When can diocesan seminarians wear their blacks and Roman collars?

[Lepanto]

When can diocesan seminarians wear their blacks and Roman collars?

As soon as they enter the seminary or only at a certain year in their studies?

Can they wear it in public before ordination, or just within the confines of the seminary?

Does this vary by diocese or bishop or is it universal? Or is there a church law on it?

 

[chicago]

It all depends upon the seminary and the seminarians’ superiors.

Once upon a time (until about when the Second Vatican Council took place) high school seniors graduating from Quigley (Chicago’s Minor - High School - Seminary) even had their class pictures taken in cassocks and Roman collar.

 

[CatholicNick]

In the Novus Ordo, after one receives the minor order of Lector or Acolyte.

In the Old Rite it is when one receives their tonsure.

 

[Brain]

In practicality it depends on your dioscese and seminary.

For example, my Archdiocese (Seattle) allows the Theologians to wear blacks (But I dont think they can do cassocks unless it is liturgical, but I am unsure about that) while at their schools and only if their schools have that as the uniform (eg. Mt Angel guys waer blacks, Mundelein guys dont, and I have no clue about St Pat’s or St John’s in California but my suspicion is that they do not). Our theologians do not wear clerics while in the Archdiocese unless they are deacons.

By contrast, in Spokane (where I go to school). The Seminarians wear clerics at least when they are doing active ministry or somthing official (parish work, or events in which they are there as semianrians) as soon as they are accepted into Theology.

It just depends on the Bishop and what he wants, as he is in charge and knows the culture or specific situations in the diocese.

My personal thing with clerics is that owning the clothes is not enough, it is a reminder of simplicity as much as it is a public witness. It seems to me that once one adopts wearing blacks *at least as a seminarian) one should also eliminate much of one’s wardrobe. Outside of underclothes, workout clothes, and a few casual shirts: Own the shirt on your back, one to three that are clean or being laundered, one more dressy shirt, 2 or 3 pairs of pants, and maybe a cassock if you really have need of one and it isnt just vanity.

I think we younger guys get all exited because blacks seem really cool to us, and that is a huge reason I think some bishops dont want us vainly parading around in them acting like somthing we are not, on the other hand the philosophy for why bishops who have their theologians wear them do that is to get the guys used to the idea that they represent somthing 100% of the time they have that collar on and need to behave accordingly. Again, it depends on the philosophy of the bishop and the needs of the local Church.

 

[ragingbull4891]

I was wondering a question on these same lines too. I am going to be entering seminary soon and I wanted to know if they wore the collar outside of the seminary or just in the seminary when doing official stuff. I would be honored to be able to wear it all the time but I understand that could be a trifle confusing and I am also not a priest (yet). It is interesting when I attend the seminary to see so many young and older men alike wearing the collar. I think it says something about the intentions and desires of that person wearing it. I will always see it as a sign of someone’s total devotion to Christ and to the Church.

 

[Joannm]

I think it is rather odd that seminarians, who are lay people, are allowed to wear clerical clothes and collar, and deacons, who are ordained, in most dioceses are not.

 

[PA650]

In practicality it depends on your dioscese and seminary.

For example, my Archdiocese (Seattle) allows the Theologians to wear blacks (But I dont think they can do cassocks unless it is liturgical, but I am unsure about that) while at their schools and only if their schools have that as the uniform (eg. Mt Angel guys waer blacks, Mundelein guys dont, and I have no clue about St Pat’s or St John’s in California but my suspicion is that they do not). Our theologians do not wear clerics while in the Archdiocese unless they are deacons.

By contrast, in Spokane (where I go to school). The Seminarians wear clerics at least when they are doing active ministry or somthing official (parish work, or events in which they are there as semianrians) as soon as they are accepted into Theology.

It just depends on the Bishop and what he wants, as he is in charge and knows the culture or specific situations in the diocese.

My personal thing with clerics is that owning the clothes is not enough, it is a reminder of simplicity as much as it is a public witness. It seems to me that once one adopts wearing blacks at least as a seminarian) one should also eliminate much of one’s wardrobe. Outside of underclothes, workout clothes, and a few casual shirts: Own the shirt on your back, one to three that are clean or being laundered, one more dressy shirt, 2 or 3 pairs of pants, and maybe* a cassock if you really have need of one and it isnt just vanity.**

I think we younger guys get all exited because blacks seem really cool to us, and that is a huge reason I think some bishops dont want us vainly parading around in them acting like somthing we are not, on the other hand the philosophy for why bishops who have their theologians wear them do that is to get the guys used to the idea that they represent somthing 100% of the time they have that collar on and need to behave accordingly. Again, it depends on the philosophy of the bishop and the needs of the local Church.

