priest's ring

[FrDavid96]

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?

Keep in mind that as far as I know, it’s more of an “expectation” than an outright law that a priest cannot wear a ring. It might have been a matter of law at one time, and I suspect that it was such, but at the present time, we’re not really discussing a matter of law. I can say with certainty that it was a matter of particular law in certain dioceses in the US that only a prelate, or a priest who had a doctorate from Rome (green stone) was allowed to wear. Please note the past-tense in that last sentence.

The ring I was asked not to wear was my class ring, and it was an auxiliary bishop who asked me not to wear it. He wasn’t being mean about it either, it was more of a “by the way, you really shouldn’t be wearing that ring at Mass, do you think it might rain today?” sort of way.

I see the same principles applying to deacons, with regard to wearing class rings or any other sort of ring. They’re reserved for prelates, but it’s not anything to make an issue of. It’s certainly not the sort of thing I would even mention to a deacon or seminarian unless the subject came up by coincidence.

Wedding rings, though would be different, at least in my opinion. As I said, I cannot imagine anyone asking a married deacon to remove his wedding ring. In fact, from my own perspective, it’s something I never would have even thought about were it not for this thread.

The rules against priests wearing rings date from a time in the West where unmarried clerics were unheard of except from a historical perspective. I’m sure at the time they never envisioned the possibility of married deacons in the numbers that we’re blessed to have them today.

The bottom line is that while it can be an interresting topic of conversation, the matter of priests and deacons wearing rings today is little more than that: interresting conversation. At least that’s how I see it.

 

[Chatter163]

I remember that older priests used to remove their watches before Mass as well, although that might just be coincidence with no liturgical meaning whatever.

I know a number of FSSP priests and seminarians who do this. It is done to keep them focused on the Sacred Liturgy, rather than distracted by wordly things. This includes not worrying about what time it is, how long Mass is taking, where they need to be at a certain time, etc.

 

[JReducation]

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.”

The reasons are twofold:

1. A ring is reserved to prelates.
2. A ring is secular adornment, and as such it should not “show” when a priest is vested (prelates rings being a different matter of course). It’s like covering the shirt-collar with an amice–nothing but the vestments should be visible.

I remember that older priests used to remove their watches before Mass as well, although that might just be coincidence with no liturgical meaning whatever.

I also can’t document this, but I once heard that the Dali Lama said to Pope John Paul II that he shouldn’t wear his wristwatch at prayers, because prayer-time is not secular-time, and so it’s inappropriate to wear a watch while at prayer. I’m not saying that it happened. But whether it’s true or not, the idea does make sense.

I remember this from seminary days (not that it makes any difference to Franciscans who own no jewelry). It is not a law. It is a rule. For the sake of the laity, let’s remember that Church law and regulations are not the same. Regulations do not carry any penalty or moral culpability.

The regulation is that a priest not wear a ring while celebrating the liturgy, because it is a symbol of office. Therefore, a bishop or an abbot may wear it.

Now, there is a difference between the ring and the wedding band. A wedding band is not considered a ring. There is no possibility of confusing a wedding band with an epsicopal ring. That’s why married clerics may wear their wedding bands, as well as religious clerics whose community has the tradition of a wedding band.

That’s why Father David’s bishop asked him to take the ring off. A college or a high school ring is large and usually similar to that of rings worn by bishops and abbots. In many cases, people wear such rings on the right hand, the same hand that a bishop or an abbot does. When distributing communion, unless you’re a lefty, it is very obvious and makes you look like a bishop.

YES, there are lefty priests and deacons and some of them can’t give out communion with the right hand. They simply don’t have the coordination. Others do fine with their right hand. One of our brothers is a priest and he’s a lefty. He can’t feed himself with his right hand, never mind give out communion without looking awkward. But that’s a story for another day.

As to the watch, there is no rule about wearing a watch. If you observe the Holy Father, he always wears his watch when he celebrates mass. Watch (no pun intended) closely when he lifts up the host or chalice at the consecration.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bpbasilphx]

The married Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox priests I know where their wedding rings all the time, including when celebrating the Divine Liturgy.

It’s the sign of a Mystery of the Church. Why should it be removed?

 

[JReducation]

The married Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox priests I know where their wedding rings all the time, including when celebrating the Divine Liturgy.

It’s the sign of a Mystery of the Church. Why should it be removed?

I believe the problem here is the title of the thread. It uses the word “ring”. A ring and a wedding band are not the same thing. The Latin Church does not expect you to take off the wedding band either, even priests who are religious in communities where they receive a wedding band at final profession are allowed to wear it during the mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Susan_Calvin]

I believe the problem here is the title of the thread. It uses the word “ring”.

Why is that a problem? It IS a ring. I never said it was a wedding band, only that it was on his wedding finger. Its not a wedding band. Its actually a large-ish gold ring which is either squarish or oval on the top, with some kind of insignia. I’ve never stared at it up close so I can’t give an exact description. But its definitely not a plain wedding band, its more elaborate. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

Today after mass Father was very busy so I still didn’t get a chance to ask him about it. However, I saw something interesting. An older man came up to Father and bowed and kissed the ring. I thought that only happened with bishops? Anyhow, I am going to ask him as soon as he has time to speak with me and I will report back here what he says.

 

[JReducation]

Why is that a problem? It IS a ring. I never said it was a wedding band, only that it was on his wedding finger. Its not a wedding band. Its actually a large-ish gold ring which is either squarish or oval on the top, with some kind of insignia. I’ve never stared at it up close so I can’t give an exact description. But its definitely not a plain wedding band, its more elaborate. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

Today after mass Father was very busy so I still didn’t get a chance to ask him about it. However, I saw something interesting. An older man came up to Father and bowed and kissed the ring. I thought that only happened with bishops? Anyhow, I am going to ask him as soon as he has time to speak with me and I will report back here what he says.

