www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Who is entitled to wear vestments?

Friends:

I know the majority of you are Eastern Catholics, but there are a few Western Traditional Catholic here to. So I have a question for my Western Brothers and Sisters.

I attend a very conservative parish which has no Eucharistic Ministers, a Communion Rail, and offers a High Latin Novus Ordo Mass. Here is my question, who is entitled to wear the Dalmatic and Biretta? I know the Dalmatic is the vestment of the Deacon, and the Biretta can be worn by all clerics. I ask because I was at Sunday Mass, and the Sacristan was vested in the Dalmatic and Biretta. In no way did he fuction as the Deacon of the Mass. All he did was assist the Altar boys, and served as the Lector. See everybody on the altar is always in choir dress of cassock and surplice including the Lectors , and Schola. But at other times, I have seen this same gentleman wear a different vestment that previously I had seen a Monsignor wear. Except this was black, and the Monsignor's was purple. I know he is not ordained, but could be studying for the deaconate.

Byzantine Learner:

Glory be to Jesus Christ!! Glory be to Him forever and ever!!!

I'll take a stab, though without actually seeing what you are seeing, I'm at a disadvantage.

A cassock is the normal garb of a man in the clerical state. It has been a long-standing custom, however, to have anyone serving during liturgical or paraliturgical functions to wear it under a surplice. A cassock is not a vestment. It is analagous to a businessman's suit or a military uniform: it's street and church clothing that tells someone else who or what the person is committed to. Black is the normal color for most clerics. A red-purple is a bishop's cassock and certain priests given the title monsignor also may wear it on certain occasions. You tell the bishop from the monsignor by the zuchetto he wears on his head. Cardinals wear red; the Holy Father, white.

A surplice is a shortened version of the alb or sticharion which is worn on many occasions. Most priests today simply wear their alb and thereby don't have to wear two items: cassock and surplice.

A biretta is simply clerical headgear, similar to the round version worn by Byzantine clerics. I'm not sure at what point a man would be allowed to wear a biretta, but if memory serves me, it is traditionally (pre-Vatican II) worn only after ordination to the subdiaconate (which has been suppressed in the Latin Church). I haven't seen many birettas on clerics lower than a bishop for many years. Altar servers don't wear birettas.

A dalmatic is worn only by a deacon, ordained to that order, and only at the Liturgy or at other solemn functions. It is also worn only over an amice, alb, cincture, and stole. So if this gentleman is wandering around with a dalmatic on but with nothing else during the Liturgy, I would wonder what is going on. But not having been there, I can't tell you for sure. Lectors do not wear the dalmatic and those vested with the dalmatic read only the Gospel since they are deacons and in major orders.

You say that this is a strictly conservative parish, but it sounds like a strange mixture of traditonal and new combined together. Most of the time in a parish using the Vatican II liturgy, you won't find cassocks, surplices, or birettas. You certainly won't find someone given freedom to wear a vestment he has not been invested in as a sign of the office to which he has been ordained. The Catholic Church is as strict as the Orthodox Church or any of the Apostolic churches in that regard. Are you sure that this is a regular Catholic church and not one separated from it?

Short answer to your original question: men who are ordained to a specific office are entitled to wear the vestment they are invested with at their ordination. Cassock and surplice are not considered vestments, per se, and anyone serving in the absence of a cleric may wear them. If you're not an ordained deacon, you don't wear a dalmatic.

In Christ,

BOB

Is it possible that it was not a dalmatic but a tunicle? Since you said that he was acting as a lector (since it was a "High Latin Novus Ordo Mass" I assume he was chanting?) was it possible that he was acting almost like a subdeacon?

This is still illegal...just adding a thought
.....

CS:

I haven't seen a tunicle since the late 1960s when my parish burned them all as the order of subdeacon was suppressed. But that's a good point. Was there one bar across the back or two?

Proper vesture, though, still would require amice, alb, and cincture underneath. No one wears either of these without the others underneath.

In Christ,

BOB

My first thought was that it was a tunicle--but you're right, either way it is still wrong unless he's been ordained.

Just a point on semantics--a dalmatic is not a deacon's vestment, it is the bishop's vestment, the use of which in the West has been extended to the deacon on most occasions. In the East, only the bishop wears the dalmatic (sakkos). This is why it is such a tragedy that so few bishops wear the pontifical dalmatic anymore, even when ordaining. Then again, few deacons wear the dalmatic either...

