Is a priest or deacon allowed to wear a black zucchetto during the Mass like a bishop?

[Duesenberg]

Why don’t you like that? If a facility has the ability to have that number of con celebrants, what’s the problem?

Just to clarify, the side altars at this seminay were placed under each of the stained glass windows of the chapel,…

Compared to a beautifully concelebrated Mass, I just think this looks like the clerics are checking off a required task for the day.

 

[Maximilian75]

I respectfully disagree with you there, but let’s just agree to disagree.

 

[FrDavid96]

Why don’t you like that? If a facility has the ability to have that number of con celebrants, what’s the problem?
Just to clarify, the side altars at this seminay were placed under each of the stained glass windows of the chapel,…

The issue is that they are not con-celebrating. Each one is celebrating an individual Mass, completely independent of the others. Take a close look at the picture and one can see that each priest is at a different part of the Mass. It looks like the one at the left is furthest along, while the one on the right hasn’t yet begun the offertory.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing; however, that cannot be compared to a true concelebration.

Priests don’t always want to be part of a concelebrated Mass. So these side or alcove altars still have a place. Still, in the present day, we need less of them. Far less than we needed before.

I am saying that there is room for both forms, but at the same time, we cannot say that several Masses at the same time is the same thing as a concelebration.

 

[Maximilian75]

I didnt mean to say that they were the same, but I had never thought of the whole “different speeds” dichotomy… thank you for enlightening me

 

[FrDavid96]

I didnt mean to say that they were the same, but I had never thought of the whole “different speeds” dichotomy… thank you for enlightening me

They don’t all start at the same time either.

I’d say the one to the left arrived first (he looks to be at the Our Father because his fingers are closed) and each one took the “next” altar. Consecration (that’s obvious). Offertory (host is on the paten). The one on the right hasn’t started the offertory because the veil is still on the chalice.

If a congregation were present (highly unlikely) which priest would they be following?

Like I wrote earlier, I think there’s room for both forms.

 

[OldCAFMember]

Maximilian75:

Why don’t you like that? If a facility has the ability to have that number of con celebrants, what’s the problem?

Just to clarify, the side altars at this seminay were placed under each of the stained glass windows of the chapel,…

Compared to a beautifully concelebrated Mass, I just think this looks like the clerics are checking off a required task for the day.

I prefer not to speculate on the internal dispositions of of people from decades ago, on the basis of a single still photo that shows priests doing what they were ordained to do, i.e., celebrate Mass. I agree with Father that there is a place for concelebration (e.g., the Chrism Mass), but I also think that what is pictured in the above picture is OK in some communities, too. I have served such Masses when visiting a traditional community in recent years. I have also served the OF Mass in a similar situation when visiting the Vatican, and my priest friend was one of many celebrants in the crypt church, celebrating their morning Masses.

 

[Duesenberg]

I prefer not to speculate on the internal dispositions of of people

I did not…

 

[OldCAFMember]

I did not…

“I just think this looks like the clerics are checking off a required task for the day” surely sounds like that to me.

 

[Duesenberg]

“I just think this looks like the clerics are checking off a required task for the day” surely sounds like that to me.

That’s not speculating on the priests’ internal dispositions. It’s simply noting the sign value of priests celebrating in such a utilitarian manner.

 

[OldCAFMember]

OldCAFMember:

“I just think this looks like the clerics are checking off a required task for the day” surely sounds like that to me.

That’s not speculating on the priests’ internal dispositions. It’s simply noting the sign value of priests celebrating in such a utilitarian manner.

Many things can be and are said by non-Catholics when they make similar statements (“Look at the woman kneeling before the statue of Mary and lighting a candle. She’s obviously worshipping Mary!”), but such statements are worthless because, among other things, they speculate about interior dispositions on the basis of external appearances. You call it “sign value,” but it’s the same process.

 

[Duesenberg]

Many things can be and are said by non-Catholics when they make similar statements (“Look at the woman kneeling before the statue of Mary and lighting a candle. She’s obviously worshipping Mary!”), but such statements are worthless because, among other things, they speculate about interior dispositions on the basis of external appearances. You call it “sign value,” but it’s the same process.

