Vestments

[Engineer1]

Curious…does anyone know when/why the vestments worn by priests changed?

Thanks

 

[bpbasilphx]

I’m not too sure what you mean by “changed”.

The maniple was suppressed in 1967 or so.

The chasuble shape has evolved over the centuries from an original conical shape. If you go back far enough, the garment called “phelonion” by the Greeks and “casula” by the Latins had the same shape.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I was also wondering about it but I never had time to do some research on this topic.

Before the Vatican II, the most widely used style of vestments were the post-gothic roman vestments. Now you will be lucky if you spot them in an average parish. Almost everybody seems to have gone back to the gothic style (old style but new ugly designs).

Why? What’s the history of this change?

 

[BritishCatholic]

I was also wondering about it but I never had time to do some research on this topic.

Before the Vatican II, the most widely used style of vestments were the post-gothic roman vestments. Now you will be lucky if you spot them in an average parish. Almost everybody seems to have gone back to the gothic style (old style but new ugly designs).

Why? What’s the history of this change?

I have done some light reading on this topic and this is what I gathered.

The reasons for the “change” were merely practical. As we all know, the Roman “Fiddleback” chasuble was very popular before Vatican II, but now they are extremely rare at the majority of parishes. Now we see more of the Gothic style vestments. The reason for this move was simply because the clergy all thought that it was far easier to move and “work Mass” with the Gothic chasubles because they were normally lighter and “moved” with the priest.

However, let me just say that any priest is still welcomed to wear the Roman ‘Fiddleback’ chasuble. It’s just a matter of sheer choice.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

I prefer gothic style, personally. But modern designs are usually horrible. My home parish usually has very simple ones with limited decorations. but the parts that are decorated are usually have very delicate, fine details. But the parishes where i go to school are usually just sinle-colored robes, or white with a single colored band or stipe or something.

Are all the other vestments and vesting prayers the same, except for the maniple?

 

[Beret]

I think there was a return to the intrinsically better-looking Gothic-style chasubles for two reasons. First, a change in orientation of the priest facing the people. Second, the use of lighter and easier to maintain vestment materials.

I can’t see any reason for the fiddlebacks except that they were easier to maintain (if a priest sits on a bench, he need not sit on the chasuble at all) and cooler to wear. In fact, that’s the reason they were created.

While the back of a fiddleback looks nice, they look rather hideous from the front – or at least most do. I was thumbing through Henri Daniel-Rops’ This is the Mass earlier this evening. My copy was published in 1958 and has some gorgeous pictures of Archbishop Sheen celebrating the Mass. He is wearing a beautiful Gothic-style chasuble despite the date.

While fiddlebacks can be worn while celebrating the ordinary form of the Mass, the maniple cannot be worn while doing so.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

The maniple was suppressed in 1967 or so.

To my understanding it was never suppressed and they can be used for NO masses if one chooses. I this correct?

I have done some light reading on this topic and this is what I gathered.

The reasons for the “change” were merely practical. As we all know, the Roman “Fiddleback” chasuble was very popular before Vatican II, but now they are extremely rare at the majority of parishes. Now we see more of the Gothic style vestments. The reason for this move was simply because the clergy all thought that it was far easier to move and “work Mass” with the Gothic chasubles because they were normally lighter and “moved” with the priest.

However, let me just say that any priest is still welcomed to wear the Roman ‘Fiddleback’ chasuble. It’s just a matter of sheer choice.

Thanks!

 

[Beret]

To my understanding it was never suppressed and they can be used for NO masses if one chooses. I this correct?

Thanks!

I believe the controlling Church document for this matter was once Tres Abhinc Annos --Second Instruction on the orderly carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy issues on May 4, 1967 by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Paragraph #25 states “The maniple is no longer required.”

So at one point its use was indeed optional. However the newest GIRM makes no mention of the maniple:

GIRM 337. 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.

It seems that the use of the maniple is therefore suppressed for the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

 

[James0235]

I believe the controlling Church document for this matter was once Tres Abhinc Annos --Second Instruction on the orderly carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy issues on May 4, 1967 by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Paragraph #25 states “The maniple is no longer required.”

So at one point its use was indeed optional. However the newest GIRM makes no mention of the maniple:

GIRM 337. 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.

It seems that the use of the maniple is therefore suppressed for the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

Nothing you have quoted even remotely suggests that the maniple is suppressed. So, how do you draw that conclusion?

The last time it was mentioned it was made optional. Failing to mention it after that does not suppress it.

James

 

[Beret]

Nothing you have quoted even remotely suggests that the maniple is suppressed. So, how do you draw that conclusion?

The last time it was mentioned it was made optional. Failing to mention it after that does not suppress it.

James

Through critical thinking.

Read it again.

Tres Abhinc Annos clearly made the maniple optional. Some could even interpret Tres Abhinc Annos as supressing its use altogether. That might have indeed been the Church’s intention.

Further, the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal does not specify the maniple as being a vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass.

