Beyond the historical circumstances, the sacred vestments had an important function in the liturgical celebrations: In the first place, the fact that they are not worn in ordinary life, and thus possess a "liturgical" character, helps one to be detached from the everyday and its concerns in the celebration of divine worship. Furthermore, the ample form of the vestments, the alb, for example, the dalmatic and the chasuble, put the individuality of the one who wears them in second place in order to emphasize his liturgical role. One might say that the "camouflaging" of the minister’s body by the vestments depersonalizes him in a way; it is that healthy depersonalization that de-centers the celebrating minister and recognizes the true protagonist of the liturgical action: Christ. The form of the vestments, therefore, says that the liturgy is celebrated "in persona Christi" and not in the priest's own name. He who performs a liturgical function does not do so as a private person, but as a minister of the Church and an instrument in the hands of Jesus Christ. The sacred character of the vestments also has to do with their being donned according to what is prescribed in the Roman Ritual.
In the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite (the so-called Mass of Pius V), the putting on of the liturgical vestments is accompanied by prayers for each garment, prayers whose text one still finds in many sacristies. Even if these prayers are no longer obligatory (but neither are they prohibited) by the Missal of the ordinary form promulgated by Paul VI, their use is recommended since they help in the priest's preparation and recollection before the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice. As a confirmation of the utility of these prayers it must be noted that they are included in the "Compendium Eucharisticum," recently published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.[2] Moreover it is useful to recall that Pius XII, with the decree of Jan. 14, 1940, assigned an indulgence of 100 days for the individual prayers.
***
***
In conclusion, one hopes that the rediscovery of the symbolism of the liturgical vestments and the vesting prayers will encourage priests to take up again the practice of praying as they are dressing for the liturgy so as to prepare themselves for the celebration with the necessary recollection.
While it is possible to use different prayers, or simply to lift one's mind up to God, nevertheless the texts of the vesting prayers are brief, precise in their language, inspired by a biblical spirituality and have been prayed for centuries by countless sacred ministers. These prayers thus recommend themselves still today for the preparation for the liturgical celebration, even for the liturgy according to the ordinary form of the Roman Rite.
11 comments:
In many ways the use of the maniple is inconvienent for it often gets in the way and sometimes could end up in the chalice !
Jamie
"camouflaging" of the minister’s body by the vestments depersonalizes him in a way; it is that healthy depersonalization that de-centers the celebrating minister and recognizes the true protagonist of the liturgical action: Christ.
A good example for the Tradition being contradictory to Novus Ordo.
Considering that the maniple originated as a towel to wipe sweat from the brow, who cares? It is odd that it came to be described in vesting prayers as the 'maniple of tears and sorrow'. Why?
Jamie, I've never seen that happen. It is worn on the left forearm, which is used to raise the chalice in the first place. During the consecration of he host the priest need only move his arm outward to the left a little upon lowering, to avoid it. Care in the mechanics of the celebratory acts was often derogatorily called "priestcraft" during the reformation, but within the church it is known as the "Ars Celebrandi", the "arts of celebration." These things, too, help to de-personalize the priest on the altar, and need to be recalled, for the benefit of priests and the dignity of the mass.
If the Holy Father begins wearing the maniple the flood gates will open. Oremus pro Pontifice.
"In many ways the use of the maniple is inconvienent for it often gets in the way and sometimes could end up in the chalice !"
Jamie:
I have assisted at close to one thousand Gregorian Rite Masses and have never seen that happen or any problems with the manple.
Whats your beef?
Edward Pearce,
The maniple did originate as a sort of napkin - but guided by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in the context of liturgy it soon took on a profound meaning and symbolism. The maniple is a symbol of the duty and labor of the priest. He labors, today all too often in vain, for the souls of his loved ones- praying and weeping in labor for their souls and the souls of those entrusted to his care. These "tears of sorrow" are a participation of the weeping of the True High Priest - when He wept over Jerusalem because it had not "known the time of its visitation" . Just as Christ wept over Jerusalem because many of the Jews had not accepted Him- so likewise should priests weep over those who do not accept the Church or receive the sacraments. This maniple as a napkin would have also been used to wipe one's sweat from the brow, also a symbol of labor. This also is reminiscent of Christs agony in the Garden- many Saints tell us that Christs primary agony in the Garden came from seeing all those souls who, as a result of their obstinacy in sin and unrepentant hearts, would not benefit from His Supreme Sacrifice.
In my opinion, the return of this vestment would be the result of (or the cause of) a resurgence of the sense of holy labor, duty and dedication among priests.
Pax
Mr. Pearce,
The symbolism may have something to do with Psalm 126:
Qui seminant in lacrimis, in exsultatione metent. Euntes ibant et flebant, mittentes semina sua. Venientes autem venient cum exsultatione, portantes manipulos suos.
They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. Going they went and wept, casting their seeds. But coming they shall come with joyfulness, carrying their sheaves.
...apart from the obvious fact that the toils of the priesthood that produces the sweat on the priest's brow are often perceived as a burden, even if a salutary one.
Rams, Gideon Ertner
That's all very well. But sacerdotal vestments originated in the daily wear for men in the world of late antiquity and had a utilitarian function. Loading them with late-medieval symbolism has little to do with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but is associated with subjective piety.
I am neutral about the use of the maniple but I thought at the time of its 'abrogation' that if you are going to dispense with one vestment you may as well dispense with them all. Its presumed abandonment surprised me then and surprises me still but it seems a little odd that, forty years later, it is being claimed that its disuse was neither ordered nor necessary. If that is so, why did it fall into disuse and, before being thrown away, why were sacristy drawers piled high with spare maniples? What other liturgical surprises are in store, I wonder?
"Loading them with late-medieval symbolism has little to do with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but is associated with subjective piety."
I don't think anyone has claimed that the symbolism attached to vestments came about as a result of divine inspiration. But so what if it is only due to "subjective" piety? Is not piety a virtue? There is no internal necessity in Christian worship for things like incense or candles either, but these objects convey a deep and ineffable meaning to the believer to such an extent that his faith would be much poorer without them. It would be the height of folly to remove these things on the grounds that they "really aren't necessary." Necessary, perhaps not. Irreplaceable, certainly.
Post a Comment