I thank you very much for your opinion on this matter, but a particular statement of yours caught my attention. I am quite bewildered that you stated a seminarian wearing a cassock could be a sign of vanity since in regard to priestly attire it’s the norm or default for the Latin Church, as Fr. Z noted on his blog site (link found below). In addition, albeit the clerical suit has very much become the standard attire for seminarians and priests in the United States due to prior legislation and now longstanding custom, the cassock is very much in use in such countries as Poland on and off church property, and not specifically vain attire.

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/quaeritur-the-obligation-of-priests-to-dress-as-priests-in-public/

 

[whm]

I think it is rather odd that seminarians, who are lay people, are allowed to wear clerical clothes and collar, and deacons, who are ordained, in most dioceses are not.

This too is up to the local bishop/diocese. It St. Louis, permanent deacons are allowed but not required to wear their clerics when they are performing ministerial duties. They are expressly forbidden to wear clerics to their secular jobs.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I think it is rather odd that seminarians, who are lay people, are allowed to wear clerical clothes and collar, and deacons, who are ordained, in most dioceses are not.

Agree with you 1,000%. Wish the bishops would get the word that ordained ministers working in an official capacity should look like the clergy they are.

 

[AndrewRaZ]

I am quite bewildered that you stated a seminarian wearing a cassock could be a sign of vanity since in regard to priestly attire it’s the norm or default for the Latin Church

It’s the “norm” in the Latin rite, but it is not common in much of the world today. I think what the poster meant by “vanity” is that someone can easily get a cassock in order to appear more pious and holy than those who are “just” wearing the clerical blacks that are common. That is showing off, plain and simple. Cassocks aren’t vanity in themselves, but when the intention to choose the cassock over other more common clerical garb is based on a desire to appear to others as something other than what he is, then it is vain.

The Diocese of Kalamazoo, where I am from, and all the dioceses I know of here at Sacred Heart in Detroit all seem to use the same practice of wearing the clerical blacks and roman collars starting in Theology I for official seminary functions (most masses, classes, formation meetings, formal dinners, etc). I think they wear them when they do their ministry work too, but don’t quote me on that. They are forbidden from wearing clerical garb outside those times. Deacons are expected to be in clerical garb any time they are appearing as a deacon. During personal time, they are free to dress casually, if they choose. Pretty much the same as priests. 95% of the time I see our deacons, they are wearing their collars.

 

[AndrewRaZ]

I forgot to mention, we have three seminarians (one is a Deacon) in Rome at the Pontifical College of North America. From what I have seen, they seem to wear their clerics whenever they are in public, no matter what they are doing.

So it runs the gamut. I think most seminaries these days require clerics at some point during Theology, but not college.

 

[PA650]

It’s the “norm” in the Latin rite, but it is not common in much of the world today. I think what the poster meant by “vanity” is that someone can easily get a cassock in order to appear more pious and holy than those who are “just” wearing the clerical blacks that are common. That is showing off, plain and simple. Cassocks aren’t vanity in themselves, but when the intention to choose the cassock over other more common clerical garb is based on a desire to appear to others as something other than what he is, then it is vain.

The Diocese of Kalamazoo, where I am from, and all the dioceses I know of here at Sacred Heart in Detroit all seem to use the same practice of wearing the clerical blacks and roman collars starting in Theology I for official seminary functions (most masses, classes, formation meetings, formal dinners, etc). I think they wear them when they do their ministry work too, but don’t quote me on that. They are forbidden from wearing clerical garb outside those times. Deacons are expected to be in clerical garb any time they are appearing as a deacon. During personal time, they are free to dress casually, if they choose. Pretty much the same as priests. 95% of the time I see our deacons, they are wearing their collars.

