Even Abp. LeFebvre used the 1962 missal.
.
It was not his first choice. He had been reverting to the pre-1955 rubrics and propers consistently until a controversy erupted with "the Eight" which eventually morphed into sedevacantism. Fr. Gregory Hesse put the questions to rest when he explained in detail how it all panned out. ABL was put into a position of being marginalized more severely, OR, if he were to accept the 1962 Missal then Rome would be less severe with the SSPX, so ABL chose the latter to make life less problematic, as he didn't think there was enough difference to fight over. Fr. Hesse said,
You see, that's how Rome does things, by intrigue and manipulation. .
One of the minor changes attached to the '62 Missal is the non-use of the maniple (no relation to "
manipulation"). You won't find any mention of the maniple in the '62 Missal itself, but it was quietly set aside in practice at the time, and it seems to me this was part of the overall plan to introduce the Newmass. Even today, sometimes SSPX priests use one and sometimes they don't. It's no big deal, but it's one drop in the bucket, so to speak, for when you add up enough drops you get a bucketful, whereas keeping all the longstanding traditions in place anchors your Mass in Tradition. If you go around making lots of little changes eventually Anglicans look more "traditional." Before Vat.II the maniple was universally used by all priests; after the Gospel in Latin at the altar (left side) the priest would remove the maniple and place it over the open Gospel pages, then turn to leave the altar and go to the pulpit where he would give the sermon, etc. The significance of the maniple is to show that the sermon is not part of Mass, and that Mass is momentarily interrupted for the time it takes to give the sermon and announcements, or perhaps to read the Epistle and Gospel in vernacular from the pulpit. One independent priest told me that he feels somehow incompletely vested without a maniple at Mass, like it's one step in the wrong direction.
.
Today, you will see +Williamson using the maniple and placing it over the Gospels while he gives his sermon, then returning to Mass and putting the maniple back on. I have noticed +Tissier de Mallarais do so as well. I don't know about +Fellay or the others (incl. 3 new ones consec. by +W). I have noticed various independent priests in various parts of the world using the maniple in the same traditional way. But occasionally they don't take it off when they give the sermon, and I don't know why, perhaps they just forgot to remove it. Some SSPX priests apparently never use a maniple. I have seen CMRI priests who use it, some who don't, others who consistently take it off and hand it to an altar boy while giving the sermon instead of placing it over the Gospels. From what I have seen in videos, ABL always used the maniple in the traditional way, placing it over the Gospels during the sermon and replacing it on his left arm after returning to the altar for Mass.
.
If a Catholic doesn't know any better, he might get the impression that a maniple is a liturgical ornament that only bishops use. But that would be incorrect -- however, it's not an unreasonable deduction to make when one sees a bishop using it and his priests not using it. Then there's other bishops not using it, and some using it sometimes and not other times while priests under the same bishop do not use it, while others do.
.
One thing is clear: Novus Ordo priests do not use a maniple. I suppose there could be exceptions, though.
.
Topic: The end for the 1962 Missal (Read 3796 times)