Gloves for Servers Touching the Chalice

[TheMc]

A question regarding the bolded part-
if this is the case, why do so many here at CAF (not you specifically, at least that I know of) have such a problem with the laity either holding hands or using the orans position during the Our Father at the OF? It is not specifically addressed in the GIRM, but I often hear that becasue it doesn’t say we can, that means we shouldn’t.

I’m not really qualified to answer this completely, but I would point out that the orans position for the people is not in the EF either.

IMHO, in the end, if you, as MC, and your priest decide that the servers should wear gloves, it should be stated that it is because that is what you feel the “dress code” should be, not because it shows more “reverence”.
I still don’t see why you can’t simply say it is for reverence to the chalice.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I’m not really qualified to answer this completely, but I would point out that the orans position for the people is not in the EF either.

I had a feeling this may happen.
I read your comment(my bolded) as that when something is unclear or unsaid, you may do something else, if you choose to do so,
for example, assuming the older rubric ***or ***the faithful spontaniously, without direction from the priest, holding hands or using the orans position
Am I clear in my understanding, or are you saying that one may only add something if it is from an older rite. Now I am really confused.

The vimpa is standard for bishops celebrating Mass with mitre & crosier, although it is sometimes not used. Have you looked in the ceremonial of bishops? If not, I’m sure there is some licit way for it to be used. The Pope does, and many bishops do too.

About the gloves, I am in no way encouraging people to disregard the rubrics of the OF, but as my bishop (and the holy father, I believe) has said, when the rubrics are absent or unclear in the OF, one can often assume the EF rubrics, if possible. Hence, the triple doubles with the thurible, placement of the chalice veil and burse on the altar, missal on the right side of the altar at the offertory, sometimes a veiled tabernacle, and other things like this.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I had a feeling this may happen.
I read your comment(my bolded) as that when something is unclear or unsaid, you may do something else, if you choose to do so,
for example, assuming the older rubric ***or ***the faithful spontaniously, without direction from the priest, holding hands or using the orans position
Am I clear in my understanding, or are you saying that one may only add something if it is from an older rite. Now I am really confused.

This is a wrong view, one should not mix the forms. See the article I linked earlier in the thread.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

This is a wrong view, one should not mix the forms. See the article I linked earlier in the thread.

I agree with you about mixing the forms, and thought the article you linked to was a valuable reference.
I am asking the question only so I can understand exactly where the OP is coming from.

 

[archangel04]

Although not part of the topic, I am curious as to what the Holy Father means by both forms enriching each other? I only ask because the question was brought in the discussion wether we should bring elements of one form into the other?

I wonder, our Holy Father celebrates the OF, but uses 7 candles and a cross on the altar, this at least that I know of is not required in the rubrics. This trend is also catching on in many parishes as well. Although many good points have been brought up, I am still curious.

 

[benedictgal]

This is a wrong view, one should not mix the forms. See the article I linked earlier in the thread.

Actually, TheMC is correct on this:

when the rubrics are absent or unclear in the OF, one can often assume the EF rubrics, if possible

This is what I also heard and this was how it was explained to me at a conference.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Actually, TheMC is correct on this:

when the rubrics are absent or unclear in the OF, one can often assume the EF rubrics, if possible

And my question still is, if one can, if possible, assume the older rubric, does that not also mean that, for example, the faithful spontaneously, without direction of the priest, can hold hands or use the oran position when praying the Our Father?

I am not sure I am understanding this.

 

[benedictgal]

And my question still is, if one can, if possible, assume the older rubric, does that not also mean that, for example, the faithful spontaneously, without direction of the priest, can hold hands or use the oran position when praying the Our Father?

I am not sure I am understanding this.

The problem is that the older form never had an instance of people holding hands during the Pater Noster. Nor, for that matter, did folks use the Orans Posture during the Pater Noster. The hand-holding is an innovation.

 

[zab]

Although not part of the topic, I am curious as to what the Holy Father means by both forms enriching each other? I only ask because the question was brought in the discussion wether we should bring elements of one form into the other?

I wonder, our Holy Father celebrates the OF, but uses 7 candles and a cross on the altar, this at least that I know of is not required in the rubrics. This trend is also catching on in many parishes as well. Although many good points have been brought up, I am still curious.