Justin

I know the vestment was a dalmatic because it matched the dalmatic that was worn by the Deacon of the Altar. Both he and the Deacon were vested in the alb, cinture, and dalmatic. I know he worn no stole, but I could see the Deacon's. the priest worn the alb, chastable,cincinture, and stole underneath. The altar boys and Schola were only in choir dress- cassock and surplice

Please describe what a tunicle would look like. And since the Subdeacon was abolished by Vatican 2, could he been that, and wearing the tunicle legally?

Actually, if he was acting in place of a subdeacon, he could wear a tunicle (in actual pratice they are often identical to the dalmatic), but without the maniple. Even in the old days it would have been permitted, although he would not have been allowed to hold the paten and certain other rituals. Don

Bless, Father Don!

But isn't all this just about fancy names for an underlying coverup?

Alex

Thanks Fr. Don!!

Well, I know he was not wearing a maniple. So it must have been a tunicle, and I just thought it was a Dalamatic.

Question for Fr. Don: Since the minor orders of subdeacon were abolished at Vatican 2, then would he be permitted to wear the Tunicle? I know this gentleman is the parish Sacristan, and on other occasions he is just vested in Choir Dress

Not being an expert in the Roman Liturgy, I'll confine my response to Byzantine practice. In theory, one is only entitled to wear the vestments of the hierarchal rank to which one has been most recently ordained (so, for instance, a priest may not vest as a deacon, even though he was a deacon previously). However, between theory and practice there is sometimes a difference.
It is common even for the stricter Local Churches to tolerate the practice of laymen vesting as subdeacons if they are to serve the bishop. It is virtually universal to tolerate the practice of men and boys vesting as acolytes in the sticharion.
The Sakkos is a relatively late arrival in the Byzantine vestment wardrobe, and is still only worn by Bishops. But one may also still find the occasional Bishop wearing the Phelonion (which is the older practice) and the Omophorion over the Phelonion. This is prescribed if the Bishop is to serve the Liturgy of Saint James.
Incognitus

While thinking about this last night I actually thought the same thing in regard to the suppression of the subdiaconate and the lawful use of tunicle. I guess as long as he doesn't hold the paten during the Canon...

Two things.

1) The subdiaconate was never abolished but rather suppressed. Any Pope could reintroduce the order if he deemed such an action necessary.

2) The subdiaconate was not suppressed by Vatican II but rather Pope Paul VI (along with the minor orders, which are now just instituted ministries).

Just thought it'd be worth mentioning.

--Mark

Most of what has been stated here is correct. A layman may wear the tunicle (similar to the dalmatic but shorter and unsually with one bar across the back). However, this is only when he is required to stand in for an absent subdeacon at Solemn Mass. It is therefore never appropriate at a Novus Ordo--the ritual does not call for subdeacons. It does appear that the sacristan in question was committing an abuse. This is especially true if he were wearing the dalmatic.

When a layman stands in as subdeacon, he is not permitted to perform all the functions of a true subdeacon--e.g. functions related to handling the chalice, pouring the water at the Offertory, etc. He IS required to hold the paten in the humeral veil, however. Under his tunicle he wears an amice, alb, cincture, and maniple (on the left arm). No stole.

LatinTrad

Pope Paul IV suppressed minor orders for the Roman Rite (i.e a man no longer becomes a cleric by being blesssed to be a lector or acolyte, he attains clerical status upon being ordained a deacon) and replaced them with the ministries of lector and acolyte but at the same time gave Episcopal Conferences the option of calling the ministers of altar service subdeacons rather than acolytes.

Ministeria Quaedam-Apostolic letter suppressing minor orders
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/inde...ts/Index/2/SubIndex/40/DocumentIndex/389

Tridentine Use societies, seminaries, (and I assume also parishes) may ordain men to the traditonal Roman minor orders tonsure, porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon.

However, current liturgical law states one is not to wear vestments of an order to which he is not ordained. So in any case I think a layman vesting as a subdeacon is now forbidden, regardless of what previous practice was. Anyone can wear the alb/sticharion because it is nothing more than the baptismal robe.

In Christ,
Fr. Deacon Lance

Bless, Father Deacon Lance!

What do you say about the view that, at one time, even laity wore a white robe (their baptismal robe) to church and this is the first vestment the priest puts on etc.?

Alex