Pope Leo XIII
(08-10-2018, 11:58 PM)Poche Wrote: His support for the French Republic was in order to forestall those kind of persecutions that was brought about. The Second Book of Macchabees records how the high priest Onias sought to be conciliative with his enemies so that they would have no basis to say that he was not a seeker of peace. It is those like the high priest Onias and Pope Leo XII of whom Jesus said, "Blessed are the peace makers."

So, Francis fanboy #1, your fanboydom extends to all Popes who have made rash, ill advised decisions that have done great harm to the Church? Any Catholic Frenchman could have told Leo exactly what was going to happen, and I'm sure many did. He simply ignored everything and almost destroyed the Church in France.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'

(08-10-2018, 03:58 PM)Paul Wrote: I think I've seen the priest give the homily without a chasuble once or twice, but at most TLMs I've been to, he only removes the maniple.

But there's also nothing evil about Mass in the vernacular. There are potential problems with it, including the risk of making it too familiar and about man rather than God, and the ability of the priest to ad-lib, but Latin was once the vernacular, too. The problem with the new Mass is its desire to be acceptable to Protestants, not the language. I would much rather have the 1962 Missal in English than the 1970 Missal in Latin.

Priests in some places customarily remove the maniple because the maniple is only ever used as a Mass vestment. Whenever a priest, deacon or subdeacon is doing something in a ceremony outside of Mass (e.g. Solemn Benediction with deacon and subdeacon) they wear their proper vestments but leave off the maniple. It is also why whenever the priest is in cope, he does not wear the maniple, thus the Asperges is done without chasuble and maniple.

The chasuble is the vestment proper to the order of the Priest, thus it is sometimes used outside of Mass. For instance, cathedral canons and religious in processions of the Blessed Sacrament would wear over their choir dress a chausble, dalmatic or tunicle (depending on whether they were priests, deacons or subdeacons) without alb. This was done outside of Mass. So while most of us associate the chasuble with being a Mass garment, and this is nearly universally the case, it is only accidentally so. It can be used outside of Mass, and should be at times.

The maniple, however, is not used outside of Mass, so while it is not incorrect or wrong to wear it at a sermon, the more frequent practice is to remove it.

The idea, however, that the first time that a priest would speak in the vernacular while wearing a chasuble was the Leonine prayers is simply historically incorrect. In short, it's just wrong.

The rite for marriage when followed by the Nuptial Mass (which is the near universal custom) has the priest wearing chasuble, stole, cincture, alb, and amice. Marriage has always been done in the vernacular because it is essentially a contract between the spouses. That contract needs to be expressed in such a way that the parties, witnesses and the Church's witness (the priest) can be sure to understand. If they all understood Latin, then it could be done this way, but the exact formula has always been a matter for local custom and in the local vernacular.

Also, Latin was once a vernacular, and not all that long ago. In the early Middle Ages in most Romance countries people would have at least recognized and understood most Ecclesiastical Latin, even if their own language was already starting to separate from Latin and become a local vernacular.

The removal of the chasuble is not an unknown practice, but originated not because of the fact that it is a Mass vestment, but for a more practical reason. If one ever has the chance to handle a 16th, 17th or 18th century chasuble, one would easily see how heavy it is. Especially the most precious ones are heavily encrusted with metal, highly embroidered and made of very heavy woven fabrics (why do you think the ministers had to lift the chasuble at the elevations ... not because of some symbolism, but because without this help and with the more ample vestments, elevating the chalice and host would be difficult).

Similarly the removal of the chasuble happened for two reasons : (1) it is bulky and can become hot, and (2) it was very common that sermons a few hundred years back would be hours long. Thus removing a heavy, hot "overcoat" to preach for several hours in a packed church in the middle of a sultry summer day seems quite reasonable.

There's a lot of "old wives tales" when it comes to the traditional liturgy. Often times what grandma or your crazy uncle says is "traditional" is actually an abuse. Some of what Fr Hesse says, from what I remember, does fall in this category.

An example, I recall an agéd woman about 15 years back in a church where I was the MC and Sacristan for Solemn Holy Week ceremonies who upon seeing us remove the Holy Water after the Maundy Thurday Mass, chided us that it was never like that in her day, and even bringing a gallon of Holy Water the next day (Good Friday) to refill the fonts herself.

As regards the original comment about the Leonine prayers, simply put, this was not the first time a priest was wearing a chausble and spoke in the vernacular, and certainly the use of the vernacular in such contexts in no way profanes the liturgy. That's just silly.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Florus, jovan66102, mpk1987

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)