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

117. The altar is to be covered with at least one white cloth. In addition, on or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation. If the Diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The problem is that the older form never had an instance of people holding hands during the Pater Noster. Nor, for that matter, did folks use the Orans Posture during the Pater Noster. The hand-holding is an innovation.

So then it is OK to change something, if it is only to use the older rubric?
Is this what you are saying?
How is this not mixing the 2 forms?

I use the hand-holding/orans position only as an example. It is not called for, but it has not been expressly forbidden either. Yet many people I run into on CAF say if it’s not in the GIRM, it should not be done, period.

How is it OK to change the rubrics in some cases, but not others?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So then it is OK to change something, if it is only to use the older rubric?
Is this what you are saying?
How is this not mixing the 2 forms?

I use the hand-holding/orans position only as an example. It is not called for, but it has not been expressly forbidden either. Yet many people I run into on CAF say if it’s not in the GIRM, it should not be done, period.

How is it OK to change the rubrics in some cases, but not others?

Because it is a change they like.

I have run into this when discussing abuses. People tend to label the things they do not like an abuse but then are silent on the things they do like.

 

[malphono]

Oneofthewomen;7886117:

So then it is OK to change something, if it is only to use the older rubric?
Is this what you are saying?
How is this not mixing the 2 forms?

I use the hand-holding/orans position only as an example. It is not called for, but it has not been expressly forbidden either. Yet many people I run into on CAF say if it’s not in the GIRM, it should not be done, period.

How is it OK to change the rubrics in some cases, but not others?

Because it is a change they like.

I have run into this when discussing abuses. People tend to label the things they do not like an abuse but then are silent on the things they do like.

No, I don’t think that’s quite right. The general principle is:

• where something was practiced in the “old” form, and where the new form is silent on the matter, there’s nothing to contradict the maintenance of the “old” practice. That’s not to say the “old practice” is required, but it can be legitimately done, at least until such time as it is specifically abrogated.
• OTOH, where something was NOT practiced in the “old” form (e.g. hand-holding and the “orans position”), the new form could well have made a stipulation. In the example given, it did not. Ergo, it seems to me that both the hand-holding and orans position are innovations. Neither is expressly forbidden, but at the same time, it is abundantly clear that neither one is required.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, I don’t think that’s quite right. The general principle is:

• where something was practiced in the “old” form, and where the new form is silent on the matter, there’s nothing to contradict the maintenance of the “old” practice. That’s not to say the “old practice” is required, but it can be legitimately done, at least until such time as it is specifically abrogated.
• OTOH, where something was NOT practiced in the “old” form (e.g. hand-holding and the “orans position”), the new form could well have made a stipulation. In the example given, it did not. Ergo, it seems to me that both the hand-holding and orans position are innovations. Neither is expressly forbidden, but at the same time, it is abundantly clear that neither one is required.

I do not believe that there should be mixing of the Forms.

Also, if one buys into this, then they can not make the argument that when the GIRM is silent you should not do something.

That is the main argument against some of what people are labeling as an abuse, that it is not in the GIRM so it should not be done.

 

[TheMc]

Because it is a change they like.

I have run into this when discussing abuses. People tend to label the things they do not like an abuse but then are silent on the things they do like.

The general principal is:

• If something is in the 1962 missal, and the new missal is silent on the matter assume nothing has changed. If the new missal is unclear, or does not give many details, assume the way it was done in the 1962 missal (it is much more detailed than the new one)
• But, the orans/hand holding for the people is not in the new missal, and until recently was not done. That is the difference. Many of these things, such as the triple doubles, or the biretta, etc… have a precedent. The congregation holding hands doesn’t. There is simply no reason to do it, and there’s especially no reason for the faithful to adopt this “priestly” gesture.

Edit: Looks like I said the same thing as malphono!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The general principal is:

• If something is in the 1962 missal, and the new missal is silent on the matter assume nothing has changed. If the new missal is unclear, or does not give many details, assume the way it was done in the 1962 missal (it is much more detailed than the new one)
• But, the orans/hand holding for the people is not in the new missal, and until recently was not done. That is the difference. Many of these things, such as the triple doubles, or the biretta, etc… have a precedent. The congregation holding hands doesn’t. There is simply no reason to do it, and there’s especially no reason for the faithful to adopt this “priestly” gesture.

