J
Jacob21
Guest
Bring back both the Zuchetto and Biretta!
- Status
P
Petergee
Guest
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that under Canon Law once a man becomes a cleric (i.e. in the modern western rite, once he is ordained a deacon) he has both the right and the duty to wear “clerical dress”. His bishop (alone or jointly with other bishops of his country or region) may vary the precise form of clerical dress or give him permission not to wear it, but not prohibit him from wearing it, unless he is under some sort of censure.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Most dioceses limit deacons to wearing clerical dress only when they are ministering becuase most of them have a secular life and job. That is they are not employed by the Church like a priest is. They assist at Masses on Sundays and some of them are involved in parish ministries but not all of them work at a pairsh as a fulltime job.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Canon 284 says:
To my mind this places on obligation on a cleric rather than to bestow a right.
Can. 288 says:
(My emphasis) It would seem canon law provides the norm that permanent deacons do not normally wear clerical dress. I think most do wear clerical dress when carrying out the functions of permanent deacon. Many of them do not work for the Church on a full-time basis and they do not generally wear clerical dress in their secular profession.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
In our Massachusetts diocese, deacons are forbidden from wearing clerical attire even when performing diaconal ministries (hospital visits, cemetery committals, bringing Eucharist to the homebound, wake services, etc). The only exception is prison ministry. This was a decision of the bishop. Vestments are of course allowed on the altar. This has been appealed several times without success. The fact that deacons in several adjoining dioceses in fact wear clericals (sometimes grey shirts with the collar to distinguish them from priests) hasn’t been persuasive. There’s a fair amount of unhappiness - both from deacons and some laity - about this. The alleged rationale for this mandate was to avoid “clericalism.”
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I do not understand the logic of avoiding “clericalism” among clerics. What has the USCCB decided on this matter. As I understand it if ⅔ of the bishops decide on a matter it is mandatory throughout the episcopal conference’s territory. Of course, if this has not been done then it would appear it’s up to the local Bishop. I recall Pope Blessed John Paul II asking clerics and religious to wear the attire proper to their state. I cannot understand why your diocese takes this stance.
O
otjm
Guest
Given the inability of the public and the laity to distinguish a deacon from a priest when they both wear clerical garb - Roman collar - keeping deacons out of clerical garb is a benefit to them; to begin with, they are not treated as priests and do not get themselves into situations in public that require them to declare they are not a priest. Further, putting them in a gray shirt with a collar leaves them indistinguishable now not only for priests (who sometimes wear the same), but also from the Episcopalians, who seem to have a fondness for the color.
A deacon is there for service (as in, other than at the altar specifically). while their office should be acknowledged, that can be done without the use of clericals. If he is distributing Communion to the sick and homebound, he isn’t going to be asked to hear confessions (at least, not as often as if he were mistaken for a priest).
Some people get it (the office of deacon); but talk to a deacon and he most likely will tell you that there are a number of people who think he is a priest - of some sort - and even after being educated about the matter, they still don’t get it.
And as far as clericalism, it has been an issue in the Church most likely stretching back to after Peter died - and maybe before. Clericalism is partially at fault for the ways that the sexual abuse crisis was handled until it blew up so high, wide and handsome that the bishops collectively began to realize that this was going to eat their lunch collectively and individually. Whatever assists ordained individuals in maintaining humility is a good thing.
A deacon is there for service (as in, other than at the altar specifically). while their office should be acknowledged, that can be done without the use of clericals. If he is distributing Communion to the sick and homebound, he isn’t going to be asked to hear confessions (at least, not as often as if he were mistaken for a priest).
Some people get it (the office of deacon); but talk to a deacon and he most likely will tell you that there are a number of people who think he is a priest - of some sort - and even after being educated about the matter, they still don’t get it.
And as far as clericalism, it has been an issue in the Church most likely stretching back to after Peter died - and maybe before. Clericalism is partially at fault for the ways that the sexual abuse crisis was handled until it blew up so high, wide and handsome that the bishops collectively began to realize that this was going to eat their lunch collectively and individually. Whatever assists ordained individuals in maintaining humility is a good thing.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
It is my understanding for something to be binding upon all bishops then it must be a unanimous vote by the Episcopal Conference.
Here is the relevant Canon.
Can. 455 §1 The Episcopal Conference can make general decrees only in cases where the universal law has so prescribed, or by special mandate of the Apostolic See, either on its own initiative or at the request of the Conference itself.
§2 For the decrees mentioned in §1 validly to be enacted at a plenary meeting, they must receive two thirds of the votes of those who belong to the Conference with a deliberative vote. These decrees do not oblige until they have been reviewed by the Apostolic See and lawfully promulgated.
§3 The manner of promulgation and the time they come into force are determined by the Episcopal Conference.
§4 In cases where neither the universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See gives the Episcopal Conference the power mentioned in §1, the competence of each diocesan Bishop remains intact. In such cases, neither the Conference nor its president can act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent.
I draw my conclusion from §4 and as you can see, the 2/3 vote must be approved by Rome before it can enter into effect (just look at the Dallas accords, the Vatican refused them even though it was a near unanimous vote).
P
Petergee
Guest
Exactly. The only bishop who can force another bishop (except an auxiliary bishop of his own diocese) to do something is the Pope. Even if every other bishop in the US unanimously agreed, they couldn’t force the one dissenting bishop to comply with their wishes.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Canon 284 says: “Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and legitimate local custom."
Canon 455 §1 says: “A conference of bishops can only issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.”
The first thing to note is that your English language translation differs from that on the Vatican’s website.
The second thing to note is that Canon 455 §1 says: “… where universal has prescribed it …”. We find the necessary universal law in Canon 284.
Canon 455 §2 says: “The decrees mentioned in §1, in order to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See.”