There was no “failing to mention it.” It’s clear from the GIRM that it’s no longer part of the vestments proper to the priest celebrant at Mass.

 

[James0235]

Through critical thinking.

Read it again.

Tres Abhinc Annos clearly made the maniple optional. Some could even interpret Tres Abhinc Annos as supressing its use altogether. That might have indeed been the Church’s intention.

Further, the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal does not specify the maniple as being a vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass.

There was no “failing to mention it.” It’s clear from the GIRM that it’s no longer part of the vestments proper to the priest celebrant at Mass.

There is a major flaw in your logic. You say it was suppressed but can’t provide an actual source. When something is suppressed it is pretty clear.

I will use the Liturgy of the Hours as an example. Before the 2nd Vatican Council one of the hours of the Divine Office was Prime.

The Council suppressed it:
"The hour of Prime is to be suppressed."
Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 89

And now you will not find the office of Prime in the Liturgy of the Hours.

Are you aware of anything similar being written about the maniple? Omitting reference to it is not the same thing as suppressing it.

James

 

[brotherhrolf]

All I can tell you is that at age 56 and a cradle Catholic, I had never seen the fiddle-back vestments until I saw some mounted and framed on the walls of a parish hall. The fiddle-back vestments were not in use when I grew up in the 50s. They had been abandoned. When and why I do not know.

The maniple did indeed go by the wayside in the late 60s as I remember.

 

[AJV]

Are you aware of anything similar being written about the maniple? Omitting reference to it is not the same thing as suppressing it.

James

I am not so sure. If you look at the publications like the Ecclesiatical Review especially at the time of the 1960’s when there were major changes to the rubrics, or new ceremonial guides (like “The Celebration of the Mass"or Synopsis Variationem in editione typica Missalis Romani”) rubricists did hold that if an explicit reference formerly made in the body of rubrics was removed, then it was to be regarded as suppressed. For example, the obligation that the priest cover his head with a biretta, or the bow toward the crucifix. Or even which Masses were allowed as votives. Of course there is a bit of difficulty in applying this to the 1969 missal because it is completely different rubrics.

At the same time, someone once posted that Cardinal Arinze said it was alright and the CDW is entrusted with interpretations.

 

[James0235]

At the same time, someone once posted that Cardinal Arinze said it was alright and the CDW is entrusted with interpretations.

I do remember reading that the Cardinal said that. But, I have never seen an actual quote.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

" no longer required."

It seems that is all I hear from the Chuch now-a-days.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

it was made optional

That means no one does it anymore.

 

[cmudd]

Nothing you have quoted even remotely suggests that the maniple is suppressed. So, how do you draw that conclusion?

The last time it was mentioned it was made optional. Failing to mention it after that does not suppress it.

James

Keep in mind that the GIRM is proscriptive. The priest is required to perform the actions that are *proscribed *in the GIRM. They are not allowed to add or take away at their leisure.

Thus, if the maniple is not mentioned, it is not to be worn (please, no retorts about wearing pants… we are discussing liturgical garb). That being said, I like the maniple and hope that thenew GIRM brings it back or at least allows for it. It has a rich asthetic and symbolic quality.

 

[Beret]

Keep in mind that the GIRM is proscriptive. The priest is required to perform the actions that are *proscribed *in the GIRM. They are not allowed to add or take away at their leisure.

Thus, if the maniple is not mentioned, it is not to be worn (please, no retorts about wearing pants… we are discussing liturgical garb). That being said, I like the maniple and hope that thenew GIRM brings it back or at least allows for it. It has a rich asthetic and symbolic quality.

I believe the GIRM is prescriptive.

Otherwise I do agree. I really do find it amusing how some who would consider themselves to be staunch orthodox Catholics will go to amazing lengths to justify their opinions when they run contrary to what the Church actually directs because they believe their position is somehow “better.”

The wearing of the maniple is supressed for use during the celebration of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. Done deal. Move on.

 

[cmudd]

I believe the GIRM is prescriptive.

The wearing of the maniple is suppressed for use during the celebration of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. Done deal. Move on.

Thanks for the correction. I guess its time to start using the spell-check.

Although the GIRM does not allow for its use, again, I hope that the revised GIRM does. It is a lost treasure.

To complete your second point, I would inversely contend that those who rail against the use of such traditional outward signs of piety such as the maniple are less interested in following the prescriptions of Holy Mother Church than they are interested in ridding our liturgy of any vestige of traditional (pre-Vatican II) liturgical practices.

All things being equal, I would much rather a priest break from the GIRM by doing something that is overtly pious than to break from the GIRM by doing something that is overtly non-Catholic or banal (liturgical dance, holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer, female acolytes, changing the words of consecration, having scandalous people stand in as EM’s, insipid protestant hymns, drums and electric guitars, etc…).

Nevertheless, as it stands right now, it seems that the GIRM does not allow for the use of the maniple, so, IMHO it should be left in the sacristy.

 

[ItalianBoy1993]

The priests at the church where I am an altar boy wear Roman Vestments and I even get them to wear their matching maniple on feast days!