Can Deacons wear priestly chasubles during mass?

I was visiting my Dad a few weeks ago and noticed something at mass.

It appeared there were two priests because the two celebrants were wearing the same green chasuble. Later on though I found out that one of the celebrants was the parish’s deacon.

I guess I’m kind of used to seeing deacons wear a white vestment with a stole going diagonally down his chest.

Am I just a sheltered individual for not seeing this before?

I’ve never seen it before and I think of myself as a “get out a lot” type of person. Maybe I only* think* I get out a lot and really don’t. :hmmm:Now I definitely have something to ponder on.

No. A deacon may not where the chasuble.

The chasuble is the eucharistic vestment of the priest. The chasuble is a sleeveless garment. If you saw the deacon wearing a garment that had sleeves (and it may have matched the celebrant’s chasuble…they come in sets sometimes), it was a dalmatic, which is the eucharistic vestment for deacons.

Adam

[quote=tikiboy]I was visiting my Dad a few weeks ago and noticed something at mass.

It appeared there were two priests because the two celebrants were wearing the same green chasuble. Later on though I found out that one of the celebrants was the parish’s deacon.

I guess I’m kind of used to seeing deacons wear a white vestment with a stole going diagonally down his chest.

Am I just a sheltered individual for not seeing this before?
[/quote]

Rome has recently indicated that the option of deacons not wearing the dalmatic should not be exercised. As a result, more and more deacons are now wearing them. About six months ago I bought three of them, and I’m getting ready to go buy an advent dalmatic.

When I started wearing them I did do a little teaching in my homily to make sure that people knew what I was wearing and why.

Deacon Ed

Here is a dalmatic

This is the proper vestment for a deacon serving Mass.

As Deacon Ed noted, the recent GIRM highly encourages deacons to wear the dalmatic, and not just the alb and stole.

There are, of course, exceptions, such as in the case of heat or if the parish or deacon cannot afford one. But generally, if the priest is wearing the chasuble, the deacon should be wearing the dalmatic.

The vestment itself is very similar to the chasulble, except that it has loose sleves.

[quote=tikiboy]I was visiting my Dad a few weeks ago and noticed something at mass.

It appeared there were two priests because the two celebrants were wearing the same green chasuble. Later on though I found out that one of the celebrants was the parish’s deacon.

I guess I’m kind of used to seeing deacons wear a white vestment with a stole going diagonally down his chest.

Am I just a sheltered individual for not seeing this before?
[/quote]

It was a Dalmatic you saw – the proper Eucharistic vestment for Deacons.

Perhaps one reason why you have not seem them before is that transitional deacons (deacons on their way to becoming priests) would probably not go to the expense of purchasing something they would use only for a short time.

I think there is a reason why it is confusing to see deacons wearing the Dalmatic. It has to do with the style of chasuble that seems to be popular with priests today.

These chasubles are rather robe-like and hang over the shoulders and extend down to the forearms. They may technically be sleeveless but from a distance you wouldn’t know. Currently only one of our deacons has a Dalmatic, and only for ordinary time. When he and our priest are side by side at the altar I have a very difficult time telling the difference in the type of vestment.

It is only when the deacon’s or priest’s arms are raised that I can see that one garment has actual sleeves and the other doesn’t.

Thanks for the replies!!

The picture that Brendan posted of the dalmatic
does indeed look like what the deacon was wearing.

Thanks for clearing it up.

Yeah there is a slight difference…technically the dalmatic has “sleeves” in that the cloth actually connects whereas the chasuble is an "overcoat and simply lays over the shoulders.

[quote=Deacon Ed]Rome has recently indicated that the option of deacons not wearing the dalmatic should not be exercised. As a result, more and more deacons are now wearing them. About six months ago I bought three of them, and I’m getting ready to go buy an advent dalmatic.

When I started wearing them I did do a little teaching in my homily to make sure that people knew what I was wearing and why.

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

Deacon Ed,

Our bishop allows permanent deacons to wear the dalmatic only on special ocassions, such as Solemnities and Feasts particular to our diocese/parish.

Our newly-assigned P.D. stated in the bulletin that deacons should “dress down” during the liturgy, because they represent the “People of God” during Mass. This seems to be against what I’ve always understood the role of the deacon to be.

Do other dioceses make the same distinction between permanent and transitional deacons that our bishop does?

Muledog:

Our bishop allows permanent deacons to wear the dalmatic only on special ocassions, such as Solemnities and Feasts particular to our diocese/parish.

Our newly-assigned P.D. stated in the bulletin that deacons should “dress down” during the liturgy, because they represent the “People of God” during Mass. This seems to be against what I’ve always understood the role of the deacon to be.

