What do you think of dalmatics for the diaconate that look identical to priestly chasubles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Solomonson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Solomonson

Guest
What do you think of dalmatics for the diaconate that look identical to priestly chasubles? Someone asked me tonight why the deacon wasn’t wearing a dalmatic? I said probably because it’s Laetare Sunday (which no one mentioned at any time during the Mass) and neither the parish nor the deacon has a rose-colored dalmatic.

Someone quickly corrected me and said that the pastor doesn’t want deacons to wear dalmatics anymore – because they confuse the laity. He has a very valid point, at least here locally. In my parish, based on the cut of their dalmatics, it’s impossible to distinguish them from a chasuble unless one of the deacons is signalling for a touchdown which means “please stand” in my parish.

More traditionally cut dalmatics would fix this problem, but I don’t see that being implemented anytime soon. I have to back the pastor on this one. What do you think?
 
Dalmatics are only really used for mass, just like a priest’s chasuble. In many cases, yes, the cut of the dalmatic is similar to the chasuble. However, this shouldn’t be a problem, because the priest and deacon both know their roles. And, if a layperson doesn’t know who the priest and deacon are at their parish for some reason, they should be able to tell by the differing roles that the priest and deacon play at mass.

So, for me, its not a big deal. I would be more concerned about deacons wearing clericals in daily life, since they are indistinguishable from priests. I’ve heard somewhere that in the US, there was talk about allowing grey clerical shirts for deacons only, so they can be distinguished from priests. This seems like a smart idea to me.
 
Solomonson said:
What do you think of dalmatics for the diaconate that look identical to priestly chasubles? Someone asked me tonight why the deacon wasn’t wearing a dalmatic? I said probably because it’s Laetare Sunday (which no one mentioned at any time during the Mass) and neither the parish nor the deacon has a rose-colored dalmatic.

Someone quickly corrected me and said that the pastor doesn’t want deacons to wear dalmatics anymore – because they confuse the laity. He has a very valid point, at least here locally. In my parish, based on the cut of their dalmatics, it’s impossible to distinguish them from a chasuble unless one of the deacons is signalling for a touchdown which means “please stand” in my parish.

More traditionally cut dalmatics would fix this problem, but I don’t see that being implemented anytime soon. I have to back the pastor on this one. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t back the pastor on this one. His point is NOT valid.

The dalmatic is proper to the deacon and denying the deacon this is akin to denying the priest his chasuble. It is wrong. It is HIS vestment proper to his Order. “Confusing the faithful” is not a valid reason.
 
I am quite uneducated in this area but luckily we have on this very Forum plenty of priests and deacons. I know that eventually one of them will chime in.
 
Solomonson said:
What do you think of dalmatics for the diaconate that look identical to priestly chasubles? Someone asked me tonight why the deacon wasn’t wearing a dalmatic? I said probably because it’s Laetare Sunday (which no one mentioned at any time during the Mass) and neither the parish nor the deacon has a rose-colored dalmatic.

Someone quickly corrected me and said that the pastor doesn’t want deacons to wear dalmatics anymore – because they confuse the laity. He has a very valid point, at least here locally. In my parish, based on the cut of their dalmatics, it’s impossible to distinguish them from a chasuble unless one of the deacons is signalling for a touchdown which means “please stand” in my parish.

More traditionally cut dalmatics would fix this problem, but I don’t see that being implemented anytime soon. I have to back the pastor on this one. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I find it difficult to believe that any practicing Catholic cannot tell the difference between the priest and the deacon at Mass. I’ve heard this before, but it just doesn’t make sense.

The other problem here is (quite frankly): what difference does it make? The priest and the deacon certainly know who they are. Unless one cleric is a visitor, the congregations knows who they are. So what difference does it make if their vestments might appear to be similar from a distance? Maybe at the parish church nearby the seminary, someone might be a bit confused around ordination-time; unable to recall if that deacon was ordained a priest a few weeks ago, or next month? Still, once the Mass begins and the clerics perform their ministry, it becomes clear enough.

Is there really anyone out there who thinks “Gee, maybe the deacon was the one doing the consecration while the priest knelt? They look so much alike, I couldn’t tell.” Does anyone think “Was that the priest asking for the deacon’s blessing before the priest proclaimed the Gospel?” Seriously. This is just nonsensical.

Maybe someone looking at a still photograph might not be able to tell the difference between some dalmatics and some chasubles. So what?

Eliminating dalmatics is a solution in search of a problem.

When parishes stop using dalmatics, it’s for one of two reasons:
  1. Either someone doesn’t want to spend the money (ie doesn’t know where or how to shop)
  2. Someone doesn’t want the deacon to appear to be an actual genuine ordained cleric—which is precisely what a deacon is.
 
ctb95 said:
Dalmatics are only really used for mass, just like a priest’s chasuble. In many cases, yes, the cut of the dalmatic is similar to the chasuble. However, this shouldn’t be a problem, because the priest and deacon both know their roles. And, if a layperson doesn’t know who the priest and deacon are at their parish for some reason, they should be able to tell by the differing roles that the priest and deacon play at mass.
Click to expand...
👍
So, for me, its not a big deal. I would be more concerned about deacons wearing clericals in daily life, since they are indistinguishable from priests. I’ve heard somewhere that in the US, there was talk about allowing grey clerical shirts for deacons only, so they can be distinguished from priests. This seems like a smart idea to me.
Click to expand...
I’ve never understood this either.

