Gloves for Servers Touching the Chalice

[The_Professor]

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?

And on the opposite end, why couldn’t we add “newer” parts of the OF such as the Prayers of the Faithful and Sign of Peace to the EF? (Of course, these were both ancient practices that had fallen out of use by the time of the Tridentine rite.)

 

[benedictgal]

And on the opposite end, why couldn’t we add “newer” parts of the OF such as the Prayers of the Faithful and Sign of Peace to the EF? (Of course, these were both ancient practices that had fallen out of use by the time of the Tridentine rite.)

The problem there is that the 1962 Missal is more stringent. According to Summorum Pontificum, the only thing that is allowed (as far as importing from the OF) is the order of readings. In the EF, you now have the option of using the OF cycle of readings. I also believe that the newer saints and blesseds can also be incorporated into the EF; however, that is it.

 

[malphono]

According to Summorum Pontificum, the only thing that is allowed (as far as importing from the OF) is the order of readings. In the EF, you now have the option of using the OF cycle of readings.

I don’t think so. What Universae Ecclesiae clarified was how the vernacular may be used. I don’t recall seeing anything about the reading cycle itself.

I also believe that the newer saints and blesseds can also be incorporated into the EF; however, that is it.

Provisions may be made for this, but it hasn’t happened yet.

 

[mattheus09]

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.

The GIRM says “The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the** traditional practice of the Roman Rite** and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.” Fr. Finnigan and Fr. Z I believe have commented that this means that what when the GIRM is silent the traditional practice of the Roman Rite is to be followed.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t think so. What Universae Ecclesiae clarified was how the vernacular may be used. I don’t recall seeing anything about the reading cycle itself.

Provisions may be made for this, but it hasn’t happened yet.

SP did state that the readings could be taken from the OF.

 

[malphono]

SP did state that the readings could be taken from the OF.

Maybe I’m just dense today, but I’ve looked again and I still don’t see it. The closest is

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

which point is clarified in the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae by

1. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.

If there was something else in Summorum Pontificum, please point me to it.

 

[MarkThompson]

I don’t think so. What Universae Ecclesiae clarified was how the vernacular may be used. I don’t recall seeing anything about the reading cycle itself.

Right. SP implies, and UE clarifies, merely that at low Mass the readings can be given in the vernacular, not that a whole different lectionary and calendar can be used. The instruction specifies that it is talking about how “the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed,” so it assumes (obviously) that different readings from a modern lectionary are not being incorporated.

 

[TheMc]

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.

Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

Wow! I never noticed that in the GIRM. I would say that clears it up.

Now… I’m probably sparking another 10 pages of discussion, but when wondering what to do at any point in the mass, the way I’m reading GIRM 42, this is what seems like the best idea (to me, at least):

1. 
   *]Check the current GIRM
   *]Check the 1962 rubrics
   *]See what they do at a TLM
   
   Why that last one? I think it’d be good to do that because as strict and all comprehensive as the 1962 rubrics was, not every gesture was in the rubrics, some things were just commonly done, such as some of the positions of one server at a low Mass (I think).

 

[malphono]

Right. SP implies, and UE clarifies, merely that at low Mass the readings can be given in the vernacular, not that a whole different lectionary and calendar can be used. The instruction specifies that it is talking about how “the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed,” so it assumes (obviously) that different readings from a modern lectionary are not being incorporated.

Yes, exactly.

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes, exactly.

I hunted down the Latin, and it’s even clearer:
[L]ectiones Sanctae Missae, quae in Missali anni 1962 continentur, proferri possunt … in Missis lectis etiam solum vernacule.

[T]he readings of the Holy Mass, which are contained in the Missal of the year 1962, can be offered … in said Masses, even in the vernacular alone.

It is only those readings “contained” in the 1962 Missal that can be offered in the vernacular.

 

[malphono]

I hunted down the Latin, and it’s even clearer:
[L]ectiones Sanctae Missae, quae in Missali anni 1962 continentur, proferri possunt … in Missis lectis etiam solum vernacule.

[T]he readings of the Holy Mass, which are contained in the Missal of the year 1962, can be offered … in said Masses, even in the vernacular alone.

It is only those readings “contained” in the 1962 Missal that can be offered in the vernacular.

Thanks … I would have done that but just didn’t have the patience to look for the Latin text.

 

[Phemie]

Thank you for the information. At our last confirmation ceremony the Altar “girl” was holding the croizer without a vimpa. The Bishop made no mention of the error to either the DRE or any of the instructors present. Our parish is in need of much repair

How many parishes actually have vimpae as part of their vestement wardrobe? Ours doesn’t and I’ve yet to attend any Bishop-celebrated Mass in our diocese, even at the Cathedral, where the vimpa was used.

