A liturgical question

Last night I was asked if it is appropriate for a priest to celebrate the Liturgy of the Word with only an alb and stole but to put the chasuble on for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, which was apparently done recently in a church not too far me.

I’m not sure when this practice began or, really, what the notion behind it is, but it is not allowed.

Let us consult the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

In the sacristy, the sacred vestments for the priest, the deacon, and other ministers are to be prepared according to the various forms of celebration [Mass with or without a deacon, a concelebrated Mass, etc.]:

a. For the priest: the alb, the stole, and the chasuble;
b. For the deacon: the alb, the stole, and the dalmatic; the dalmatic may be omitted, however, either out of necessity or on account of a lesser degree of solemnity;
c. For the other ministers: albs or other lawfully approved attire (119).

It would be most foolish to require a chasuble to be prepared and not worn by the priest. Indeed, “once the people have gathered, the priest and ministers, clad in the sacred vestments, go in procession to the altar” (GIRM, 120).

Besides, “the vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other sacred actions directly connected with Mass is, unless otherwise indicated [in the liturgical books], the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole” (GIRM, 337).

In a concelebrated Mass, should “a good reason arise (e.g., a large number of concelebrants or a lack of vestments), concelebrants other than the principal celebrant may omit the chasuble and simply wear the stole over the alb” (209, emphasis added). Even so, “where a need of this kind can be foreseen … provision should be made for it insofar as possible” (Redemptionis sacramentum, 124).

I did not ask whether this particular priest was a concelebrant; even if he was, what he did is still not allowed, as we shall soon see.

It would be a very rare day indeed when such arrangements could not be made, especially considering that the chasubles worn by the concelebrants need not match: “Out of necessity the concelebrants other than the principal celebrant may even put on white chasubles” (Redemptionis sacramentum, 124). I will certainly admit, though, that a matching set of chasubles is much more pleasing to the eye, and less distracting.

The notion of putting the chasuble on only for the Liturgy of the Eucharist really makes little sense and, at least as far as I am aware, has no place in the tradition of the Church. The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist “are so closely interconnected that they form but one single act of worship” (GIRM, 28). Consequently, it makes no sense to treat them as though they were two separate actions, either by a differentiation of vesture or by a differentiation of location (which is also forbidden, though I cannot now recall where). Even in those instances where the priest may wear a cope during the procession, as on Palm Sunday (but not at the Easter Vigil, as much as I would like too), he removes the cope once the procession has arrived:

When the priest comes to the altar he venerates it and may also incense it. Then he goes to his chair (removes the cope and puts on the chasuble) and begins immediately the opening prayer of Mass (Passion Week, Palm Sunday).

It might also be noted that such a practice of donning the chasuble after the Liturgy of the Word has been expressly forbidden:

The abuse is reprobated whereby the sacred ministers celebrate Holy Mass or other Rites without the sacred vestments or with only a stole over the monastic cowl or the common habit of religious or ordinary clothes, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books, even when there is only one minister participating (Redemptionis sacramentum, 126).

The books are closed; the discussion is ended.

Why do some priests ignore the liturgical law? Sadly, in some instances so many priests have disregarded the liturgical books that it makes those of us who do our best to follow them look as though we are inventing strange practices when, in reality, we are only doing what should have been done all along.