|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Whither the maniple?
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
No call for it, guv.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boat Boy
Shipmate
# 13050
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 151 | From: The deep south (of the Home Counties) | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
![[Confused]](confused.gif) 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.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boat Boy
Shipmate
# 13050
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 151 | From: The deep south (of the Home Counties) | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papouli
Apprentice
# 17209
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 28 | From: New England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
(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)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
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]
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
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
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
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?)
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
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 is just such reactions (worthy of a Liturgy Committee) that hopefully will increase maniple production and sales exponentially
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
[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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
A priest mentor of mine called the maniple THE Eucharistic vestment.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I didn't realise the sub-deacon was THE ordinary minister of the Eucharist.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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 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.
--------------------
'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
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
