Dress Code for Clergy

[hilde_the_dog]

I’m sorry for being the stupid one but does anyone know of a good SIMPLE source on what all the vestments are and mean. On another thread there was a discussion of the maniple??? well the catholic answers library did not recognize that word. Hey its hard to catch up and learn all these new terms. I think a priest and deacon went over this once at RCIA

 

[Brendan]

Deacon Ed:

All my mail from the Melktie Eparchy of Newton (the one to which I am assigned) comes addressed to “Rev. Deacon Ed Faulk” which, it seems to me, is the correct title.

I agree, that is an excellent title. The Latin Church, in reviving a married, ‘permanent’ diaconate, should have really leveraged the experience of the East.

“Rev. Deacon” as the form of formal address (mail, business cards), and “Father Deacon” in informal and liturgical settings.

I still think (as do most Eastern prelates and priests) that the Latin bishops have a problem with understanding exactly where deacons fit and that we really are clergy, albeit married clergy (or, at least 98% of us are).

Deacon Ed

I agree there too, and it really boggles my mind. Bishops are certainly well educated men, yet they seem to not be able to grasp a concept that is clear to most of their seminarians, if not most of the canidates they are accepting into their programs.

Deacons are clergy and should be treated as such.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Brendan:

I agree, that is an excellent title. The Latin Church, in reviving a married, ‘permanent’ diaconate, should have really leveraged the experience of the East.

“Rev. Deacon” as the form of formal address (mail, business cards), and “Father Deacon” in informal and liturgical settings.

Actually, in the East deacons may be addressed as “Father”, “Deacon” or “Father Deacon.” My pastor almost always called me either “Abouna” (Father) or “Abouna Shemas” (Father Deacon) in public. For us in the East the title “Father” is not reserved to the priesthood, but refers rather to one’s role as a “spiritual father.” As such it is also used by fully professed monks.

I agree there too, and it really boggles my mind. Bishops are certainly well educated men, yet they seem to not be able to grasp a concept that is clear to most of their seminarians, if not most of the canidates they are accepting into their programs.

Deacons are clergy and should be treated as such.

Well, we’ve only been here for 30 years so it’s somewhat understandable. At the same time, there seems to be great reluctance to actually treat us as clergy – perhaps it’s fear.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

hilde the dog:

I’m sorry for being the stupid one but does anyone know of a good SIMPLE source on what all the vestments are and mean. On another thread there was a discussion of the maniple??? well the catholic answers library did not recognize that word. Hey its hard to catch up and learn all these new terms. I think a priest and deacon went over this once at RCIA

I don’t know of a simple source off the top of my head, but here’s a summary:

Miscellaneous vestments: cincture: a rope tied around the waist to gather the alb, not required is there is another method or if the alb is tailored; amice: a white rectangular cloth that fits over the shoulders and is held in place by ties that cross the chest, are wrapped around the waist and tied in front (again, mostly unused since the current method of making albs allows them to hide the street garments underneath).

Deacon’s Vestments: alb: the long, usually white garment that looks like a robe; stole: (the symbol of office) worn over the left shoulder and hanging down to the right hip and then straight down; dalmatic: a square-cut, tailored (meaning it has actual sleeves) worn over the alb and usually over the stole although sometimes the stole is made to go over the dalmatic.

Priest’s Vestments: alb: same as for a deacon; stole: (again, the sign of office) worn draped around the neck and hanging straight down in front and, if a cincture is worn, tucked under the cincture; chasuble: (from the Latin meaning “a small house”) this vestment has no sleeve but goes over the alb and stole and may be in many different styles although most parishes today use the gothic style which looks more like a poncho.

Bishop’s Vestments: the same as a priest with the addition of an episcopal dalmatic (the same as a deacon’s but very light-weight) and a zucchetto (the skull cap) in purple (a cardinal wears red); miter: the bishop’s “hat” – in the West this is usually two stiff pieces of material that form a two-pointed hat and there are two srips of cloth (called lapets) that hang down in back (unless the MC messes up and puts the miter on the bishop backwards), in the East it’s a crown. Additionally the bishop carries a “crozier” or staff that sometimes looks like a shepherd’s crook. If it does, only the bishop of the diocese carries it with the “hook” facing out, all outher bishops carry it with the hook facing in.

There are addtional vestments that can be used by all clergy for special purposes such as the humeral veil (sort of a short cape that goes over the shoulders and extends about the length of the arms and is used for benediction and procession with the Blessed Sacrament); Cope: a long cape, usually in white.