I’m sorry, my bad. I thought you were speaking a wedding band, because the conversation deviated to religious priests and secular priests wearing wedding bands. That being the case, I have no idea what the ring may be. You’ll have to ask him, if it provokes your curiosity. There’s nothing wrong with being curiious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Susan_Calvin]

Oh that’s OK… I probably didn’t make myself clear enough, especially as I said it was on his wedding finger. In any event, the discussion all of you were having was very interesting reading. I’m learning a lot from these discussions. I’m thinking about forwarding this thread to my priest actually. I send him links and articles occasionally and he says he appreciates it.

Unfortunately I still did not have a chance to speak with Father today, and tomorrow morning I am going on my trip to volunteer with the Missionaries of Charity, so I won’t be able to ask for another week or so. But thanks to everyone though for your (name removed by moderator)ut, its appreciated!

 

[grandeorgue]

Oh that’s OK… I probably didn’t make myself clear enough, especially as I said it was on his wedding finger. In any event, the discussion all of you were having was very interesting reading. I’m learning a lot from these discussions. I’m thinking about forwarding this thread to my priest actually. I send him links and articles occasionally and he says he appreciates it.

Unfortunately I still did not have a chance to speak with Father today, and tomorrow morning I am going on my trip to volunteer with the Missionaries of Charity, so I won’t be able to ask for another week or so. But thanks to everyone though for your (name removed by moderator)ut, its appreciated!

I am still waiting to hear about the ring. Hope you can answer soon!

Thank you!

 

[Susan_Calvin]

I am still waiting to hear about the ring. Hope you can answer soon!

Oh lol I apologize. Father went on his holidays before I had a chance to ask him, but he is back this coming Thursday and I see him for an appointment Friday, so I promise I will ask him then. I just now wrote it in my schedule book so I would remember!

 

[grandeorgue]

Oh lol I apologize. Father went on his holidays before I had a chance to ask him, but he is back this coming Thursday and I see him for an appointment Friday, so I promise I will ask him then. I just now wrote it in my schedule book so I would remember!

Thank you! I hope to hear back from you.

Have a great day.

God Bless!

 

[James_Miller]

Priests were forbidden to wear rings. But priests of the Society of Mary (Marianists) had an indult because of custom and because the ring was a symbol of their 4th vow - the vow of stability.

 

[JReducation]

Priests were forbidden to wear rings. But priests of the Society of Mary (Marianists) had an indult because of custom and because the ring was a symbol of their 4th vow - the vow of stability.

Actually, a rign or wedding band is part of the tradition of some religious and secular orders. They are given to the individual at when he makes perpetual profession. For example, Secular Franciscan priests receive a ring with a Tau insginia at their perpetual profession of vows. They do not need an indult to wear it. It is part of the order’s rule.

As far as I know, they are the only Franciscans who may wear a ring.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Phemie]

I’m finding this thread quite interesting. Our bishop’s ring looks more like hand armor than a wedding band. I think it covers the entire upper third of his finger. Our pastor is an Oblate of Mary Immaculate and I’ve noticed rings on his finger but since I’ve never noticed rings on any other OMIs who’ve ministered to us I just assumed it might have had family significance to him.

 

[JReducation]

I’m finding this thread quite interesting. Our bishop’s ring looks more like hand armor than a wedding band. I think it covers the entire upper third of his finger. Our pastor is an Oblate of Mary Immaculate and I’ve noticed rings on his finger but since I’ve never noticed rings on any other OMIs who’ve ministered to us I just assumed it might have had family significance to him.

A bishop’s ring is supposed to be regal. It’s usually going to be large and very obvious. Though the tendency among today’s bishops is to stay away from rings with large stones.

As to the OMI, I don’t know about that. The OMIs are religious. They make a vow of poverty. But I don’t know if they make a simple or solemn vow. That’s going to determine the intensity of the poverty that they must follow. There are two vows of poverty: solemn and simple. Most religious make simple vows of poverty. Solemn vows of poverty are usually made by mendicants and monastics, but not exclusively.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Phemie]

A bishop’s ring is supposed to be regal. It’s usually going to be large and very obvious. Though the tendency among today’s bishops is to stay away from rings with large stones.

As to the OMI, I don’t know about that. The OMIs are religious. They make a vow of poverty. But I don’t know if they make a simple or solemn vow. That’s going to determine the intensity of the poverty that they must follow. There are two vows of poverty: solemn and simple. Most religious make simple vows of poverty. Solemn vows of poverty are usually made by mendicants and monastics, but not exclusively.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

OMI make a simple vow.

 

[LilyM]

The married Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox priests I know where their wedding rings all the time, including when celebrating the Divine Liturgy.

It’s the sign of a Mystery of the Church. Why should it be removed?

And the priest’s ring in the OP is equally a sign of a Mystery of the Church - a sign of his ordination. Why should it be removed then?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And the priest’s ring in the OP is equally a sign of a Mystery of the Church - a sign of his ordination. Why should it be removed then?

A ring is not a sign of ordination for the priesthood. No ring is given at the ordination.

 

[LilyM]

A ring is not a sign of ordination for the priesthood. No ring is given at the ordination.

Does a ring have to be given at the ordination for it to be a sign of the sacrament? Surely not.

For that matter does a ring have to be given at a wedding? I’m pretty sure in times past there would often be only one ring - for the woman - and not always two. From that alone it sounds like a ring is an* optional* sign of marriage rather than a necessary one. Nor does it sound like it need be given at the wedding for it to be a sign of the sacrament of marriage.

 

[RevRic]

I haven’t always been a priest, I was married for many years (now a widower). I wear my ring at all times. No one has ever asked about it or questioned it.