Ever Seen Priest Use Biretta During NO Mass?

[JimG]

Er… you mean a James Bond gun?

That would be a Beretta. Bond usually avoided birettas.

 

[Chatter163]

From what I recall, the biretta is not specifically associated with Mass. It was simply headgear that a priest often wore with his cassock, as well as with his vestments when first entering the sanctuary for Mass.

The biretta was prescribed for use by non-religious priests at Mass. At Low Mass one would usually see it only worn by the priest at the beginning and end. At High Mass, the priest celebrant and the clergy in choir would wear it while seated, typically during the singing of the Gloria and Credo, and during a sermon. The biretta would be removed momentarily at the mention of the Holy Name.

Even Seminarians wear Birettas in the Old Rite

Seminarians in the old rite wear birettas only after they have been ordained to the subdiaconate.

Do you know if the deacon’s biretta is the exact same as the priest’s?

They are the exact same.

 

[katy]

Non-religious priest? Isn’t that an oxymoron, at least I would sincerely hope so.

 

[Belfarmer]

I hadn’t seen a biretta used by our diocesan priests for years. Our current priest, his first parish, uses the biretta, cassock, and scull cap as his normal dress for Mass as well as public use. Oh yes, he is 35 years old.

 

[ncjohn]

I’ve only seen it once in an NO Mass, on Easter Sunday a few years back by the local parish priest where I no longer attend. He and the deacon/seminarian both wore them throughout the Mass.

While they did take them off and put them on at what would have been the appropriate times–if it had been appropriate for them to wear them at all–it was very distracting since most people had never even seen one before and the constant “on and off” looked awkward and forced rather than reverent.

Had it been taken off after entry and not put back on until the recessional, as I recall it being when I was growing up with the the TLM, it probably would not have bothered anyone. Instead, being done the way it was, and without any explanantion for those who were unfamiliar, it ended up being laughed about by many.

 

[Chatter163]

Non-religious priest? Isn’t that an oxymoron, at least I would sincerely hope so.

No, I mean priests who are not members of religious orders. There are two types of priests, secular, meaning diocesean priests, and religious, who are members of specific religious communities, such as the Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, etc. Most parish priests are secular, but a few parishes have religious on their staffs, or even the entire parish is under their care. I had mentioned religious priests in connection with the biretta because many religious do not wear birettas, but instead pull up the cowl on their habits.

 

[Sea_Lion]

Our priest uses his in the NO mass as he processes in and out.

 

[Chatter163]

I’ve only seen it once in an NO Mass, on Easter Sunday a few years back by the local parish priest where I no longer attend. He and the deacon/seminarian both wore them throughout the Mass.

While they did take them off and put them on at what would have been the appropriate times–if it had been appropriate for them to wear them at all–it was very distracting since most people had never even seen one before and the constant “on and off” looked awkward and forced rather than reverent.

Had it been taken off after entry and not put back on until the recessional, as I recall it being when I was growing up with the the TLM, it probably would not have bothered anyone. Instead, being done the way it was, and without any explanantion for those who were unfamiliar, it ended up being laughed about by many.

At Low Mass the biretta would have been worn only upon entering and exiting, but at High Mass it would have been worn while the priest was seated for the singing.

I do not understand the part about being “forced” and not reverent. (Is a genuflection “forced”?) As for people laughing at birettas being removed for the Holy Name, that is very sad indeed. I can see people not understanding, and if the birettas are to be worn more often, a teachable moment will present itself, but I cannot fathom people laughing at something in the Mass simply because they do not understand it.

 

[TimOliv]

We have a priest who wears a biretta.

 

[johnnykins]

No, I mean priests who are not members of religious orders. There are two types of priests, secular, meaning diocesean priests, and religious, who are members of specific religious communities, such as the Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, etc. Most parish priests are secular, but a few parishes have religious on their staffs, or even the entire parish is under their care. I had mentioned religious priests in connection with the biretta because many religious do not wear birettas, but instead pull up the cowl on their habits.

As an aside, another term for “religious” clergy is “regular” clergy, i.e., they follow a rule. Unfortunately, given the meaning of the word “regular” in colloquial use you rarely see that terminology any more. Likewise calling only one group of clergy “religious” has its issues in colloquial usage as well.

 

[TimOliv]

Yet we still refer to Diocesan Priests as being “Secular Priests” and those belonging to religious orders as “Religious Priests”

Perhaps we are doomed to perpetual confusion…

 

[FrCorey]

even rarer is the priest’s zuchetto these days.
last time I wore mine someone came up to me and said, shalom. oy gevalt!

 

[Chatter163]

As an aside, another term for “religious” clergy is “regular” clergy, i.e., they follow a rule. Unfortunately, given the meaning of the word “regular” in colloquial use you rarely see that terminology any more. Likewise calling only one group of clergy “religious” has its issues in colloquial usage as well.

When we are in a church setting, I use church terminology. It is part of our function as Catholics to teach other Catholics about the life of the Church.

Not all “regular” clergy are religious.

 

[ncjohn]

I do not understand the part about being “forced” and not reverent. (Is a genuflection “forced”?) As for people laughing at birettas being removed for the Holy Name, that is very sad indeed. I can see people not understanding, and if the birettas are to be worn more often, a teachable moment will present itself, but I cannot fathom people laughing at something in the Mass simply because they do not understand it.