There are also special hats that may be worn. Besides the miter worn by the bishop the priest may wear a biretta – a hat with three stiff ridges and a pom-pom in the center. The hat is always black (the bishop’s miter may be of the appropriate liturgical color) but the pom-pom may be purple or red depending on the rank of the one wearing it. Eastern clerics wear different hats as well and those hats may have black veils if the wearer is a bishop or, if a priest, has been granted that honor.

There are others, especially choir dress, but that starts getting complicated.

Deacon Ed

 

[hilde_the_dog]

Thank you Deacon Ed for the quick, simple and fast reply. Now I must figure out the maniple thing.

Hilde the dog

 

[General]

Deacon Ed:

The last time I asked the people at USCCB I was told that the “majority” of bishops did not allow their deacons to wear a collar. There are dioceses where the deacon wears a collar while he is ministering.

As a bi-ritual deacon I do have permission to wear one – but only when I am serving the Melkites. This led to an interesting problem several years ago. I was at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress serving as a Melkite deacon at a booth sponsored by the Eastern Catholic Pastoral Association. I happened to go to lunch with a friend and walked by the new chancellor of our diocese, a nun whom I have known for years. She apparently took exception to my wearing a collar and raised a stink. It was quickly resolved (she was unaware that I was bi-ritual and had permission). My only issue was that if she had asked me I’d have told her – but she decided I was flaunting the rules.

The decision to permit a deacon to wear or not wear a collar is, according to canon law, actually up to the deacon – but since he requires faculties from the bishop, and since he made a promise of obedience to the bishop – we tend to do what they ask.

And yes, David, it does blur the line. It is simply another sign that the bishops and priests are still coming to grips with the reality of a restored permanent diaconate.

Deacon Ed

Is there such a thing as a “bi-ritual deacon?” While a deacon ordained in say the Latin Rite could certainly receive permission to minister in say the Moronite Rite, it’ not at all like a priest or bishop who truly becomes “bi-ritual.” This is most confusing.

 

[cameron_lansing]

We have the following question in a recent post

I know in my diocese that permanent deacons are not allowed to wear a collar. The reason that is always stated is that the deacons are often mistaken for priests and don’t like having to explain themselves all the time. .

Then we have this subsequent response.

That again would seem to fall under the deacon’s preference.

I cannot imagine that the responder means to encourage disobedience to the bishop of the diocese in which pds are not to wear a collar. I am certain that I have misunderstood his response in some way. For my part, I promised respect and obedience to the bishop at the time of my diaconal ordination. Consequently, If my bishop says wear it, I will. If he says do not wear it, I will not wear it. If I travel to Rome where it seems to be the approved practice, I will wear a collar for the sake of public order (canon 12, para 2, no 2).

We also have the matter of some continuing debate, “Rev. Mr.” and “Deacon” with a variation “Rev. Deacon.” I thought all of that was talked out on an earlier thread. Perhaps not.

The use of “Deacon” in preference to “Rev. Mr.” etc. is considered normative in the US as I understand it, and the reference follows.

The National Director for the Formation, Life and Ministry of Permanent Deacons, made in accord with canon 236 and no. 15 of the Ratio fundamentalis institutions diaconorum permanentium, was confirmed for a 5 year period by the Congregations for the Clergy and Catholic Education on October 30, 2004. It was promulgated later that year, with full implementation taking place on August 10th this year. It is available at the USCCB website.

"Clerical Title

"88. While various forms of address have emerged with regard to deacons, the Congregation for the Clergy has determined that in all forms of address for permanent deacons, the appropriate title is “Deacon.” *

"Clerical Attire

“89. The Code of Canon Law does not oblige permanent deacons to wear an ecclesiastical garb. Further, because they are prominent and active in secular professions and society, the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops specifies that permanent deacons should resemble the lay faithful in dress and matters of lifestyle. Each diocesan bishop should, however, determine and promulgate any exceptions to this law, as well as specify the appropriate clerical attire if it is to be worn.”

• The footnote here reads, “95. The introduction of the title ‘Reverend Mr.’ for permanent deacons could further complicate the issue of identity for deacons. The term ‘Reverend’ has traditionally been associated with priests and used only for transitional deacons on their way to priesthood. As there is great sensitivity surrounding the issue of a deacon being seen as a ‘mini-priest,’ it would seem that the title ‘Reverend Mr.’ would lead to continued identification of the diaconate with the priesthood, rather than contributing to the independence and integrity of the Order of Deacon in itself. The title ‘Deacon’ would, of course, be appropriate.” Congregation for Catholic Education and the Congregation for the Clergy, Joint Study of the US Draft Document—National Directory for the Formation, Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons in the United States, Prot. No. 78/2000 (March 4, 2002)."

