Oh that is interesting… it obviously isn’t required of priests I guess then. I mean, unless they are religious of course, but that’s different.
I never thought of that. It really doesn’t apply to my pastor though because he wears a collar all the time, and even a cassock quite often. I saw him at the grocers once in a cassock!
Yes, he does wear the ring during those times. But as far as I know he wears it all the time. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen him wearing it outside of the church. Though now that you point that out, I may check. I still haven’t asked him about it, he and I are both quite busy. I’m hoping to ask him this weekend though.
It has been my experience that wearing a ring attracts advances as much as not wearing one does.That’s interesting because most of the priests I know DO wear rings. I suppose it’s a good thing to have if they want to ward off advances when they’re out and about in street clothes, rather than clerics.
My pastor was the first priest I’d ever seen who didn’t wear a ring.
That is sad. Although I had a deacon say to me recently something similar about the roman collar…that once upon a time it was the cue for women to back off…now they see it as nothing more than a challenge.
Some also see it as the sign of a man who has a deep faith and ability to commit.
Can you please provide a cite to the document that states that a priest may not wear a ring while celebrating Mass. This is the first I have heard of it.
Oh?? Well, that confuses me a bit if its true, because my priest is very orthodox. Yes he is Latin rite but he celebrates the Tridentine mass weekly as well as the OF, and he is really a stickler for having everything liturgically and canonically correct… in mass, confession, life in general, etc… so it surprises me if he is doing something “wrong”. He’s really quite “rigid” overall in how he practices as a priest so it doesn’t seem like something he would do. I’ll really have to ask him now!
Oh OK well thanks for saying it is a tradition of sorts, even if you don’t know the origin.
Yes actually I’ve heard more than one person say priests and religious are married to the Church. I just assumed it was true. Thank you for telling me otherwise.
No, I cannot give you chapter-and-verse right now. But I can say that it is (at least it was) the custom. Perhaps another poster with better resources can fill that in. The best I can do for the moment is from The Ecclesiastical Review which says:
What that quote says is exactly what we were taught. And by “taught” I hope you get my drift that I do not mean in grade school, or high school, or “religious ed” or anything of the like.
I can’t provide any documentation either, (see Malphono’s post), but I can say that I was instructed when I was ordained not to wear a ring at Mass. I was told that it was inappropriate, but that there would not be any negative consequences if I “got caught.”
I wonder how this works with priests who are actually married as their rings are not “secular adornment”.
Interresting point. Most married priests are Eastern (tell you something you don’t know, right
) The custom of a bishop’s ring is a Western custom, even though some Eastern bishops have adopted it over the centuries, so it really would not apply. Also, Eastern vestment practices are a little different (again, same comment), and are not so concerned about the idea of not having something “show through”–for example, Eastern Priests have no problem with the clerical collar showing at the neck while vested.Not to take this to an extreme, but just curious: In theory, if not in actual practice, would this technically apply to the wedding rings of married deacons? Or, and perhaps a closer example, what about a deacon’s college class ring or similar ring that is “showier” than a weding ring?