Monday, June 07, 2010

The Clergy in the Corpus Christi Procession

Post updated to provide context for anyone not coming here from the NLM comment thread.

In response to a post on the New Liturgical Movement a commentator asked this question:
I just saw some pictures from a Corpus Christi procession at an FSSP apostolate in France. There were three additional priests in attendance. They were all wearing chasubles over surplices (not albs). I can't recall ever having seen this done, and I was wondering if anyone here can offer an explanation. Could it be because they lacked a sufficient number of white copes, and if that's why, is there a rubrical provision to allow chasubles in place of copes where copes are not available?
Gregor points out:
Under the rubrics of the usus antiquior, the canons of a cathedral chapte wear for the Corpus Christi procession the vestments corresponding to their rank in the chapter (the so called canonici parati, much like there are Cardinal deacons, priests and bishops, who used to wear the corresponding vestments for certain papal functions).
Having just looked at this question (and many, many others) in preparation for the Corpus Christi procession at Holy Innocents, I could point right away to the citation on pg. 388 of the 15th edition of Ceremonies of the Roman Rite:
"If the cathedral chapter assists, the canons out to wear vestments of their three orders; that is, subdeacons in tunicles, deacons in dalmatics, priests in chasubles; dignitaries in copes.(31) These are put on after the communion of the Mass and should be worn immediately over the rochet and an amice, without stole or maniple, as when the Ordinary sings solemn mass. The colour of the vestments is white. If the cathedral chapter is not present the clergy may be divided into groups wearing these vestments. (32)" [My emphasis]

Footnote 31: C.E., II, xxxiii, 5.
Footnote 32: Cf. S.R.C. 2362 Section 1.
That second footnote also seems to drive the wearing of albs instead of surplices as one might expect in place of the rochet. S.R.C. 2362 is now easily available via Google Books. Here's the relevant excerpt from the Decreta authentica.


Click the link to see the decree in the context of the book via Google Books.

1 comment:

SJH said...

Apparently, Google restricts this content for some folks overseas. Here's a quick and dirty typed version. Let me know if you find any typos:
Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum Ex Actis Eiusdem Collecta Eiusque Auctoritate Promulgata Sub Auspiciis SS. Domini Nostri Leonis Papae XXIII. Vol. II Ab anno 1706 Num. 2163 usque ad annum 1870 Num. 3232. (Romae: Ex Typographia Polyglotta MDCCCXCVIII).

2362. NUCERIAE PAGANORUM. (4113)

In causa Nuceriae Paganorum inter sodales Confraternitatis SSmi Corporis Christi, habentes propriam Ecclesiam sub eodem titulo prope Parochialem S. Felicis, qui semper et usque ad praesens in Dominica infra octavam Festi SSmi Corporis Christi solemnem Processionem peregerunt, etiam auctoritate huius S.R.C., nec non Communitatem eiusdem Civitatis praedictis sodalibus adhaerentem ex una, atque Dignitates et Canonicos Cathedralis Ecclesiae ac Promotorem Fiscalem illius Curiae episcopalis, praetendentes in eadem Processione deferri non posse vestes sacras per Presbyteros, Diaconos et Subdiaconos, nec extolli Crucem processionaliter a Subdiacono cum Tunicella parato, partibus ex altera; propositis per Emum et Rmum D. Card. de Tencin Ponentem infrascriptis dubiis, videlicet:
1. An Sacerdotes, Diaconi, Subdiaconi in Processione quae peragitur in Dominica infra octavam solemnitatis SSmi Corporis Christi intra limites totius Paroeciae S. Felicis Universitatis Paganorum, possint induere super albis Casulas, et respective Dalmaticas et Tunicellas?
2. An Crux processionalis possit deferri ante Clerum per Subdiaconum cum Tunicella paratum; vel potius quoad utrumque sit servandum assertum solitum in casu?
S.R.C., audita informatione Episcopi, utraque parte informante et audita tam voce quam scriptis ac iuribus hinc inde deductis, ad relationem praefati Emi et Rmi Ponentis, rescribendum censuit:
Ad 1. "Affirmative".
Ad 2. "Affirmative, quoad primam partem; Negative, quoad secundam; et amplius".
Et ita decrevit ac servari mandavit. Die 20 Maii 1741.