Edit: Looks like I said the same thing as malphono!

As said in the article I linked earlier, Mixing the Forms.

Therefore, we have two usages and two forms and two distinct missals for use in the same Roman rite. I believe that the only respectful attitude toward these two forms is to respect each one and follow the indications found in each missal.

If this is not the case then why can’t we modify the EF with stuff that is pre-trent that was in the Missals then where the EF rubrics are silent?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Every parish offers the Precious Blood at the Communion Rite, even if it is in the species of bread. There is no way to seperate the substances.

The question would be if the parish offers the species of wine

Too much verbal gymnastics here. The chalice contains the Precious Blood. No one will call the species of bread as Precious Blood even though it has the fullness of Christ. While I see your intention is nice, it would confuse people rather than catechize them.

 

[TheMc]

If this is not the case then why can’t we modify the EF with stuff that is pre-trent that was in the Missals then where the EF rubrics are silent?

Like what? The 1962 rubrics seem pretty precise.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because it is a change they like.

I have run into this when discussing abuses. People tend to label the things they do not like an abuse but then are silent on the things they do like.

This.

I don’t get it too. What differentiates an abuse from not an abuse? So we can do something different as long as we think it is reverent? Isn’t there a competent authority, ie, Bishops and the Holy See, who would make that determination? I know this thread is filled with good intentions, but isn’t that what that famous proverb says that paves the way to hell?

Unless the proper authority signs off on making this into practice, it should be an abuse because its the laity who’s taking the Liturgy into their own hands. I mean, even the priest cannot do that.

 

[malphono]

malphono;7886707:

No, I don’t think that’s quite right. The general principle is:

• where something was practiced in the “old” form, and where the new form is silent on the matter, there’s nothing to contradict the maintenance of the “old” practice. That’s not to say the “old practice” is required, but it can be legitimately done, at least until such time as it is specifically abrogated.
• OTOH, where something was NOT

practiced in the “old” form (e.g. hand-holding and the “orans position”), the new form could well have made a stipulation. In the example given, it did not. Ergo, it seems to me that both the hand-holding and orans position are innovations. Neither is expressly forbidden, but at the same time, it is abundantly clear that neither one is required.

I do not believe that there should be mixing of the Forms.

Also, if one buys into this, then they can not make the argument that when the GIRM is silent you should not do something.

That is the main argument against some of what people are labeling as an abuse, that it is not in the GIRM so it should not be done.

The thing is that it’s really not a matter of “mixing the forms” or anything even close. It seems to me that what was done prior to the existence of the Novus Ordo cannot be dismissed out of hand when there is nothing to replace or countermand it.

The GIRM deals with the Novus Ordo. When it is silent, it seems to me that the supposition has to be that what came before it (the GIRM) even existed is implied as being acceptable. Else it (the GIRM) could very easily have explicitly abrogated it. But since the GIRM and the Novus Ordo are “one package” it’s an unbelievably huge stretch to say that when it (the GIRM) is silent, and there is not precedent in the “old” usage, it means “anything goes.”

Let’s take an extreme example: the GIRM doesn’t specifically say that naked dancers are not allowed at Mass. Does that silence mean that same can be used? No, of course not. There’s certainly no precedent from prior use, and there’s nothing (other than common sense and decorum) that says it’s acceptable. In like manner, the silence of the GIRM on other matters does not necessarily give license to every innovation that has cropped up in the past 40+ years.

 

[lizaanne]

Could anyone help me formulate a few sentences on how to explain this to people, without saying something like “Because that’s how they did it before VII”?

Thanks!!

I think this is really simple — I would just say to someone, how can you possibly be TOO reverent to God? It is a way of recognizing that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist by only allowing consecrated hands to touch the vessel holding His Body. How can that possibly be wrong?

I assume that if you are having your servers wearing gloves, you also do not allow EMHCs or reception on the tongue - otherwise it is a bit of a double standard.

~Liza