 

[frdave20]

plato3:

A permanent deacon friend of mine moved to Virginia. He has a new bishop who wants him to wear the collar while ministering at the hospital, jail Etc. He feels kind of strange as the collar is not allowed here for permanent deacons.

---

The learning and knowledge that we have is, at the most,but little, compared with that which we are ignorant.
(Plato)

where in VA? I’m from VA, in fact I’m from the Richmond Diocese (but don’t hold that against me, HAHA)

 

[Deacon_Ed]

hilde the dog:

Thank you Deacon Ed for the quick, simple and fast reply. Now I must figure out the maniple thing.

Hilde the dog

The maniple was, originally, a napkin that was hung over one arm. It eventually took on symbolic form (a piece of cloth about 2 feet long with tassels at the end). It was usually pinned to the alb to keep it in place. It served no functional purpose and this is the reason it was discarded.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

General:

Is there such a thing as a “bi-ritual deacon?” While a deacon ordained in say the Latin Rite could certainly receive permission to minister in say the Moronite Rite, it’ not at all like a priest or bishop who truly becomes “bi-ritual.” This is most confusing.

When a deacon is ordained he is ordained for a particular diocese and receives faculties to serve in that diocese. He has “presumed faculites” when he goes to another place for a visit and may, with the permission of the local pastor, serve there. This applies equally to Latin Rite and Eastern Churches. However, he must always wear the vestments proper to his ritual Church of ordination.

A bi-ritual deacon, however, has faculties granted to him from both the bishop in his diocese of incardination (usually where he is ordained, but may be another if he has moved and requested excardination from one diocese and incardination in another) or from the diocese in which he is currently working and from the bishop of the Eastern Church to which he has been assigned. This allows him to wear the vestments proper to that Church.

In my case I have faculites from the bishop of the Diocese of Orange (where I was ordained and am currently incardinated) and from Eparch of the Eparchy of Newton (the Melkite “diocese” for the United States). Thus, I serve legitimately as a Latin deacon or as a Melkite deacon.

For a deacon to become bi-ritual simply requires the consent of the two bishops involved. For a priest it is more complicated as Rome must grant approval as well.

Deacon Ed

 

[Brendan]

cameron_lansing:

We have the following question in a recent post Then we have this subsequent response. I cannot imagine that the responder means to encourage disobedience to the bishop of the diocese in which pds are not to wear a collar. I am certain that I have misunderstood his response in some way.

If you would re-read my post, I was noting the reason given for deacons not wearing the Roman Collar of

flamingsword:

The reason that is always stated is that the deacons are often mistaken for priests and don’t like having to explain themselves all the time. .

The question of “would that not fall under the deacon’s preference” was in regards to deacons who might enjoy the opportunity to educate the faithful on what a deacon is, to clarify what seems to be a large body of ignorance on that matter.

My question was more that there might be greater wisdom in the Bishop’s allowing more discretion in the matter.

Deacons who feel bothered by “having to explain themselves all the time.” could freely choose to wear secular clothes during their ministry.

Deacons who preferred to use the opportunity to educate could freely wear clerics.

And hence my comment of "That again would seem to fall under the deacon’s preference. "

I , for one, am very grateful Cardinal Maida extends that opportunity to his deacons. I don’t think I could incardnate to a bishop that did otherwise.

 

[Brendan]

As there is great sensitivity surrounding the issue of a deacon being seen as a ‘mini-priest,’ it would seem that the title ‘Reverend Mr.’ would lead to continued identification of the diaconate with the priesthood,

I have read that before.

What I found lacking was that the Congregation failed to explain why the use of “Reverend Mr.” by ‘transitional’ deacons did not likewise contribute to a deacon as being seen as a ‘mini-priest’

Are transitional deacons ‘mini-priests’?

There seems to be such a huge intertia in the USCCB to adopt ignorance of the role of the deaconate as a viable reason.

Would the more prudent course of action be eductation of of the faithful? Have the bishops created a plan on exactly how to address these misunderstandings?

Perhaps the slow introduction of permanent deacons wearing clerics over the 5 years that this norm is in effect. First wearing clerics in hospital and prision work, then extent to other occasions, such as while leading rosaries at funerals, or bringing the Eucharist to the sick.

And finally, while performing liturgical roles.

The same can go with the title. “Deacon” is perfectally acceptable as the informal title, as “Father” is for a priest.

But gradually extened the formal title of “Rev. Mr.” for correspondance and ‘business cards’

 

[edward_george]

The permanent deacon at our church wears a collar some of the time. I assume he doesn’t wear it to his workplace (he’s a dentist). We’re in the Diocese of Richmond (VA), by the way.

