One commenter has referred to an important source for the question that has proved popular among modern liturgists. An answer in Notitiae of 1978 said:
"When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed. Therefore, the multiple and complex gestures for incensation as prescribed in the former Missal are not to be resumed."This is, of course, a strange answer. Saying that it must not be inferred that a rite should be used does not imply that it must not be used. We need to check the Latin of this text. (If anyone with access to a library can check it, I have seen the reference given elsewhere as Notitiae 14 (1978) 301-302, no. 2)
Let us in any case take the more restrictive interpretation, beloved of so many liturgists and applied across the board: namely that if something is specified in the older rite and not specified in the new rite, then it must not be done. Maniples, Birettas, crossing yourself with the host and chalice when receiving Holy Communion - they all come under this provision.
But we must be consistent. The Ritus Servandus of the 1962 missal specifies the following:
Tum Alba induitur, caput submittens, deinde manicam dexteram brachio dextero, et sinistram sinistro imponens.The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (n.336 in the latest edition) says one or two things about the alb but says nothing whatsoever about which sleeve you should put onto which arm. But we know that if something specified in the old rite is not specified in the new rite, it must not be done.
[Translation] Then he puts on the alb, lowering his head, then putting the right sleeve on his right arm and the left on his left.
Therefore when celebrating Mass in the new rite, priests must put their alb on back to front. So don't let me see any of this old-fashioned, stick-in-the-mud, Lefebvrian, crypto-fascist "putting your alb on the right way round" rigidity!
25 comments:
ROFL !!
Good advice, Father. We don't want people getting it wrong in the Ordinary Form do we. That would be an extraordinary state of affairs.
Mind you, with some of the cast-off tents masquerading as albs in some parishes, you'd be hard pushed to tell the back from the front.
Father the word I believe you are looking for is Lefebvriadantic - traditionalist phenomenon of overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially with liturgy, ecumenism and religious liberty.
That's one for the "Lefebvricon"
I am in a state of vesting paralysis: should I now not place the amice on my head but rather place it somewhere else? My @&$! perhaps!
LOL
This is perhaps the most brilliant argument ever. I'm definitely going to use this the next time i'm told that such and such a practice was "suppressed" or the like. Of course I should be careful, could prove to be a formation issue.
Yikes! Thanks for the heads up, Father. I'll remind our priest that the procession is to walk in backwards with the cross upside down. It's too bad that we, a good Spirit of V2 parish have been holding on to the vestiges of the Dark Age of Catholicism for so long. Not any more!
Great stuff! I remember my Mum telling me about a priest saying Mass with a coat-hanger still in his alb. As that was when she was a child, presumably the priest was ahead of his time?
Okay, I give in: please explain to lesser mortals, Father, what is meant by 'ROFL', 'LOL', 'MEME' &c.? Oh, and who is your favourite saint (excluding the BVM & apostles)?
Excellent points as always Father. When a deacon in the late 90s I assisted Cardinal Medina Estevez (then head of the Congregation for Divine Worship)at Mass one day as he not only performed the old incensation (it was a NO Mass) but called out the prayers loud in Latin as he did it. I knew about that "no old incensations" rule so was momentarily puzzled. Then I realised the way the world really works and have happily done the incensations ever since (but quietly).
la mamma - ah, if only the ritus servandus had specified that you take the alb off the coat hanger...
ROFL - rolls on floor laughing
LOL - laughing out loud
BTW - by the way
IMHO - in my humble opinion.
These are all from the early days of email when we used to write it while online and paying money all the time. Then came "offline readers" but the abbreviations stuck. Now, of course, many are used in texting. Here is a massive list of acronyms, most of which I have never seen. But the common ones should be there.
meme - not an abbreviation. The word has a more (pseudo-)technical meaning, for which, look up the article on Wikipedia. A meme on a blog is usually something like that described in this article.
Father Z's blog, WDTPRS, really is sui generis.
I wouldn't have believed it possible to attract 55 comments on the subject of maniples.
Very American.
On the subject of albs worn back to front, in the absence of clear instructions to the contrary, I wonder if this could apply to the chasuble too.
This could enable the priest to celebrate versus populum while the vestments face ad orientem.
This seems an admirable liturgical compromise, but might be pastorally undesirable if it causes confusion to the faithful.
Enough levity for the moment.
On the subject of incensing the altar, I wonder if in the Novus Ordo the celebrant could mentally recite the "Dirigatur" which is easily memorised. While it is no longer prescribed, neither is it proscribed.
This seems to me totally in the spirit of allowing one rite to enrich the other, which is the thinking of Pope Benedict.
By all means, let us avoid rubrical rigidity where possible.