 

[Califman831]

How many parishes actually have vimpae as part of their vestement wardrobe? Ours doesn’t and I’ve yet to attend any Bishop-celebrated Mass in our diocese, even at the Cathedral, where the vimpa was used.

I would like to know also as I was unaware of the custom until yesterday. Thankfully CA and other Catholic forums are available to point out the abuses that the modernists introduce into the church. This is the problem with liturgical abuses, they occur so often that they eventually become the norm. Take the case of altar servers, traditionally a male role, then allowances were made for the [edited] [girls], and now its a common to have the [edited] [girls] regardless if enough males are available for the role.

What about Altar Girls? … Cardinal Arinze
youtube.com/watch?v=KWByiwHE4MY

NOT the Same Church
youtube.com/watch?v=ekN0Dcj_aJ8

 

[Angel_Bradford]

I would like to know also as I was unaware of the custom until yesterday. Thankfully CA and other Catholic forums are available to point out the abuses that the modernists introduce into the church. This is the problem with liturgical abuses, they occur so often that they eventually become the norm. Take the case of altar servers, traditionally a male role, then allowances were made for the chicks, and now its a common to have the chicks regardless if enough males are available for the role.

What about Altar Girls? … Cardinal Arinze
youtube.com/watch?v=KWByiwHE4MY

NOT the Same Church
youtube.com/watch?v=ekN0Dcj_aJ8

“Chicks”??? Seriously???

 

[archangel04]

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!

Although I agree with you, some may ask for you to proivde documentation for this or a reference.

 

[TheMc]

Although I agree with you, some may ask for you to proivde documentation for this or a reference.

I posted it above. There also may be other documentation about it, but this is what I have found so far. Here is a copy of that entire post:

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.

Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

Wow! I never noticed that in the GIRM. I would say that clears it up.

Now… I’m probably sparking another 10 pages of discussion, but when wondering what to do at any point in the mass, the way I’m reading GIRM 42, this is what seems like the best idea (to me, at least):

1. 
   *]Check the current GIRM
   *]Check the 1962 rubrics
   *]See what they do at a TLM
   
   Why that last one? I think it’d be good to do that because as strict and all comprehensive as the 1962 rubrics was, not every gesture was in the rubrics, some things were just commonly done, such as some of the positions of one server at a low Mass (I think).

 

[archangel04]

I posted it above. There also may be other documentation about it, but this is what I have found so far. Here is a copy of that entire post:

Sorry that I missed that lol, and thank you for providing that. Notice it does say traditions with the small “t” so that pretty much includes those traditions of the 1962 missal I would say. Also since our holy father has declared that the EF and OF are the same rite of the Latin Church I would not see any problem to using some of the traditions of the '62 missal at the OF.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sorry that I missed that lol, and thank you for providing that. Notice it does say traditions with the small “t” so that pretty much includes those traditions of the 1962 missal I would say. Also since our holy father has declared that the EF and OF are the same rite of the Latin Church I would not see any problem to using some of the traditions of the '62 missal at the OF.

It also includes all Missals prior to Trent. So it is open season on modifying the EF with those things.

Thanks.

 

[TheMc]

Sorry that I missed that lol, and thank you for providing that. Notice it does say traditions with the small “t” so that pretty much includes those traditions of the 1962 missal I would say. Also since our holy father has declared that the EF and OF are the same rite of the Latin Church I would not see any problem to using some of the traditions of the '62 missal at the OF.

Nor would I, or many good priests and bishops I know. It adds a whole new dimension to the celebration. It really does.

 

[Aramis]

Here’s another way I might explain it to people:
“Historically/traditionally/in the church’s history, the only one to touch the chalice was the priest, because his hands were consecrated, and the chalice is sacred because it holds the blood of God. We are trying to restore a sense of reverence and awe, for the sacred mysteries, and it only seems fitting for the servers to not directly touch it.”

While that is almost a quote of the Baltimore Catechism, it’s also one of the errors of the BC.

The deacon also handles the vessels, and traditionally did not wear gloves while performing his liturgical duties. The diminution of the deacon’s role within the roman church, the lack of significant numbers of deacons not bound for the priesthood, and the frequent use of a priest vested as a deacon, these all combined to make it appear that only priests should handle the vessels bare handed. The deacon also could be permitted to distribute communion (check the 1917 canon law!) when either great numbers or infirmity of the priest made it needed.