Clerical Garb of Deacons

[Deacon2006]

I disagree that by wearing the collar would gain me any more respect, nor do I any any way see that not being able to wear on is the work of the enemy. My work can be seen by the way I act and treat those to whom I come in contact with and administer to. A garment will not change that.
Peace.

Nice slogan but wrong conclusion about the way perception works. St. Francis wore clerical attire so did all the great deacons from history when it was safe to do so.

People perceive the fullness of you and your actions through their senses and as such what you wear matters more than you may want to believe and that is a fact.

People have pulled me aside and chastised me for wearing clerics and others have pulled me aside and chastised me for not wearing clerics. The ones who say I should wear clerics have a more convincing argument because it calls from their heart to be a member of the church and to know that they are surrounded by those that God has chosen. Not wearing clerics denies them that comfort.

Our world ( and some with in the church) is all about insulting the religious and the ordered and the moral and if you think that the faithful don’t appreciate it and are strengthened in faith when a nun, a priest, or a deacon, does their ministry of presence in clerical garb then you have to stop and think about that some more.
.
It takes courage to wear clerics because we live in world that wants gnomes and amiable social workers of equity and tolerance and not Ordained Ministers Of God’s Holy Word. Far easier is it to blend in but God didn’t call you to blend in he called you to be a beacon on the hill and make visible the Sacramental Church of His saving Grace.

Pax

 

[SisterSnowflake]

I agree totally with FAB. In fact, I applaud him.

I find it very easy and very dangerous to blur the line between priest & permanent deacon. I’ve even personally heard some deacons encouraging the blurring (of course, all deacons are not like this, I know).

People must not come to see priests as expendable “because we have a lot of deacons…they can the priest’s job”. They CANNOT do the priest’s job & anything that blurs the line should be discouraged.

If someone wants to invent a “uniform” specific to deacons, I’d be all for that. But, in my opinion, anger misdirected toward the bishop is out of place. Ask yourself why wearing a collar is so important to you. Do you want people to think you are a priest (I’m not saying you are)? Do you seek public recognition and admiration (I’m not saying you are)? If not, find some other easily identifiable symbol & wear it in peace & happiness.

God bless!

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I think it depends on the deacon and whether or not he’s transitional/permanent. I know my friend, who is a transitional deacon, he wears his clerics more than the priests do.
He even wears his cassock at times.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

1. The point I was making is that these are bigger issues than decided by each local bishop in a diocese.

It does not matter what influences the decisions. The decision is still made by the local ordinary.

2)If my sarcasm offended you I am sorry for that but I did try to set the tone with a laughing emoticon and I did publicly express fidelity to our bishops and empathized with the BS that comes in every Monday morning from people who jump the gun about one issue or another. I tried to conclude with a call for more respect of the clergy and yes that means a more visible clergy. I could have left out the word abusive because it is so loaded with the sex issues when I meant liturgical abuses. I can tell by the way you broke apart my post that you didn’t see the linkages I had intended but obviously they were not as clear as I thought they were.

I was with my cardinal once and he was talking to one of his aux b’s about how many emails he gets if he holds his hands the wrong way in prayer and they both looked at me vesting in the corner as I chuckled a bit and so I looked back in the pause of an awkward silence and said if he didn’t like getting my emails you could have said so earlier and we all laughed. sarcasm meant to be poignant and a little self deprecating.

You did say;

The prime reasons given for denying clerical attire seems to surround the ideas that he doesn’t want to offend some simpering whiny agenda of abusive priests or feminists or self important sycophants or other such nonsense.

That you claim it is sarcasm does not lessen the fact that it is a hate filled statement.

1. I don’t know why you think I said bishops have suppressed the use of habits, I didn’t say that at all.

You did say;

Suppressing religious or ordained ministry by taking habits off nuns and brothers, allowing priest to wear business causal attire or preventing P deacons from being seen as clergy when they fulfill their three fold ministry is anti-Catholic and a tool of the the enemy.

From your whole post one infers that you are speaking of bishops here. No bishop has taken the habit off of nuns and brothers.

 

[Deacon2006]

I agree totally with FAB. In fact, I applaud him.

I find it very easy and very dangerous to blur the line between priest & permanent deacon. I’ve even personally heard some deacons encouraging the blurring (of course, all deacons are not like this, I know).

People must not come to see priests as expendable “because we have a lot of deacons…they can the priest’s job”. They CANNOT do the priest’s job & anything that blurs the line should be discouraged.