When I was a seminarian (yes, I know, one of those “back in the day…” rants), we were expected, indeed required to wear clerical garb in any ecclesial setting—at least after graduating from philosophy to theology.

The worst that ever happened was the occasional awkward moment when one might have to say “I’m not a priest yet.” I never once, not one time, so much as heard of a single instance when this caused any genuine problem. No one ever grabbed a seminarian by the elbow frantically begging “please, Father, I need you to give the Last Rites right now!” resulting in any problem.

Even in those hospital situations where someone did mistake a seminarian for a priest, the good news was that at least the seminarian knew exactly how to find a real priest faster than anyone else could. The irony was that had he not been wearing clerics, the people who needed the priest would not have thought to ask him.

There are so many non-Catholic clergy out there who are more than happy to have the opportunity to claim to be Catholic priests (or the equivalent thereof) when the opportunity arises. They wear the same clerical shirts that Catholic priests wear (at least they can, as there’s nothing preventing). Someone is by far more likely to mistakenly ask someone who is a non-Catholic lacking valid ordination, to hear a confession, give Last Rites, or bring Communion from such a person, who is not going to say “I am not a Catholic priest” than from a Catholic deacon who won’t try to impersonate a priest.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I find it difficult to believe that any practicing Catholic cannot tell the difference between the priest and the deacon at Mass. I’ve heard this before, but it just doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
In some parts of the world, practicing Catholic have never seen a deacon.
The other problem here is (quite frankly): what difference does it make? The priest and the deacon certainly know who they are. Unless one cleric is a visitor, the congregations knows who they are. So what difference does it make if their vestments might appear to be similar from a distance? Maybe at the parish church nearby the seminary, someone might be a bit confused around ordination-time; unable to recall if that deacon was ordained a priest a few weeks ago, or next month? Still, once the Mass begins and the clerics perform their ministry, it becomes clear enough.

Is there really anyone out there who thinks “Gee, maybe the deacon was the one doing the consecration while the priest knelt? They look so much alike, I couldn’t tell.” Does anyone think “Was that the priest asking for the deacon’s blessing before the priest proclaimed the Gospel?” Seriously. This is just nonsensical.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. And if a Catholic (or non-Catholic) doesn’t know the difference, it is an excellent opportunity for education.

I did once make the mistake watching clips from Justice Scalia’s funeral. The clip started with the beginning of the gospel and did not show the priest’s blessing. In my defense, the deacon was wearing a dalmatic, behind a pulpit and identified onscreen as Fr. So-and-so. Even then, I wondered why a deacon wasn’t proclaiming the gospel. Silly me, I believed that the secular media would manage to get a significant detail right.
Maybe someone looking at a still photograph might not be able to tell the difference between some dalmatics and some chasubles. So what?

.
Click to expand...
Right. Unless you’re a secular news outlet trying to report on Catholic matters. :rolleyes:
 
I haven’t ever seen a dalmatic that looked like a chasuble. I suppose at first glance it may be confusing, though.

My parish actually uses dalmatics at every Mass. I like them. I actually wish they would use them more often at my home parish. My dad is a deacon and has only worn a dalmatic a handful of times…when he was ordained, at his first Mass the day after, and at certain special Masses (wedding of his nephew, special diocesan Masses, etc.). But they are not really common in the rural area where I am originally from. In fact, probably the first time I ever saw a dalmatic was at my dad’s ordination!
 
ctb95 said:
Dalmatics are only really used for mass, just like a priest’s chasuble. In many cases, yes, the cut of the dalmatic is similar to the chasuble. However, this shouldn’t be a problem, because the priest and deacon both know their roles. And, if a layperson doesn’t know who the priest and deacon are at their parish for some reason, they should be able to tell by the differing roles that the priest and deacon play at mass.

So, for me, its not a big deal. I would be more concerned about deacons wearing clericals in daily life, since they are indistinguishable from priests. I’ve heard somewhere that in the US, there was talk about allowing grey clerical shirts for deacons only, so they can be distinguished from priests. This seems like a smart idea to me.
Click to expand...
In the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the deacons are permitted to wear a gray shirt with a Roman collar, but I think most still wear street clothes.

But I heard that the permanent deacons are not permitted to wear a cassock and surplice when sitting in choir. Also, the permanent Deacon candidates in the seminary are not allowed to wear clerical dress, while priestly seminarians are after completing lower seminary and all seminarians studying for the priesthood can wear a cassock and surplice at mass

In regards to the dalmatic, I wish more deacons would wear them, and there would not be an issue of confusion if parishes bought vestments with the traditional embroidery that easily distingishes between priest and Deacon.

But honestly, like others have said, it shouldn’t matter. The Deacon is an ordained minister of the Church and has historically always worn a dalmatic.