It looked awkward because it was worn through the entire Mass–not just at singing, or at the gospel reading–with it constantly being put on and taken off, and two different people trying to remember to do something simultaneously that they were obviously not used to either.

At times, it almost looked like one of those comedy routines where a western person and an oriental person meet and go back forth trying to decide whether to shake hands with each other or bow to each other.

When I say “laughing” I mean more in a rolling your eyes kind of way because it just didn’t look reverent in any way and, as I mentioned, was not explained either before or after.

 

[az_4_faith]

It looked awkward because it was worn through the entire Mass–not just at singing, or at the gospel reading–with it constantly being put on and taken off, and two different people trying to remember to do something simultaneously that they were obviously not used to either.

At times, it almost looked like one of those comedy routines where a western person and an oriental person meet and go back forth trying to decide whether to shake hands with each other or bow to each other.

When I say “laughing” I mean more in a rolling your eyes kind of way because it just didn’t look reverent in any way and, as I mentioned, was not explained either before or after.

Sure sounds like the folks in your congregation could exercise a little more charity towards their clergy. How sad . . .

 

[ncjohn]

Sure sounds like the folks in your congregation could exercise a little more charity towards their clergy. How sad . . .

First off, it’s not my parish.

Secondly, you weren’t there so please don’t judge. It looked comical and not the least bit reverent in the way it was done, like a couple little kids playing “dress-up”. Nobody is judging them that I know of–it was just a matter of something that looked like kids plugging in a bad understanding of the words to a song. You smile and roll your eyes and move on–it’s not a condemnation or anything.

 

[az_4_faith]

First off, it’s not my parish.

Secondly, you weren’t there so please don’t judge. It looked comical and not the least bit reverent in the way it was done, like a couple little kids playing “dress-up”. Nobody is judging them that I know of–it was just a matter of something that looked like kids plugging in a bad understanding of the words to a song. You smile and roll your eyes and move on–it’s not a condemnation or anything.

Chill pill NCJohn . . .

No, I wasn’t there. You’re right. I should have said THE congregation and not YOUR congregation.

And there was no sense of judgment at all in what I replied. I simply offered my opinion based on information you provided. You know, it drives me crazy whenever one’s opinion or observation is interpreted as a judgment (or accused of being one!). If that were the case, we could never comment on anything. (Isn’t that a judgment in and of itself?)

I simply mentioned that the congregation could have been a little more charitable, since you wrote that many ended up laughing. I know that when I see one of my priests stumble through an action (familiar or not) while offering Mass, I try to assume their best intention, rather than “roll my eyes”.

From what you say, I would guess that the congregation was already frustrated with the clergy participating in this Mass. The use of the Biretta had nothing to do with it.

 

[proud2bcatholic]

And they celebrate the NO Mass most of the time, incorporating Latin and Gregorian Chant.

At which parishes?

 

[ncjohn]

Chill pill NCJohn . . .

No, I wasn’t there. You’re right. I should have said THE congregation and not YOUR congregation.

And there was no sense of judgment at all in what I replied. I simply offered my opinion based on information you provided. You know, it drives me crazy whenever one’s opinion or observation is interpreted as a judgment (or accused of being one!). If that were the case, we could never comment on anything. (Isn’t that a judgment in and of itself?)

I simply mentioned that the congregation could have been a little more charitable, since you wrote that many ended up laughing. I know that when I see one of my priests stumble through an action (familiar or not) while offering Mass, I try to assume their best intention, rather than “roll my eyes”.

From what you say, I would guess that the congregation was already frustrated with the clergy participating in this Mass. The use of the Biretta had nothing to do with it.

No, I don’t think it was frustration with the clergy at all. And it wasn’t like a priest stumbling over a single line in a liturgy.

It was just an experiment gone wrong, that could have been handled in a couple of ways to reduce the “damage”. One, there should have been some explanation of the biretta to begin with. Second, there could have been a little more preparation so that it could have been properly used, assuming that it is proper to be using it in an NO Mass to begin with. Third, when it became apparent that the synchronicity of use just wasn’t there, it could have been removed and set aside until the Mass was over.

Unforunately we got none of that. There was nothing uncharitable in the least in people reacting as they did, any more than your own reaction might be if your own child had the tail fall off their bunny costume in the school play or the principal at graduation was walking around with a piece of egg on his chin while he or she handed out the diplomas.

At any rate, the thread isn’t about this exchange any way so I’ll just drop it at that and let you come to whatever “observation” you’d like.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Second, there could have been a little more preparation so that it could have been properly used, assuming that it is proper to be using it in an NO Mass to begin with.

I find the continued suspicion of the biretta’s place within the NO interesting because it is like so many other traditional things that are perfectly legitimate yet rarely seen. It’s like when people see a deacon wearing a dalmatic and wonder if he’s allowed to be wearing a chasuble. They know it’s unusual so they’re suspicious (which in most modern cases is probably a good reflex), but its rarity is not due to any institutional bias against it. The biretta was certainly never suppressed with the creation of the new rite, it just got discarded by most in the wave to do things the “modern” way.