If someone wants to invent a “uniform” specific to deacons, I’d be all for that. But, in my opinion, anger misdirected toward the bishop is out of place. Ask yourself why wearing a collar is so important to you. Do you want people to think you are a priest (I’m not saying you are)? Do you seek public recognition and admiration (I’m not saying you are)? If not, find some other easily identifiable symbol & wear it in peace & happiness.

God bless!

I wonder what line you are talking about? Scared Ordination, the Charism of the Holy Spirit? Love the deacon as you would love Jesus Christ was the call of the first and second century. There is humility in wearing clerics and there is pride in being above the wisdom and the tradition of church in not wearing clerics.

Just like the hypocrites of old that accused Christ and his servants of a lack of humility, everyone who does it today knows full well what they are doing.

The number of deacons I meet that distance themselves from the clerical attire deliberately blur the distinction between laity and clergy and as such is anti-clerical and anti-catholic at its heart. Just ask them about what they beleieve about womens ordination sometime or anointing the sick etc.

Permanent deacons have been wearing clerical garb for 2000 years. It is not about being a priest it is about being a deacon.

A deacon who says it is his work that makes him a deacon fails to fully appreciate the public nature of the work a deacon does. Nothing about DOING is unique to the vocation of a deacon it is about BEING a deacon called by God to make present his sacramental church to the marginalized that builds up the laity to follow in the ministry of service.

Properly vested and attired deacons build up the the clergy in general and the priesthood in particular it challenges the priest and the deacon and laity to live their roles fully.

Those faithful priests that are part of the new evangelisation understand this and the night club/business causal priest trying to be hip just doesn’t get it. Priests that object to deacons in clerics tend to be more egotistical and down play the role of the priesthood in the economy of salvation and priests that encourage deacons to wear clerics tend to be more humble in the nature of their service and sacrifice to the church. I know which orientation I prefer.

Pax

 

[Deacon2006]

1)It does not matter what influences the decisions. The decision is still made by the local ordinary.

1. That you claim it is sarcasm does not lessen the fact that it is a hate filled statement.

!) you are wrong the conference decides the style of clerics and canon law decides who get the privilege to wear clerics. The local gets to apply the law not rewrite it.

1. I apologized for my misstep at sarcastic humour and you continue to escalate the rhetoric with a personal slur by calling me a hate monger. So be it.

 

[SisterSnowflake]

I wonder what line you are talking about? Scared Ordination, the Charism of the Holy Spirit? Love the deacon as you would love Jesus Christ was the call of the first and second century. There is humility in wearing clerics and there is pride in being above the wisdom and the tradition of church in not wearing clerics.

Just like the hypocrites of old that accused Christ and his servants of a lack of humility, everyone who does it today knows full well what they are doing.

The number of deacons I meet that distance themselves from the clerical attire deliberately blur the distinction between laity and clergy and as such is anti-clerical and anti-catholic at its heart. Just ask them about what they beleieve about womens ordination sometime or anointing the sick etc.

Permanent deacons have been wearing clerical garb for 2000 years. It is not about being a priest it is about being a deacon.

A deacon who says it is his work that makes him a deacon fails to fully appreciate the public nature of the work a deacon does. Nothing about DOING is unique to the vocation of a deacon it is about BEING a deacon called by God to make present his sacramental church to the marginalized that builds up the laity to follow in the ministry of service.

Properly vested and attired deacons build up the the clergy in general and the priesthood in particular it challenges the priest and the deacon and laity to live their roles fully.

Those faithful priests that are part of the new evangelisation understand this and the night club/business causal priest trying to be hip just doesn’t get it. Priests that object to deacons in clerics tend to be more egotistical and down play the role of the priesthood in the economy of salvation and priests that encourage deacons to wear clerics tend to be more humble in the nature of their service and sacrifice to the church. I know which orientation I prefer.

Pax

I’ve actually found the opposite…the more traditional priests that I know personally (of course, not all) are not as enthusiastic about the deaconate in general as are the more “progressive”. A number of deacons I know are WAY LEFT in thinking and want to do away with any distinction between priest & deacon
I don’t support women’s ordination or any nonsense of any sort, yet I believe there is a difference between a priest and a deacon & the clothing issue can blur the distinction.

 

[Deacon2006]

interesting but not accurate. Traditional minded priest don’t want clergy that pretend they are laity and that is probablly what you are detecting. Flawed formation that emerges from post modern secularism has been addressed in the late 90’s by Rome a few decades to late for many dioceses
Pax

 

[Crusader83]

I’ll be honest, I’d really like to see the Priests, Bishops and Deacons themselves be more clear on expectations of deacons, and preach more on what they do.