My uncle from NJ is a priest who retired from the priesthood some time ago, but he still wears his collar and most of the time a black suit with that.

I hope the Bishop of Richmond (whoever it may be when the time comes) is not opposed to allowing deacons wear cassocks…I am sort of fond of the look…and considering becoming a deacon.

-ACEGC

 

[General]

Deacon Ed:

When a deacon is ordained he is ordained for a particular diocese and receives faculties to serve in that diocese. He has “presumed faculites” when he goes to another place for a visit and may, with the permission of the local pastor, serve there. This applies equally to Latin Rite and Eastern Churches. However, he must always wear the vestments proper to his ritual Church of ordination.

A bi-ritual deacon, however, has faculties granted to him from both the bishop in his diocese of incardination (usually where he is ordained, but may be another if he has moved and requested excardination from one diocese and incardination in another) or from the diocese in which he is currently working and from the bishop of the Eastern Church to which he has been assigned. This allows him to wear the vestments proper to that Church.

In my case I have faculites from the bishop of the Diocese of Orange (where I was ordained and am currently incardinated) and from Eparch of the Eparchy of Newton (the Melkite “diocese” for the United States). Thus, I serve legitimately as a Latin deacon or as a Melkite deacon.

For a deacon to become bi-ritual simply requires the consent of the two bishops involved. For a priest it is more complicated as Rome must grant approval as well.
Deacon Ed

That’s the whole point. I don’t believe deacons are “bi-ritual”- at least not in terms of how priests and bishops can be bi-ritual, although they can certainly minister within more than one church/rite with the approvel of the cognizant bishops.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Brendan:

If you would re-read my post, I was noting the reason given for deacons not wearing the Roman Collar …

You were very kind to clear up my misunderstanding, and did so kindly. I thank you. I now see you were responding to the second rather than the first sentence in that box.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This idea that a deacon in a Roman Collar might confuse the faithful just confuses me.

In the Byzantine Church the Roman Collar is a foreign thing, see the name, Roman, thats a clue.

Traditionally the clergy where cassocks, not the Roman cassock, but a Russian or Greek cassock, they are different. They do not include a Roman Collar.

Now the deacon and priest do look the same but the Slavic Byzantines fixed that by giving the priest a cross at his ordination that he wears. The Melkites do not do this. They grant the cross at a later time.

 

[MaryAgnes]

Brendan:

When are certain bishops in this country going to get around to realizing that a deacon is a Ordained clergyman operating in a secular world, NOT a layman operating in a clerical role.

Part of the difficulty lies in the attitude of some permanent deacons, I’m afraid. While there is much talk about maintaining the distinction between the laity and the ordained, how do we ensure that a cleric of lesser orders maintains a distinction proper to his relationship with a priest? I have witnessed permanent deacons in clerical collars who bless oil and give the illusion of a sacramental anointing; I have witnessed them being addressed as “Father” without giving correction (education). I have even heard some admitt to hearing confessions in their capacity of hospital chaplain. They certainly blur the lines of distinction–and where they can offer proper catechesis they choose not to.

 

[Detroit_Sue]

ByzCath:

Fr Deacon Ed,
I find this very troubling. Deacons, yes even Latin Deacons , are clergy. The Roman Collar is not something only a priest should wear, neither is a cassock. Heck, seminarians are entitled to wear both, that is if their bishops allow it.

I think this sort of thing is just another way to blur the lines between the clergy and the laity.

Sad, so sad.

I agree with you. My husband wears the collar for church functions, classes, and vigils. There is no prohibition against wearing the Roman collar in their official capacity as deacons. Different bishops have different rules, but there is no canon against it.

 

[Brendan]

One thing I saw in reading the my copy of the National Director is a lot of concern about the faithful viewing deacons as “mini-priests”.

What I did not see was the other extreme.

The faithful viewing deacons as some sort of “Super-EMHC”

They see a man entirely in secular clothes who comes in, dresses for Mass not all that differently from the altar servers ( no dalmatics allowed in some diocese)

He does a lot of the stuff altar servers do, moving things around, bringing things to the altar.

He gets to read the Gospel instead of the Readings, gets the Eucharist before the ‘other’ EMHC’s and gets to stand next to the priest in the main aisle during Communion time.

Obviously some sort of “super altar server, super reader, super EMHC” combo.

How are the faithful supposed to know he’s really a member of Holy Orders and a part of the clergy?

 

[Brendan]

Detroit Sue:

I agree with you. My husband wears the collar for church functions, classes, and vigils.

And funeral rosaries!. I saw him once going into a funeral home wearing clerics, rosary in hand, as while I was driving past on my way to my folks place,

(Sue’s DH is the deacon at my folk’s parish )