No, my comments were not akin to this.

 

[FrDavid96]

OldCAFMember:

“I just think this looks like the clerics are checking off a required task for the day” surely sounds like that to me.

That’s not speculating on the priests’ internal dispositions. It’s simply noting the sign value of priests celebrating in such a utilitarian manner.

The problem is that you applied it to the priests in the photo.

In fairness, such a utilitarian attitude did exist (still does). And yes, such photos can indeed give that appearance.

Believe me, priests can be just as “utilitarian” in their approach to daily Mass when it’s concelebrated. In fact, concelebrated Masses can be even more “check the box” because the con-celebrant need not actually do very much.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

it’s now quite clear, sans any further official information that a priest or deacon could indeed properly wear a black zuchetto during the Mass as described above, so long as there is no objection from their ordinaries.

No. They can’t…

 

[FrDavid96]

Duesenberg:

it’s now quite clear, sans any further official information that a priest or deacon could indeed properly wear a black zuchetto during the Mass as described above, so long as there is no objection from their ordinaries.

No. They can’t…

Now I’m confused.

Earlier, I thought you were agreeing.

… Otherwise, the person you cite is substantially correct, if off on a few of the minor details.

I’ve never bothered researching the use of a zucchetto by a priest. I have one, but the only time I’ve worn it was when I visited synagogues or other Jewish events. Wearing it at Mass never occurred to me (for more than a fleeting moment); therefore I never gave it any serious thought apart from this thread.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Now I’m confused.

Earlier, I thought you were agreeing

Father: it is your own source which wrote:

Current use is governed by a Motu Proprio of Pope Paul VI in 1968, who made the zucchetto obligatory only for members of the hierarchy. Other clerics may use it. Previously, a seminarian became a cleric on the assumption of celibacy which occurred with sub-diaconate. Since that stage leading to Sacred Orders was abolished for the Latin-Rite, a man becomes a cleric with ordination to the diaconate.

/…/

When the zucchetto is worn it is worn outdoors, indoors and, if a bishop, in the liturgy. Other clerics are supposed to leave them in the sacristy.

This latter paragraph needs to acknowledge that, below a bishop, an abbot may use the zucchetto in the liturgy, as I wrote above. Otherwise, the source is incorrect about when the zucchetto is to be restored to the prelate after its removal in the liturgy of the Eucharist.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

Now I’m confused.

Earlier, I thought you were agreeing

Father: it is your own source which wrote:

Current use is governed by a Motu Proprio of Pope Paul VI in 1968, who made the zucchetto obligatory only for members of the hierarchy. Other clerics may use it. Previously, a seminarian became a cleric on the assumption of celibacy which occurred with sub-diaconate. Since that stage leading to Sacred Orders was abolished for the Latin-Rite, a man becomes a cleric with ordination to the diaconate.

/…/

When the zucchetto is worn it is worn outdoors, indoors and, if a bishop, in the liturgy. Other clerics are supposed to leave them in the sacristy.

This latter paragraph needs to acknowledge that, below a bishop, an abbot may use the zucchetto in the liturgy, as I wrote above. Otherwise, the source is incorrect about when the zucchetto is to be restored to the prelate after its removal in the liturgy of the Eucharist.

Here is where I see the contradiction. The author of the post I linked said first “other clerics may wear them” and then later said priests are “supposed to leave them in the sacristy.”

So what exactly does “may wear them” mean? Does it mean extra-liturgical only? And how explicit is the Motu Proprio? On one extreme, it might be silent, on the other extreme, it might outright prohibit priests from wearing them at Mass (or other liturgical functions). I’m curious to see exactly what Bl Paul VI actually said about it.

I’m also hesitant when I read “supposed to leave them in the sacristy.” Likewise, what does that mean exactly? Is that just the author’s personal opinion? The words “supposed to” are a bit ambiguous. That’s the sort of phrase I hear used by people who assert something that is really nothing more than personal opinion.

And let me be clear to anyone reading here: I have little interest in this topic beyond this thread. I’m not advocating priests to wear zucchettos at Mass, nor am I being critical of one who does. To me, this thread is just idle conversation. I don’t want anyone reading more into this than that.