I find it easier to approach a deacon in clerical attire.

I’d never recognize a deacon in civilian attire on the street and I find that I don’t know how to approach them in civilian clothes.

They could easily get their own color collar or maybe wear a sash or something to ID them if priests are scared of deacons being confused with them.

If they have permanently taken on their vows, they are absolutely not mere laymen and should not be relegated to such insults as if they were.

Perhaps the rule could be that once a man is widowed, or if he become a permanent deacon and is already single at ordination, he wears clerical attire. Such a man gives his celibacy and people act like it’s nothing. Us laity still have the option of marriage. Deacon? Never again after ordination, and if widowed, tough luck. A very real sacrifice.

The deacon used to read the Epistle and do other things. Now he’s a glorified laymen. It’s kind of disgusting and I feel disgusted for them.

As for deacons who are “permanent” and yet have no permanent position 24/7, I don’t get it.

Permanent part-time is about as sensible as part-time and permanent.

 

[SisterSnowflake]

Friend,

Let’s just figure that neither of us are ever going to change the other’s mind.

Whatever you wear, may God bless you!

I’m signing off of this thread now.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

!) you are wrong the conference decides the style of clerics and canon law decides who get the privilege to wear clerics. The local gets to apply the law not rewrite it.

1. I apologized for my misstep at sarcastic humour and you continue to escalate the rhetoric with a personal slur by calling me a hate monger. So be it.

Local conferences make no binding rulings unless it is a unanimous vote or it is a majority vote that is ratified by Rome.

As far as I know it is up to the local bishop how his permanent deacons dress.

As for calling you a “hate monger”, I did no such think, I just pointed out that the language you used was hateful. Not the same thing.

Sarcasm is a hard thing to pull off in person, in written media it takes a very practiced hand to pull it off. It is best not used or at least not to get upset when others don’t get it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ve actually found the opposite…the more traditional priests that I know personally (of course, not all) are not as enthusiastic about the deaconate in general as are the more “progressive”. A number of deacons I know are WAY LEFT in thinking and want to do away with any distinction between priest & deacon
I don’t support women’s ordination or any nonsense of any sort, yet I believe there is a difference between a priest and a deacon & the clothing issue can blur the distinction.

Yet as pointed out the “roman collar” is not a priestly garment.

While permanent deacons in some dioceses may not wear it transitional deacons wear it. How is a transitional deacon different than a permanent deacon other than he will be ordained to the priesthood at some future date? In no way is he different.

Seminarians and religious brothers also wear it, they are very different than a permanent deacon, they are not in Holy Orders at all.

The clothing issue has nothing to do with clerical level, it has to do with those who are set aside for a special type of ministerial role.

 

[JReducation]

Nice slogan but wrong conclusion about the way perception works. St. Francis wore clerical attire so did all the great deacons from history when it was safe to do so.

Pax

Our Holy Father Francis never wore clerical attire. He did not allow the clerics to wear clerical attire. Nor did he allow the clerics to be called by any other title than Brother. He was always called Father Francis, because he was the General Minister.

There are many myths around the diaconate of St. Francis and about the cleric’s place in the Franciscan family.

1. Francis was ordained a deacon three years before he died (1223). He founded the order in 1208 and the rule was approved in 1209. From 1208 to 1223 he governed the order as a religious brother. After his ordination to the diaconate, he resigned the governance and gave it to a non-cleric.
2. The clerics were to have no special place in the order, nor any special privileges, including identifying garb. To this day, all Franciscan men wear the habit of their community or the Roman collar. We do not have two sets of clothing, for the ordained and the non cleric.
3. The current ruling in the Franciscan General Council of Major Superiors is that there may not be Permanent Deacons in the Franciscan Order as a matter of course. Each has to be approved by the local community of friars on a case by case basis and only if it meets the needs of the friars. Second, the ordination to the priesthood is not to be taken as a given, since it was not Francis’ intent to found a clerical institute. Therefore, candidates who enter the different obediences must informed if they are going to be ordained before they make solemn vows. However, the Major Superior still reserves the right to deny ordination, even after solemn vows. In other words, he can change his mind or another superior is elected and overrules the previous superior. This is very very very rare.

