D
Digitonomy
Guest
Are galleros limited to cardinals? If so, why are illustrations of galleros used in the arms of bishops, such as the Bishop of Cheyenne (I’m pretty sure he’s not a cardinal).
- Status
R
Remington
Guest
I typed the following in a forum called “Liturgy and Sacraments”: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.
In a forum like this there wass absolutely nothing unclear about my comments. We are talking about the wearing of head coverings within the context of the Mass. When Mr. Holford responded he took my comment out of context which is bad form.
Further if his comments are truly aimed at both the Mass and outside of the Mass, he gives the erroneous impression that zuchettos can be worn only by priests and bishops which if course is false.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
No, I agree with everyone else: your comment was unclear. Also, for future reference, instead of hostility and imperiousness (“Don’t ever take one of my sentances sic] out of context again.”), maybe you could try something a little more like “I’m afraid you misunderstood what I was trying to say.” Might get you farther. Just a pro tip.
Bottom line though: in context, out of context, in a box, with a fox, your post was unclear.
A
Aramis
Guest
I’m not certain if they still are allowed for all clerics or not. They used to be; they are heraldically the proper “helm” for clergy in major orders; number of tassels indicates clerical ranking.
More recent achievements at arms tend to use the miter.
A
AJV
Guest
If you mean galero in the sense of the pontifical galero, they have been abolished. If you mean galero is the sense of the hat that I posted about earlier (what in Italian is called the capello romano or saturno) then it is allowed for all ranks of clergy, with differently coloured tassels for each. The red capello for the cardinals is abolished.
P
Pregustator
Guest
Galeros are restricted to dead cardinals, at this point. Their use was abolished in 1969; since then cardinals have been simply invested with the scarlet biretta, and without the cappa magna.
The galero is a very old style of clerical hat that was once worn by all ranks of clergy when they were in vogue in the middle ages. Their use was retained only by cardinals after a certain point; in modern times the wearing of the galero by a cardinal was limited to his investiture at a consistory.
Ecclesiastical heraldry has maintained the galero (in place of the secular helmet) for all ranks, in different colors or color combinations. Green as the heraldic color for the galeros of bishops comes from Spain, where bishops did, actually, wear green galeros at one point.
Interestingly, Chinese bishops use purple or black, rather than green, as green is considered a color for cuckolds. A rather odd concern, considering that bishops cannot marry, but there it is.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Respectfully; I have no intention of hijacking this thread.
Curiously strange; since a Deacon (“is”) an ordained official minister of the Catholic Church it would be interesting to fathom the rational thinking as to why your diocesan Bishop disallows the deacon to wear his collar???
Canon Law allows the “bishop of the diocese” to determine the appropriate clerical attire for the deacon. Can. 284 states, “Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.”
How can the subrogation of Canon Law by a bishop’s particular law be construed as “legitimate local customs?” Canon 284 is clear in its direction of what clerics should do regarding clerical attire. Canon 288 allows permanent deacons the OPTION to not be bound by Canon 284; particular law by a bishop should not be superior to Canon Law. The only thing that Canon 288 allows the bishop to do is make Canon 284, i.e. the wear of clerical attire, mandatory for permanent deacons making, not forbidden. But like here in my own country Canadian bishops are not open to permanent deacons arguing the point that their particular law is limited to Canon Law. because a deacon not wearing a collar didn’t “make one iota of difference” implies that it is axiomatic for all deacons.
Clerical attire is a sacramental that makes the presence of Holy Mother Church evident. In an increasingly secular world, why would any cleric wish to hide the light of Christ under a bushel basket?
Interestingly I see many of the Deacons in the United States also fail to wear their collar.
See: deacons.net/Articles/Dress_and_address_of_deacons.htm
P
Pregustator
Guest
Are we talking transitional deacons or permanent deacons? Permanent deacons, who are typically married family men, aren’t often given to parading about looking like full-time clergymen. They’re dads and husbands first; their diaconal (if that’s a word) role is usually only emphasized during liturgies that they happen to be participating in. And since a permanent deacon’s clerical collar would be covered by his alb/amice in any case, it would hardly be needful for a permanent deacon to actually wear a collar in such a circumstance.
Transitional deacons, on the other hand, are seminarians who are one step away from becoming priests, and so it makes sense for them to dress like clergy. That is their vocation and career path. They are not divided between a family and a job, on the one hand, and the clerical life, on the other: they are clerics, purely and simply.
R
Remington
Guest
“Bottom line” is that my comment was taken out of context (on purpose?) and the quote from Noonan was far from accurate/complete given his expanded boundries outside the Mass. :yup:
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
Based on what I hear from the deacons I know, the issue has never been wearing the collar on the altar, for the reason you correctly cite. The issue is the desire to wear the collar at quasi-liturgical functions such as wake services and internments, and hospital visits, where - based on feedback from parishoners - there is a desire to see the “official” church represented. I don’t know anyone who begrudges the collar to transitional deacons, but at least in our diocese, seminarians are allowed to wear the collar years before their diaconal ordinations, which results in a situation where men in Holy Orders are required to wear suits when officially representing the Church in a ministerial setting, while young laymen - effectively at the grad school level - get the collar when not engaged in ministry at all.
That permanent deacons have a family and perhaps a job (if not retired) does not change their status when engaged in ministry, and being in Orders, they are no less clerics. There is only one order of Deacon, not two.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I found your comments so funny.
Are you here for serious discussion or do you think you are the school yard bully? You may want to check your spellings before you post. Your posts are more likely to be taken seriously if you can demonstrate that you are literate.Yes, perhaps you should be clearer about what you are attempting to say. Your sentences could easily have had at least two different meanings. It is apparent that I am not the only one who has taken an alternative meaning to the one you may have intended. Do you have a source to cite in order to support your premiss that a priest cannot wear a zucchetto during Mass?
It would appear that you are the one who takes posts out of context. I only described the zucchettos that priests may wear. I did not infer anything else.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Your comment was not taken out of context! As it has been made quite clear to you by a number of posters (to whom I extend my thanks for your supportive comments) your comments were far from clear. I think you should also follow your own advice. You have implied, quite erroneously, that I quoted from Noonan. If I may first explain, what I actually did was paraphrase, which is different from quoting. I did not paraphrase from Noonan. I have never read Noonan’s book. You have also made another false implication by stating that I extended the boundaries outside Mass. Not that it would be a problem for me to do so; first, given your imprecise comments, and, secondly, because the Thread relates to wearing the zucchetto, not as to whether it should be worn at Mass.
A
Aramis
Guest
There are a number of points where the collar is a useful sign, and the Cassock less suitable…
- Prison Ministry (Prisons object to the cassock due to increased search times)
- Mental Hospital visitations (ibid)
- Police/Fire/EMS/Military Chaplaincy (Due to uniform regulations)*
- Currently, US Military Chaplains wear the normal uniform on duty. But I’ve seen police uniform manuals prescribe the clerical shirt with either preaching tabs or the roman collar as the uniform shirt for chaplains. Some with badge.
- Status