divine Liturgy. Thus they are both orders of the minor clergy in the those churches.

S Thomas Aquinas listed the major orders as: Subdeacon; deacon; priest.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Correct. Prior to Vatican II, the three major orders were subdeacon, deacon and priest. The episcopate was not seen as a separate order, but as the fullness of the priesthood. This is why bishops were formerly consecrated, rather than ordained.

Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Why was the subdiaconate suppressed by Rome? In many ways, it seems the most inexplicable of the liturgical 'reforms' of the last century. That is to say, I can understand the reasoning behind most of the other reforms (and I even agree with some of them), but not this is a mystery to me.

I'm of the opinion that the reforms to minor orders could have been easily accomplished by just giving them all a real liturgical and organizational role, and conferring them on laymen. With the clerical state starting at diaconate, I don't see how bad it could have been. Personally, I think it would have been a better way to strengthen the role of laity within the organization of the church.

But then, I probably wouldn't be of this opinion if instituted acolytes and lectors were a normal part of parish life, which they usually aren't. (I've never seen one, though I hear that there are a couple dioceses in the U.S. that actually have acolytes and lectors in parishes with the same ubiquity as your average diocese has permanent deacons.)[/hopefully this tangent]

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Correct. Prior to Vatican II, the three major orders were subdeacon, deacon and priest. The episcopate was not seen as a separate order, but as the fullness of the priesthood. This is why bishops were formerly consecrated, rather than ordained.

The modern practice is a real bugbear of mine.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

BTW Hart, subdiaconate was not a minor order.

Sorry, what I wrote was correct but misleading. The vota did ask for reform of the minor orders, but the subdiaconate too, and they got handled together in the same Papal act.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
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
I understood that the Church of the Province of South Africa -- or at the very least, one of its bishops -- ordained subdeacons during the later 20th Century. Where was your subdeacon ordained, PD? I wasn't clear on that from your post.

The Traditional Anglican Communion ran a pilot scheme in the Diocese of the West starting about 1997. It seemed to be one of those pet projects that worked very well, but was not taken up by TAC as a whole. I think the initial impetus came from Anglican Church of South Africa (Traditional) as a 'why don't you try this - it works for us.'

I also have a dim recollection of being told that one TEC diocese ran a pilot scheme in the 1960s, but abandoned it when the various lay ministries developed in the 1970s.

PD

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Not to overly tangent, but +Frank Weston of Zanzibar ordained subdeacons as a form of improved catechist and, I believe, the practice flourished in South Africa in the 1920s and 1930s. I do not know when it ended or how official it was but I once overheard Robert Mercer (ex of Matabeleland and now a chaplain of the Bishop of Rome) discuss this with an intense young man.

As far as maniples are concerned, I have always felt that they were a useful reminder to priests and bishops of their diaconal ordination-- the waiter's towel, however well-embroidered, should help them remember this aspect of their ministry.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
... but the subdiaconate too...

Can you cite me the reference you rely on for this, please, because I have searched for this kind of evidence in the acta without finding it. Clearly, if it's in the preparatory vota I've looked in the wrong place.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

As far as maniples are concerned, I have always felt that they were a useful reminder to priests and bishops of their diaconal ordination-- the waiter's towel, however well-embroidered, should help them remember this aspect of their ministry.

Unfortunately, in my experience those who are so keen to wear this are among the least servant-like of priests. Of course there will be many exceptions but it doesn't necessarily help.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Angloid has a point; let us seize the chance to remind them.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
... but the subdiaconate too...
Can you cite me the reference you rely on for this, please, because I have searched for this kind of evidence in the acta without finding it. Clearly, if it's in the preparatory vota I've looked in the wrong place.

Ministeria Quaedam, first sentence of the fourth paragraph in that version:

quote:
While Vatican Council II was in preparation, many bishops of the Church requested that the minor orders and subdiaconate be revised.

(I assume Paul VI is referring to something in the vota, but maybe the bishops were communicating this in some other fashion?)

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

As far as maniples are concerned, I have always felt that they were a useful reminder to priests and bishops of their diaconal ordination-- the waiter's towel, however well-embroidered, should help them remember this aspect of their ministry.
Unfortunately, in my experience those who are so keen to wear this are among the least servant-like of priests. Of course there will be many exceptions but it doesn't necessarily help.

So to summarise, the maniple should be treated like so many other things. If a priest objects to wearing it, s/he should be forced to do so; if s/he demands it, it should be denied. 'Servanthood' indeed!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just popping in to say that I appreciate Angloid's remarks about priests who are not exactly servant-like(I'm sure we all know some...), but also to add that our Priest-in-Charge and also our visiting Hon. Assistant Priest (a school chaplain) both take their calling as priests very seriously. Which is perhaps one reason why they sport the maniple - to remind themselves of this every time they celebrate the Eucharist.