The point here is that Father Francis is not a good example in this discussion, because he was opposed to all distinctions between clerics and on clerics in the community. Not only did they wear the same clothing, but during the mass, they stood around the altar and all received Holy Communion in the hand. If the sanctuary was too small, the communion rail was removed to unify the fraternity. In addition, to this day, the rule says that if there are more than one priest in the house, only one can celebrate mass per day. That’s up to the superior. The other priests must attend the mass with the other brothers.

In parishes, this does not work, because you have several masses. In other houses, where there is only one mass, it’s up to the superior if only one ordained friar celebrates and if there is a deacon, if he may serve. The superior can also grant permission for concelebration. There are superiors who give blanket permission to the ordained under their jurisdiction to celebrate mass or serve as deacons (if they are such). Everyone understands that this permission is only good until a new superior takes his place and that the superior can change his mind without any explanation.

The only time that the ordained wear distinctive garb is when they are on the altar. That would be the only time that Francis would have worn an alb, stole and dalmatic. According to Franciscan history, there is little evidence that he exercised the ministry that often. The few times that the early biographers mention it is when he is preaching at a mass. We know that he never baptized or witnessed a wedding. We do know that he sung the Gospel on a number of occasions, but in Franciscan houses, this was also done by the non-ordained brothers. We’re not sure if they writers are speaking about before or after he became a deacon. We have to remember that religious did not have daily mass in those days. But they had LOTH. We’re not too sure what they’re referring to when they say “Francis sang the Gospel”. We know that the ordained called him Father and he called them Brother.

Today, the movement is to go back to Brother or Friar. In my community, only the superior is Father. The Conventuals, Capuchins and FI are using Friar, one province at a time.

Even when you have a deacon or a priest, you would not know who he is unless he tells you. They are not allowed to distinguish themselves from the other friars. Therefore, everyone dresses the same.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Deacon2006]

Excuse me I just saw the the tonsure and the habit of a religious and just assumed that meant he has dressed as humble clergy standing apart from thoseamong the faithful not of his community.

Pax

 

[JReducation]

Excuse me I just saw the the tonsure and the habit of a religious and just assumed that meant he has dressed as humble clergy standing apart from thoseamong the faithful not of his community.

Pax

It was a custom at the time. It was a sign of celibacy. Today, we no longer do it, because most people are not Catholic. The meaning would be lost on them. You have to remember that the Franciscans don’t really have a habit. Francis never provided one for the order. The friars improvised. You have blue, brown, black, grey, and even white (more common in tropics). Then you have different cuts. Some with scapulars, shoulder capes and others very simple with just a tunic and a cord.

For the Franciscan, the habit is a reminder of his poverty and his resolution to bring Christ to the poor and the poor to Christ. We started to wear Roman collars after the Council of Baltimore mandated that American clergy and male religious wear the same shirt and jacked at the Church of England and the Church of Scotland to avoid setting themselves apart while in public places.

Later, the Vatican clarified that the Council of Baltimore had no authority to mandate to the religious, since it was a council of bishops and bishops may never legislate to religious. Only the pope can do that. By that time, people had found the Roman collar to be more comfortable and practical than the tunic and cowl, especially for traveling.

Today, there is a movement to return to the habit. Many friars wear only the habit and not the Roman collar.

For religious communities, the Roman collar is not a clerical garb, neither is a habit. It’s a fraternal garb. That’s why everyone wears it, from the novice to the Superior General, unless your community has a rule that prohibits it. The Franciscans of the Renewal forbid it. They must wear their habit and they may never distinguish the ordained form the non ordained friars.

In my community, we don’t forbid the Roman collar, but it’s not popular. I wear it during the summer and I usually wear grey, because our habit is grey.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SaintFrancis333]

There are protestant “ministers” who wear all black with the roman collar. They are indistinguishable from Priests until you talk to them. Why on earth would the Church not speak out against self ordained men and women dressing as Clerics and yet deny our own Deacons, validly ordained by God Himself, to have any outward sign of his ministerial role in Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? The Church is understandably upset when brothers and sisters religious leave their convents and are out in public without their habits. Priests get in trouble for not being in uniform, so to speak, as it bears witness to what they have given to the Lord. So why not our validly ordained Deacons who are just as much clergy as our beloved Priests? I know they don’t want Deacons to be indistinguishable from Priests (even though both are technically called Father, though that fell out of practice ages ago). So why not have Deacons where grey, instead of black, with the roman collar? The Church can distinguish their clergy to their distinct roles, and Deacons will be recognized as Deacons when they are out in public. My Godfather is our Parish Deacon and while he does not mind, this was always something that bothered me a great deal.