Canon 455 §1 says that an episcopal conference cannot issue a general decree unless universal law allows them to pass such a decree. We can see that Canon 284 grants them that power with regards to regulating ecclesiastical dress. Canon 455 §2 says that to enact such a decree they must vote in its favour by a ⅔ majority. This is clearly what I said in post #26 which makes the attempts to “correct” me on posts #’s 28 and 29 redundant. In this case it is clear that a unanimous vote is not required.
In accordance with Canon 284 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved legislation on clerical dress in the United States on 18th November 1988. On 2nd September 1999, the Holy See’s Congregation of Bishops granted its recognitio for this legislation in accordance with Article #82 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops promulgated the decree on 1st November 1999.
In post #24 I said Canon 288 says: “Permanent deacons are not bound by the provisions of cann. 284, 285 §§3 and 4, 286, 287 §2, unless particular law states otherwise.” The USCCB decree of 1st November 1999 does not state otherwise so there is no dissenting bishop.
Canon 455 §1 says: “A conference of bishops can only issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.”
The first thing to note is that your English language translation differs from that on the Vatican’s website.
The second thing to note is that Canon 455 §1 says: “… where universal has prescribed it …”. We find the necessary universal law in Canon 284.
Canon 455 §2 says: “The decrees mentioned in §1, in order to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See.”
Canon 455 §1 says that an episcopal conference cannot issue a general decree unless universal law allows them to pass such a decree. We can see that Canon 284 grants them that power with regards to regulating ecclesiastical dress. Canon 455 §2 says that to enact such a decree they must vote in its favour by a ⅔ majority. This is clearly what I said in post #26 which makes the attempts to “correct” me on posts #’s 28 and 29 redundant. In this case it is clear that a unanimous vote is not required.
In accordance with Canon 284 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved legislation on clerical dress in the United States on 18th November 1988. On 2nd September 1999, the Holy See’s Congregation of Bishops granted its recognitio for this legislation in accordance with Article #82 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops promulgated the decree on 1st November 1999.
In post #24 I said Canon 288 says: “Permanent deacons are not bound by the provisions of cann. 284, 285 §§3 and 4, 286, 287 §2, unless particular law states otherwise.” The USCCB decree of 1st November 1999 does not state otherwise so there is no dissenting bishop.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yes a ⅔ majority vote with the approval of Rome for it to be binding.
No bishop is disenting. They are free to determine the dress of their deacons even if they do not allow them to wear clerical dress at all.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I am not sure what your position is. In Post #28 you said, without any qualifying statement, that binding decisions need to be unanimous.
There was mention by another poster in Post #29 that a dissenting bishop couldn’t be forced to take a particular course of action. I simply mentioned in my previous post about there being no dissenting bishop as Can 284 and the US clerical dress code doesn’t apply to Permanent Deacons.
The current circumstances in the US would seem to be that it is for each permanent deacon’s ordinary to determine whether he wears clerical dress and under what circumstances.
A
Aramis
Guest
Not exactly.
Each episcopal conference defines clerical dress for that nation or supranational-region.
Clerical dress differs in Germany from in the US, and from both in South America.
The only universal items outside liturgical venstment are the zuchetto, cassock, and biretta. Some places wear capes, others coats. Some wear bowlers, others cappello romano, a few still wear the biretta, and cardinals may wear the gallero; Eastern Catholic priests have other, distinctive headwear, like the Klobuk and the Skoufia.
The “Roman Collar” is not universal. While a priest, Fr. Ratzinger usually did not wear the roman collar; he was a professor, rather than a pastor, and wore a simple suit and tie for civil wear, and a cassock when needing to dress recognizably as a cleric.
In the US, Roman Church permanent deacons were instructed by the conference (USCCB) to obey their bishop’s instructions on extraliturgical wear. 26 years into his ministry, and my dad JUST LAST WEEK wore a clerical collar for the first time. Archbishop Hurley had said, no, wear a cross or other christian witness symbol when not vested. Archbishop Schweitz told him, “It’s time to get a clerical shirt for your prison and hospital visits.”
the Right Rev. Monsignor Artim wore a shirt and tie while working as a pharmacist; he wore his roman collar outside of work.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The point I was trying to make is that the 2/3’s majority is only binding upon all bishops if Rome grants its approval, otherwise the only way the Conference can be binding is by a unanimous vote (that is as long as Rome does not say No to it (see the Dallas Accords)).
As for that it seems we are in agreement.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Never heard of them and Google produced no results.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Sorry about that, it is the Dallas Charter of the USCCB, it was passed iin 2002 but was then revised in 2005 because of issues that Rome had with the initial document as it denied certain rights granted by canon law of clergy accused of sexual abuse.
See this link.
time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,366222,00.html
R
Remington
Guest
Why?
FWIW, priests can wear birettas during the Mass. They never could wear zuchettos to my knowledge.
Why push priests to wear either?
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Priests may wear a zucchetto (a.k.a. skullcap). It is made of black silk. Prelates Superior of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia and Protonotaries Apostolic supra numerum have theirs lined with amaranth red silk. Honorary Prelates of His Holiness and Chaplains of His Holiness have theirs lined in purple silk. All other priests have theirs lined in black silk. It’s use is optional.
R
Remington
Guest
Don’t ever take one of my sentances out of context again.
Did I really need to type “They never could wear zuchettos DURING THE MASS to my knowledge” for you to understand what I typed? No.
Further, zuchettos are by no means limited to priests and bishops as you infer.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
To make sure that you are clearly understood I would say the answer to your question is yes because obviously you were not clear as you were misunderstood by at least two users, Matthew who commented and myself who did not comment because I saw Matthew had already done so.- Status