No, and I actually wish more priests would wear all of the things you mentioned! The specifics:
My (very strong) position favoring the universal restoration of ad orientem is well known, so I won’t go into that again now, but use of the biretta is making a comeback. More and more of the more traditionally-minded younger clergy seem to wear it more and more frequently at the OF.
Yes, I do not believe the Church makes any specific requirements regarding the cut/design of the chasuble.
I believe the maniple was not prohibited by the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms - I believe it simply fell out of use. It was one of those things we thought were forbidden but in reality they never were. So, I believe the maniple could still be worn.
The rubrics say that an amice must be worn if the alb does not hide the sacred ministers’ street dress at the neck. To the best of my recollection I have NEVER seen a cleric not wearing an amice who’s street clothes were covered by his alb. IMHO I think the amice should be mandatory.
I do not think that the priests’ orientation at Mass, ad orientem or versus populum, would have any bearing on the choice of vestments.
The use of the maniple was effectively suppressed in 1967 in the instruction *Tres Abhinc Annos, *where number 25 states that the use of the maniple is no longer required.
“no longer required” is not “suppressed”. Unless you meant that most priests would choose not to wear it if it’s not required…
If you read the whole of the then Sacred Congregation of the Rites’ Second Instruction on the orderly carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy Tres Abhinc Annos issued on 4th May 1967 you can tell from the language used what is mandatory and what is optional. The sentence “The maniple is no longer required” at No. 25 indicates that there is no longer any obligation to wear the maniple. It does not abrogate its use.
“no longer required” is not “suppressed”. Unless you meant that most priests would choose not to wear it if it’s not required…
I have read the entire Instruction on many occasions, thank you. I said “effectively suppressed”–nothing more, nothing less.
Then let us let it rest as a language issue. Before doing so I will comment that no longer required is not suppression, qualified by an adjective or not. If I use an analogy from an educational setting. If a head teacher says to a school’s pupils ties are no longer required I suspect most, if not all, the students would not wear a tie, but the head teacher has not suppressed the wearing of ties. Suppression suggests a prohibition, even forceful one (check a few online dictionaries).
Where did the pope give permission for use in the OF? I’d like some documentation to show my parish priest.