Maniples

[FenianMan]

What is the status of the maniple? Has it been formally suppressed or is it optional? I assumed that since it goes unmentioned under the current law that it is to be assumed as prohibited, but I saw a thread on another message board that makes me wonder otherwise. Any ideas?

 

[Ray_Marshall]

There seems to be a lot of Theology majors on this site who are very familiar with every old church liturgical practice, the Latin names and details of every encyclical written since Linus and Cletus, the garments of long forgotten clerics and the like.

I’m a pre-Vatican II geezer, and I can’t remember what a maniple is (I think it is related to the Latin word for “hand”), and I would appreciate it if questioners who are searching for arcane knowledge might educate the rest of us.

I majored in arcane knowledge in school. But I didn’t take Theology.

 

[Crusader]

Ray Marshall:

There seems to be a lot of Theology majors on this site who are very familiar with every old church liturgical practice, the Latin names and details of every encyclical written since Linus and Cletus, the garments of long forgotten clerics and the like.

I’m a pre-Vatican II geezer, and I can’t remember what a maniple is (I think it is related to the Latin word for “hand”), and I would appreciate it if questioners who are searching for arcane knowledge might educate the rest of us.

I majored in arcane knowledge in school. But I didn’t take Theology.

A maniple is the small towel that used to hang from the left arm of a priest. Once functional the maniple became largely ceremonial. They were worn with the Roman (“fiddle-back”) chasables

 

[puzzleannie]

You must be attending a wonderful parish with exquisite liturgy and impeccable adherence to the rubrics, I envy you since this is the only question that comes to mind when you attend Mass there.

 

[Ray_Marshall]

Crusader:

They were worn with the Roman (“fiddle-back”) chasables

Oh, the “fiddle-back” chasable [sic].

Just how many kinds of chasubles were there, and what were the distinctions between them?

 

[Crusader]

Ray Marshall:

Oh, the “fiddle-back” chasable [sic].

Just how many kinds of chasubles were there, and what were the distinctions between them?

Let’s see. The Roman chasubles are shaped like the body of a violin from the front. They are sleeveless and look a great deal like bulletproof vests from the front. The look wonderful from the back.

The Gothic chasubles are the “full” chasubles we see most often today. Almost like a square bed sheet with a hole in the center.

The third type is more like a circle with a hole in he center. I don’t recall the name…

 

[Irish_Melkite]

square-back
Ray Marshall:

Oh, the “fiddle-back” chasable [sic].

Just how many kinds of chasubles were there, and what were the distinctions between them?

Ray,

The kinds of chasubles were distinguished by the cut of the fabric. These come immediately to mind:

• fiddle-back } {
• square-back ]

(both of the above are also sometimes referred to as Roman style)

• conical / \
• gothicc / \

(both of the above are sometimes referred to as Gothic style - with the conical sometimes also termed “semi-gothic” and the other “full” or “ample” gothic; in distinguishing the two, gothic is a narrower oval than the conical; looked at from the back and spread out, it is maybe the difference between 135 degrees of a circle versus 180 degrees of same)

Here’s a photo of a fiddle-back; note that it is in the front of the vestment that the distinctive fiddle-back outline appears; it gave the priest easier range of arm motion than did the square-back, which lacked the curvature in front to accomodate his arms. This is a good photo of a square-back, another photo of a square-back is here, interesting for its peculiar history.

The difference between the conical and gothic can hopefully be seen in these two photos.

There were also distinctions once made by styles common to various countries, but those are pretty uncommon now. Here’s a site that displays drawings of these:

St. Benet’s Guild

In Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine Rite, the name for the equivalent vestment is the phelonion (spelling may vary slightly among different ethnic groups within the Byzantine tradition). You can see examples here of Greek and of Russian phelonions, they are the outermost of the vestments displayed; note that the major difference is that the upper front section of the Russian vestments is cut slightly higher than are those of the Greek.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Ray_Marshall]

Irish Melkite:

The kinds of chasubles were distinguished by the cut of the fabric. These come immediately to mind:

Thank you, Neil.

That is really interesting. Who would have thought that so much research would have been done on the chasuble?

 

[Ray_Marshall]

FenianMan:

What is the status of the maniple?

Those of you folks who are really into maniples, the various kinds of chasubles, the headwear of Cardinals over the centuries, etc., ought to check out the Shrine of the Holy Whapping blog at the U of Notre Dame.

These folks are really into tradition and they have a liturgical vocabulary which requires that you have your Catholic Encyclopidia open all the time.

holywhapping.blogspot.com/

Lots of graphics so it can be a bit slow loadiing.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Ray Marshall:

That is really interesting. Who would have thought that so much research would have been done on the chasuble?

Ray,

The amazing thing to me was to discover that I knew (or still remembered) that much about chasubles, particularly those used in the Latin Church, after almost 4 decades in the Eastern Church.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Catholicben]

What is the status of the maniple? Has it been formally suppressed or is it optional? I assumed that since it goes unmentioned under the current law that it is to be assumed as prohibited, but I saw a thread on another message board that makes me wonder otherwise. Any ideas?

I talked to our Vicar General, and he said that normaly, things such as this shouldn’t be used in the NO (same situation for the Bishop’s bugia), except, the vatican recently gave permission to use it in the Norvus Ord, such as our bishop did this year at Easter vigil, and has been for a year or so.

http://yankehome.com/vestments/Roman2 w- desc.jpg

 

[mwscott]

First, it is my understanding that the maniple was never abrogated and thus can be worn. It is still required to be used in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (the Mass celebrated according to the Missal as it was in 1962 “pre-vatican II”)

Second, the maniple was not only required for use with a fiddle-back chasuble but with all chasubles during most of the Mass.

I have never seen the maniple used in person during a NO Mass.

 

[stephraim]

square-back

*] conical / \

*]gothicc / \

(both of the above are sometimes referred to as Gothic style - with the conical sometimes also termed “semi-gothic” and the other “full” or “ample” gothic; in distinguishing the two, gothic is a narrower oval than the conical; looked at from the back and spread out, it is maybe the difference between 135 degrees of a circle versus 180 degrees of same)

It’s my understanding, and I could be mistaken, that the conical chasuble was the original form of the Roman “planeta,” an outer garment.

 

[JReducation]

The maniple is no longer part of the vestments of the priest or bishop celebrating the Ordinary Form. It remains part of the vestments when celebratin the Extraordinary Form for obvious reasons. It was part of the vestments used in that form.

The reason that the maniple is not required in the OF is that the chasuable is different. It is larger and longer. It can be very cumbersome. History of the maniple is rather confusing. I believe that no one really knows exactly. The most acceptable theory is that it was meant to be used as a type of handkerchief. I have no idea if this is true or not.

I do know this; the maniple does not add to or take anything from the liturgy. It’s one of those vestments that if not worn is not even noticeable unless one is looking for it. It’s in the same category as the amice. The vestment is supposed to cover the street clothes. That’s the purpose of the ammice. But it does not add or take away from the liturgy itself.

For the sake of order and consistency, the Church has minimal requirements concerning the vestments worn by priests and deacons. They must wear an alb, stole and chasuable (priest) or dalmatic (deacon).

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[japhy]

I do know this; the maniple does not add to or take anything from the liturgy. It’s one of those vestments that if not worn is not even noticeable unless one is looking for it. It’s in the same category as the amice. The vestment is supposed to cover the street clothes. That’s the purpose of the ammice. But it does not add or take away from the liturgy itself.

Does the stole “add or take away” anything from the liturgy? Or the cincture?

I know you’re not suggesting this, but using mere functionality as the determining factor for what should be part of the liturgy isn’t “the Catholic way”.