God Bless
 
phil19034 said:
In the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the deacons are permitted to wear a gray shirt with a Roman collar, but I think most still wear street clothes.

But I heard that the permanent deacons are not permitted to wear a cassock and surplice when sitting in choir. Also, the permanent Deacon candidates in the seminary are not allowed to wear clerical dress, while priestly seminarians are after completing lower seminary and all seminarians studying for the priesthood can wear a cassock and surplice at mass

In regards to the dalmatic, I wish more deacons would wear them, and there would not be an issue of confusion if parishes bought vestments with the traditional embroidery that easily distingishes between priest and Deacon.

But honestly, like others have said, it shouldn’t matter. The Deacon is an ordained minister of the Church and has historically always worn a dalmatic.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Not only the embroidery, but also the “cut.” Here’s the type of dalmatic that’s commonly worn in my parish. Very difficult to differentiate from a chasuble:

http://www.chagalldesign.com/media/...d27136e95/2/0/20-2151-v-rose-web-800x1032.jpg

If they wore something a bit more traditional from the same supplier, there wouldn’t be an issue:

http://www.chagalldesign.com/media/.../2/0/20-2123_d-gold_offwhite-web-800x1032.jpg

Those that suggest that some dalmatics don’t look remarkably like chasubles (I’m sure on purpose) must not come across too many styles of dalmatics.
 
Solomonson said:
Not only the embroidery, but also the “cut.” Here’s the type of dalmatic that’s commonly worn in my parish.
Click to expand...
:twocents:

I think it is more about the embroidery. But even so: Had someone posted the first picture along with a question about *“Can someone comment on this chasuble?” *my first response would be “Are you sure that’s a chasuble? It looks like a dalmatic to me?”

🤷

tee
From a diocese that seems only recently to have discovered the diaconate
 
Solomonson said:
Not only the embroidery, but also the “cut.” Here’s the type of dalmatic that’s commonly worn in my parish. Very difficult to differentiate from a chasuble:

http://www.chagalldesign.com/media/...d27136e95/2/0/20-2151-v-rose-web-800x1032.jpg

If they wore something a bit more traditional from the same supplier, there wouldn’t be an issue:

http://www.chagalldesign.com/media/.../2/0/20-2123_d-gold_offwhite-web-800x1032.jpg

Those that suggest that some dalmatics don’t look remarkably like chasubles (I’m sure on purpose) must not come across too many styles of dalmatics.
Click to expand...
The 2nd one is what I’m familiar with and what they should wear.
 
phil19034 said:
The 2nd one is what I’m familiar with and what they should wear.
Click to expand...
“Should wear?” I thought the idea was for the dalmatic’s design to be consistent with and compliment the chasuble. Actually I’d be grateful to see ANY dalmatics; my deacon friends tell me that they’ve been officially “discouraged” by many pastors from wearing dalmatics - apparently that “confusion” concern.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
“Should wear?” I thought the idea was for the dalmatic’s design to be consistent with and compliment the chasuble. Actually I’d be grateful to see ANY dalmatics; my deacon friends tell me that they’ve been officially “discouraged” by many pastors from wearing dalmatics - apparently that “confusion” concern.
Click to expand...
Yes, the vestments should complement (with an “e”) each other–meaning that they form a consistent set, as opposed to being mismatched.

In the photo, what makes the 2nd one clearly a dalmatic is the orphreys (stripes). Two vertical and two horizontal clearly indicate a deacon. Although keep in mind that this is a matter of traditional design, and not a requirement. The overall shape of the vestment is what truly makes a dalmatic, especially the sleeves. The orphreys just make it clear from a distance.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
“Should wear?” I thought the idea was for the dalmatic’s design to be consistent with and compliment the chasuble. Actually I’d be grateful to see ANY dalmatics; my deacon friends tell me that they’ve been officially “discouraged” by many pastors from wearing dalmatics - apparently that “confusion” concern.
Click to expand...
That’s very interesting, so it’s not unique to my parish.

I don’t know that the dalmatics should be consistent with the chasuble? That seems to be what’s causing the concern to begin with.
 
Solomonson said:
What do you think of dalmatics for the diaconate that look identical to priestly chasubles? Someone asked me tonight why the deacon wasn’t wearing a dalmatic? I said probably because it’s Laetare Sunday (which no one mentioned at any time during the Mass) and neither the parish nor the deacon has a rose-colored dalmatic.

Someone quickly corrected me and said that the pastor doesn’t want deacons to wear dalmatics anymore – because they confuse the laity. He has a very valid point, at least here locally. In my parish, based on the cut of their dalmatics, it’s impossible to distinguish them from a chasuble unless one of the deacons is signalling for a touchdown which means “please stand” in my parish.

More traditionally cut dalmatics would fix this problem, but I don’t see that being implemented anytime soon. I have to back the pastor on this one. What do you think?
Click to expand...
The stole is different so I don’t see any cause for confusion.
 
the uniform doesn’t make the man. the man makes the uniform

i appreciate & honor the vocation of the deacon

let them wear whatever respectful garb they desire

so long as it doesn’t distract from the sacrament of the mass’ it is AOK w/me
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top