Ian J.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
... but the subdiaconate too...
Can you cite me the reference you rely on for this, please, because I have searched for this kind of evidence in the acta without finding it. Clearly, if it's in the preparatory vota I've looked in the wrong place.
Ministeria Quaedam, first sentence of the fourth paragraph in that version:

quote:
While Vatican Council II was in preparation, many bishops of the Church requested that the minor orders and subdiaconate be revised.
(I assume Paul VI is referring to something in the vota, but maybe the bishops were communicating this in some other fashion?)

Thanks. It was in chasing that reference down that I had looked in the acta. You are, I suspect, correct in assuming that I need to look at the vota - at least when I can find the time and energy to match the curiosity. I'm not particularly concerned with the issue itself but rather with the question of papal positivism and this seems a good example of an exercise of that.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

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 is just such reactions (worthy of a Liturgy Committee) that hopefully will increase maniple production and sales exponentially

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I'm not particularly concerned with the issue itself but rather with the question of papal positivism and this seems a good example of an exercise of that.

Maybe someone should propose a new limit on Papal Authority: they have to use proper footnotes!

Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
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.

Well I don't actually see anything wrong with it.......Not short ones though - there really is a danger of doing something silly with the chalice there.
I don't think - speaking personally - I've ever seen it

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

[tangent]

When I first looked at this thread, I wondered who had added the (first) redundant "h". Then it all became clear. Pity. [/tangent]

John

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

I cannot see how wearing a maniple on the left arm well up from the wrist could possibly endanger the sacred elements unless one is doing strange things with the left arm. But I no longer have a horse in this race.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

Perhaps the addition of maniple weights would be in their best interest. Use a squat for a genuflection and voilà, a fitness regimen for the busy cleric.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I can't remember in which novel by Bruce Marshall, but there is a most moving scene of a priest celebrating mass (just a little like the one in Graham Greene's 'The Power and the Glory') in a moment of great danger and persecution.

With make do equipment and elements, he manages to find a loose, dirty maniple and puts it on, his only vestment, to celebrate this mass in the most dangerous of circumstances.

For some reason after reading this account, the humble and despised little vestment took on a new significance.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

A priest mentor of mine called the maniple THE Eucharistic vestment.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
With make do equipment and elements, he manages to find a loose, dirty maniple and puts it on, his only vestment, to celebrate this mass in the most dangerous of circumstances.

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
A priest mentor of mine called the maniple THE Eucharistic vestment.

Call me crazy, but if I were a priest in similar circumstances my instinct would be to improvise a stole before looking for a maniple, and I like maniples.

I other words this seems a little out of proportion to me.

[ 27. July 2012, 19:26: Message edited by: Pancho ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
A priest mentor of mine called the maniple THE Eucharistic vestment.

That is what some of the old liturgical writers used to say in their texts.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

I didn't realise the sub-deacon was THE ordinary minister of the Eucharist.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I have heard this as well - on the grounds that the maniple is the only vestment which is worn for the celebration of the Eucharist, and at no other occasion.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Surely that is also true of the chasuble (with the fairly recent exception of wearing it instead of a cope at Benediction on Corpus Christi)

[ 29. July 2012, 17:53: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surely that is also true of the chasuble (with the fairly recent exception of wearing it instead of a cope at Benediction on Corpus Christi)

And during processions of the MBS.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surely that is also true of the chasuble (with the fairly recent exception of wearing it instead of a cope at Benediction on Corpus Christi)

But that's an innovation. It wasn't unknown in mediaeval times for the chasuble to be worn at Vespers, for instance, as is still the case in other rites. I have never read the same about the maniple, although I would welcome correction.

[ 29. July 2012, 18:16: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surely that is also true of the chasuble (with the fairly recent exception of wearing it instead of a cope at Benediction on Corpus Christi)
And during processions of the MBS.

Sorry, yes, that is what i meant to include BUT that is always (?) after a mass.

If it was after vespers, it would surely be a cope.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surely that is also true of the chasuble (with the fairly recent exception of wearing it instead of a cope at Benediction on Corpus Christi)
And during processions of the MBS.
Sorry, yes, that is what i meant to include BUT that is always (?) after a mass.

If it was after vespers, it would surely be a cope.

Still the maniple would not be used in those instances - only during the mass itself.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Back in the day - in this case the Middle Ages - when a church was short of the proper vestments for a High Mass, the Consuetudinaries often suggest that you give the chasuble to the priest, the stole to the deacon, and the maniple to the subdeacon. Of course, in other places, it would have been a case of scraping up the right vestments even if they were of the wrong colour. It shoul e strctly understood that this was in pre-Cogreation of Rites days.

PD

[ 30. July 2012, 17:47: Message edited by: PD ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0