Can a Priest wear a stole over the chausible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spirithound
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, gang, back to the topic of this thread.

It has been suggested that the rubrics regarding placement of the stole relative to the chasuble were changed from the 1975 GIRM to the 2002 GIRM. Let us weigh this:
“Unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole, is the vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other rites immediately connected with Mass.”
GIRM 1975, paragraph 299
Click to expand...
“The vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other sacred actions directly connected with Mass is, unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole.”
GIRM 2002, paragraph 337
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmm. I see no significant difference.

There has also been a suggestion on the symbolic meaning of the chasuble and stole. For this one, I defer to Father Jerry Pokorsky:
“The pastor suggested I wear the overlay stole. But the stole, a sign of priestly authority, is to be worn under the chasuble. The authority of the priest, symbolized by the stole, is subsumed by the authority of Christ, symbolized by the chasuble. That is why official church documents require that ‘…the chasuble [should be] worn over the alb and stole…’ (GIRM 299).”
Fr. Jerry Pokorsky, "On Rubrics and Divisions: A Liturgical Ambush
Click to expand...
That makes sense. When one considers the nature of the priest’s authority (symbolized by the stole) and the nature of Christ’s authority (symbolized by the chasuble), it does not take a liturgical expert to tell which one goes on top.

Also, please note that Fr. Pokorsky is citing the 1975 GIRM too! 🙂

And so there you have it. The chasuble goes OVER the alb and stole; always has, always will.

MT

References:

1975 GIRM
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/GIRMALL.HTM

2002 GIRM
usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
(available as a .pdf download)

Fr. Jerry Pokorski, “On Rubrics and Divisions: A Liturgical Ambush”
adoremus.org/LitAmb998.html
 
However both citations of the GIRM include that little clause, “unless otherwise indicated.”

Must one assume that any such ‘other indication’ would need to be included in the GIRM itself? Or might particular law and/or the rules of certain religious orders be what is intended?
 
SMHW said:
However both citations of the GIRM include that little clause, “unless otherwise indicated.”

Must one assume that any such ‘other indication’ would need to be included in the GIRM itself? Or might particular law and/or the rules of certain religious orders be what is intended?
Click to expand...
Good observation.

I do not believe that any such ‘other indication’ would need to be included in the GIRM itself. I have read the GIRM, and I have found no other indications. Logic dictates that these indications must therefore appear elsewhere. Since the rubrics appear in the Lectionary and Sacramentary as well, I am guessing that these could be sources of authorized deviations (key word: authorized).

So, my first conclusion would be that such an ‘other indication’ would have to appear in an authoritative source that is consistent with the provisions laid down in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, especially paragraph 22 of that document. I am also open to the possibility that ‘unless otherwise indicated’ clause acts also as a catch-all for any future approved deviations, once again, consistent with Sacrosanctum Concilium".

I will confidently say that deviations performed based on reasons like,

“That’s the way I’ve always done it” (then you’ve been doing it wrong)
“That’s the way they did it x years ago” (0 < x < 2000) (Who cares how they did it x years ago; they had their rubrics, we have ours)
“It’s a popular trend” (So are polka masses, clown masses, and disco masses; we do not do trends; see “Inaestimabile Donum” paragraphs 2 and 3)
“That is the way these particular vestments are designed” (in which case, frankly, they never should have been purchased by a Catholic priest)
“I do not see a problem with it” (And doctors didn’t see a problem with thalidomide either; and in any event, what about breaking your vow of obedience - is that ‘no problem’)
“It’s not really that important, is it” (Well, I do not think a lot of legitimate laws are important, but I am still bound to follow them)
“My congregation doesn’t have a problem with it” (Argumentum ad Populum? Priests should know better than to use this one, since they all have education in philosophy)
“The bishop said it was OK” (he is not authorized to say it’s OK!)
“The Pope has done it in his masses” (Popes are not necessarily impeccable; yes, they perform liturgical abuses too - even JPII and BXVI; the fact that they are popes does not change that fact)
(and now, my number one personal favorite)
“I am following the spirit of Vatican II, if not the letter” (Do I really have to comment about a priest who thinks that he has a special insight into a Council of the Church, a priest who would not even be invited to speak at a council if one were held in his lifetime)

are absolutely NOT included in the ‘unless otherwise indicated’ clause.