Alternatively, Dr Peter H. Wright, could not priests be facing ad orientem so long as their albs and chasubles are facing the congregation? I'd back that one.
Isn't the legal principle that silence gives consent?
Immemorial custom versus bureaucratic postivism? No competition.
Well all this assumes that the priest wears an alb at all which some of the hippies I've encountered over the years have tried (just that good old, multi-coloured stole thingy to dignify proceedings, sitting round a coffee table).
Just thinking about it I feel my blood pressure rising, irritability, tachycardia - symptoms of Lefebvritis? Do I sound Lefebvrile?
In Brighton last summer we had a Mexican priest who wore a Roman Chasuble back top front, obviously how he was trained the seminary.
Thank you, Father.
A friend of mine was ordained to the diaconate alongside another college member. After vesting (is that the verb?) him in his dalmatic, the priest looked at his handy-work, then to the other new deacon, then whispered to my friend, "I think I've put it on back-to-front. Sorry"!
...and he works in the Holy Office ;)
What I wonder is:
If the deletion of a rubric isn't a suppression does that mean that, say, the use of the confiteor by the servers after the priest receives the Chalice is still licit in the '62 version of the rite?
(We have used it for years at St. Mary's, Washington DC.)
As for Notitiæ: I think I remember seeing a complete collection in the library of Birmingham Oratory.
Very good. Many liturgists I know have stated that all we have to go on is Tres Abhinc Annos--Manipulum semper omiti potest(The maniple may always be omitted).
It's only a few silly liturgists that insist that we can't use the Missal of Pius V (John XXIII) as a model for celebrations of the Missal of Paul VI (John Paul II). Benedict XVI keeps using the term "hermeneutic of continuity," so let's apply it!
Paulinus - the best ever answer given to that nonsense of wearing a stole over ordinary street wear was Fr Guy Nicholls, many years ago at the English College who questioned a priest...
"Why the 'magic stole'?"
I have used this myself to good effect. If priests will not wear the vestments prescribed in the missal, their wearing of a 'magis stole' can only be some vestigial superstition.
Dominic.
Sorry.
Only just seen your comment.
Yes, I should have included in my comment the important words "and vice versa"
If priests will not wear the vestments prescribed in the missal, their wearing of a 'magis stole' can only be some vestigial superstition
Hippies have never been noted for their logic, Father.
"I wonder if this could apply to the chasuble too"
Dr Wright - an old PP of mine did that very thing. Having bought a beautiful new gold chasuble, he thought it would be nicer if the people could see the embroidered medallion, so he wore it back to front. No one noticed at all.
Notitiae 14 (1978) 301-302, no. 2
II. De Incensatione
2. In Missa cum populo modo sollemniore celebranda, adhibentur diversi modi turificandi oblata et altare: alter simplex ac planus, alter idem ac ritus turificandi praescriptus in praecedenti Missali. Quinam usus sequendus est?
Resp.
Numquam obliviscendum est Missale Pauli Papae VI, inde ab anno 1970, successisse in locum illius, qui improprie "Missale S. Pii V" nuncupatur(1), idque ex integro, sive pro textibus, sive pro rubricis. Ubi rubricae Missalis Pauli VI nihil dicunt aut parum dicunt singillatim in nonnullis locis, non ideo inferendum est quod oporteat servare ritum antiquum. Proinde, non sunt iterandi gestus multiplices atque implexi turificationis iuxta praescripta Missalis prioris (cf. Missale Romanum, T. P. Vaticanis, 1962: Ritus servandus VII et Ordo Incesandi, pp. LXXX-LXXXIII).
In turificando, celebrans (IGMR 51 et 105) hoc simplici modo procedat:
a) erga oblata: triplici ductu turificat, sicut agit diaconus erga Evangelium;
b) erga crucem: triplici ductu turificat, quando ante eam celebrans venit;
c)erga altare: passim turificat a latere, dum circuit altare, nulla distinctione facta inter mensam et latera.
(1): Vide studium PETRI JOUNEL: L'evolution du Missel Romain de Pie IX a Jean XXIII, supra pp.246-258; praesertim p. 255, sub anno 1952) [see below in French]
sub anno 1952:
La 6th edition du Missel romain post typicam apporte au texte quelques modifications minueres, mais elle en simplifie surtout le titre. Il porte seulement: Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutem, Summorum Pontificum cura recognitum. On n'y lit plus: S. Pii V Pontificis Maximi iussu editum, bien que la Bulle Quo primum ouvre toujours le volume.
Many thanks indeed, Robert.
The translation accurately reflects the logical non sequitur in the original.
Post a Comment