The particular viewpoint you stated can certainly be valid in specific instances. On the other hand, I interpret the resurgence of the cassock among diocesan seminarians as embracing the traditions of the Church regarding clerical attire. Moreover, I find it a travesty that a simple seminarian possessing a cassock could be labeled as “holier than thou.” In addition, a simple internet search of the main seminaries throughout the United States illustrates a number of seminarians in cassocks and others in the standard clerical suit. Overall, I was just a little bewildered by that statement regarding cassocks and desired clarification and not particularly interested in directing this thread on to another topic.

 

[AndrewRaZ]

I agree, it is a travesty. I could post pages, but I don’t want to derail us. God bless.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Moreover, I find it a travesty that a simple seminarian possessing a cassock could be labeled as “holier than thou.”

I agree, it is a travesty. I could post pages, but I don’t want to derail us. God bless.

Not to derail us I will just say this.

I have seen this attitude with the use of the habit (and more limitedly clerics) within my religious community.

But I have also seen the opposite, those who refuse to wear clerics or the habit because they don’t want to look different than lay people, that they want to be their equals.

 

[ciero]

It’s the “norm” in the Latin rite, but it is not common in much of the world today. I think what the poster meant by “vanity” is that someone can easily get a cassock in order to appear more pious and holy than those who are “just” wearing the clerical blacks that are common. That is showing off, plain and simple. Cassocks aren’t vanity in themselves, but when the intention to choose the cassock over other more common clerical garb is based on a desire to appear to others as something other than what he is, then it is vain.

The Diocese of Kalamazoo, where I am from, and all the dioceses I know of here at Sacred Heart in Detroit all seem to use the same practice of wearing the clerical blacks and roman collars starting in Theology I for official seminary functions (most masses, classes, formation meetings, formal dinners, etc). I think they wear them when they do their ministry work too, but don’t quote me on that. They are forbidden from wearing clerical garb outside those times. Deacons are expected to be in clerical garb any time they are appearing as a deacon. During personal time, they are free to dress casually, if they choose. Pretty much the same as priests. 95% of the time I see our deacons, they are wearing their collars.

What is this appearing as a deacon? Either you are a deacon or not. One does NOT appear as a deacon. You are ordained a deacon. The deaconate isn’t put on and off like a set if clothes.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What is this appearing as a deacon? Either you are a deacon or not. One does NOT appear as a deacon. You are ordained a deacon. The deaconate isn’t put on and off like a set if clothes.

I believe that by “appearing as a deacon” he means function as a deacon or working in a ministry.

Also it is diaconate.

 

[ciero]

I believe that by “appearing as a deacon” he means function as a deacon or working in a ministry.

Also it is diaconate.

My point is one is deacon at all times. Even when your not “functioning” you are still a deacon.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

My point is one is deacon at all times. Even when your not “functioning” you are still a deacon.

Yes, but as permanent deacons usually have secular jobs, they are not functioning as a deacon there and so they should not be wearing clerics there, they should be wearing the cloths that are appropraite for their secular position.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

What is this appearing as a deacon? Either you are a deacon or not. One does NOT appear as a deacon. You are ordained a deacon. The deaconate isn’t put on and off like a set if clothes.

A deacon is a deacon 24/7, but there’s a big difference between a deacon’s taking his wife to the movies, and officiating at a wake service. The collar is appropriate in one, but not both, of those settings. Sadly, from the posts here, many deacons seem to be prohibited from wearing the collar even in specific ministerial settings.

 

[AndrewRaZ]

What is this appearing as a deacon? Either you are a deacon or not. One does NOT appear as a deacon. You are ordained a deacon. The deaconate isn’t put on and off like a set if clothes.

Yes, but as permanent deacons usually have secular jobs, they are not functioning as a deacon there and so they should not be wearing clerics there, they should be wearing the cloths that are appropraite for their secular position.

A deacon is a deacon 24/7, but there’s a big difference between a deacon’s taking his wife to the movies, and officiating at a wake service. The collar is appropriate in one, but not both, of those settings. Sadly, from the posts here, many deacons seem to be prohibited from wearing the collar even in specific ministerial settings.

Certainly one is a cleric or not. The collar doesn’t really come off, you are right. As someone mentioned, I was referring to appearing in public in the role of the minister. I have known priests who were willing to give advice not as a priest, but as men. That doesn’t mean they were not priests, but he was giving general human advice, separate from the office of the priest.

Clergy are not required, to my knowledge, to wear their clerics outside their ministerial roles. It is “highly recommended,” however. I know I’m sounding like a know-it-all, but really I know nothing.