I hope I have clarified myself.

MT
 
For celebrating the Eucharist, everything (except the Pallium and the Rationale if applicable) is supposed to be under the Chasuble. That includes the stole, although this often not followed. There are “overlay” stoles that are for sale out there and should be used outside, but only outside of an alb or cassock or whatever, and not outside a Chasuble.

Pectoral Crosses are supposed to be worn inside too, in the case of Bishops (and abbots, I think?). This one is violated too, with the Crosses worn outside, and not even suspended by the right thing – it should be a green/gold or red/gold cord, and not a chain. It’s a surprise to see these guys, our most senior priests, make these mistakes so much, isn’t it? I remember seeing footage of Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles using a glass chalice too, which is clearly against the rules.

Anyway, if you look at Papal Masses (which you can check out on the Vatican website), you’ll notice how the stole is always worn inside, along with everything else that’s supposed to be in there. Yet, oddly enough, I saw pictures of Holy Father wearing a Pectoral Cross outside his Chasuble back when he was a Cardinal and celebrated a Mass in the old Tridentine way.

That’s a nice example for the degenerates who go around complaining us Catholics are obsessed with rules and not with the Gospel. Even the Pope did put on his vestments wrong. I guess when you’re him, you’d be more concerned with the important issues, like ending world hunger or campaigning against the genocide in Sudan. People who complain like that and accuse us of everything, they keep running their mouths off and it drives me nuts because they just don’t know what they’re talking about.
 
This is off topic but I was married by a Father Jerry Pokorski, I wonder if the quote above was from him.

On Alter girls its up to the Bishop to decide. And in our case, Arlingotn Diocese, then up to the pastor to petition the bishop if they want to use alter girls. Our church will not be having them any time soon.
 
Greetings, JesuXPlPassio:
JesuXPIPassio said:
That’s a nice example for the degenerates who go around complaining us Catholics are obsessed with rules and not with the Gospel … People who complain like that and accuse us of everything, they keep running their mouths off and it drives me nuts because they just don’t know what they’re talking about.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure to whom you are referring. I can’t tell by the context of the thread.
JesuXPIPassio said:
Even the Pope did put on his vestments wrong. I guess when you’re him, you’d be more concerned with the important issues, like ending world hunger or campaigning against the genocide in Sudan.
Click to expand...
Well, the mass is an important issue, and Popes certainly are concerned with its method of celebration (in word, if not in deed).

I think I can relieve you of some of your guesswork. Just a couple of years after his election, Pope John Paul II issued “Inaestimabile Donum” in which he listed several classes of liturgical falsification, including abandonment of liturgical vestments under the heading, “… an increasing loss of sense of the sacred”. All this with a Soviet occupation of Afghanistan going on, and Americans being held hostage in Iran.

Just one year before his death he mandated the release of another document, “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, which bears the subtitle “On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist”.

In between those documents, the Pope was not silent on the matter of liturgical abuses either, and neither was the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, no matter what social tragedies were going on in the world.

Based on this I would -]guess/-] logically conclude that liturgical abuses and social tragedies are not an either-or proposition. Catholic charity, combined with a sense of what is just, right, and proper, has room for both.

MT
 
Greetings, hilde the dog!
hilde_the_dog said:
This is off topic but I was married by a Father Jerry Pokorski, I wonder if the quote above was from him.

On Alter girls its up to the Bishop to decide. And in our case, Arlingotn Diocese, then up to the pastor to petition the bishop if they want to use alter girls. Our church will not be having them any time soon.
Click to expand...
I think it was. The Father Pokorsky whom I quoted is, I believe, a priest in the Diocese of Arlington.

MT
 
Spirithound said:
I just started a thread about this a couple weeks ago, and the consensus (and the GIRM) is that the stole is properly under the chasuble.
Click to expand...
I don’t really doubt that the stole belongs under the chasuble according to the rubrics, but I also remember a picture posted on “Whispers in the Loggia” of Cdl. Arinze with an overlay stole. Talk about sending mixed messages…
 
Titus said:
No, and it’s not sad either as the other poster said. Girls can and do minister in this role, especially given falling numbers of boys. Would I prefer an all-boy cadre? Yes. But I’d rather have lots of people in a mixed cadre than a tiny boy only one.
Click to expand...
Says who?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top