Do other dioceses make the same distinction between permanent and transitional deacons that our bishop does?

This is ridiculous, on so many fronts I don’t know where to begin.
[list]
*]First of all, a bishop cannot forbid a deacon to wear proper liturgical attire, which the dalmatic is.
*]Second - the deacon doesn’t “represent the people of God.” The deacon is a sacred minister, not a member of the laity. His “dressing down” comment is ludicrous.
*]Many people misunderstand the fact that there is no distinction between so called “transitional” and “permanent” deacons. Those terms are useful in describing whether a man is going to be promoted to further orders - but in essence, there is but one diaconate, period.
[/list] Oh, and a previous poster mentioned that the GIRM recommends wearing the dalmatic. Actually that is not quite right, it is Redemptionis Sacramentum that says in order to preserve the Church’s beautiful history, deacons should refrain from the option of not wearing the dalmatic. Not only is it an option to wear it whenever the deacon cares to, but it is now further suggested to NOT omit it, regardless.

Deacons are constantly barraged by silliness from all sides, but this “dressing down” nonsense is one for the diary.

God bless you all,

[quote=tikiboy]Thanks for the replies!!

The picture that Brendan posted of the dalmatic
does indeed look like what the deacon was wearing.

Thanks for clearing it up.
[/quote]

Now that everything is all cleared up let me confuse things for you. In the primitive Church all of the sacred ministers wore the chasuble. The chasubles in those days were conical shaped and hard to manoevre in. As a result, when the dalmatic came in (from Dalmatia of course) the deacons, who did most of the work in the ancient liturgy, began to wear them instead of the chasuble because the sleeves left their arms more free. But traditionalism existed in ancient times too. Thus a lot of people were unhappy with this and wanted a return to the chasuble. Evidently a compromise was reached. The deacons could wear dalmatics except on certain more solemn occasions (e.g. Advent and Lent) when they had to wear the chasuble. This they did but rather grudgingly it would seem as they folded the vestment up the front so they could still move their arms freely. Then, at the gospel, they took it off, folded it sideways and wore it over their left shoulder with the ends tied below their waist on the right side not unlike a deacon’s stole. In fact, over time a separate vestment was made that looked like foot wide deacon’s stole. It became known as the “broad stole” although it was worn over the deacon’s stole and was technically a chasuble. Similarly, chasubles were made with the fronts folded up and sewn that way to be worn by the deacons (and subdeacons), at High Mass. The subdeacon simply removed his folded chasuble while he chanted the Epistle and then put it back on. The deacon removed his folded chasuble before chanting the gospel but instead of folding it sideways like a stole as before he simply put on the “broad stole” which he wore until after Communion. Then he switched back to the folded chasuble.This arrangement only happened on days when the vestments were violet with the exception of Good Friday when black was worn.

You may be surprised to know that this arrangement remained in force until the Missal of 1962 with the exception of Holy Week which had been changed in the mid 1950’s.

[quote=Diaconia] Our bishop allows permanent deacons to wear the dalmatic only on special ocassions, such as Solemnities and Feasts particular to our diocese/parish.

[/quote]

Where to these people come up with this wierd theology?

I thought dioceses that forbid the ‘permanent’ deacon from wearing clerics, or from being referred to as “Rev. Mr.” was bad.

But to forbid the wearing of the dalmatic??

Do other dioceses make the same distinction between permanent and transitional deacons that our bishop does?

Many do, mostly on either coast. I’m surprized to hear of a Nebraska diocese doing the same.

.
[list]
*]First of all, a bishop cannot forbid a deacon to wear proper liturgical attire, which the dalmatic is.
*]Second - the deacon doesn’t “represent the people of God.” The deacon is a sacred minister, not a member of the laity. His “dressing down” comment is ludicrous.
*]Many people misunderstand the fact that there is no distinction between so called “transitional” and “permanent” deacons. Those terms are useful in describing whether a man is going to be promoted to further orders - but in essence, there is but one diaconate, period.
[/list]

:amen:

Deacons are constantly barraged by silliness from all sides, but this “dressing down” nonsense is one for the diary.

God bless you all,

No kidding. It’s not like the Church lost the Permanent Diaconate, it’s always had it. Why can’t a bishop just pick up a phone and ask a Eastern bishop how to treat a deacon. They have 2,000 years of history there, why not leverage it?

[quote=muledog]Deacon Ed,

Our bishop allows permanent deacons to wear the dalmatic only on special ocassions, such as Solemnities and Feasts particular to our diocese/parish.

Our newly-assigned P.D. stated in the bulletin that deacons should “dress down” during the liturgy, because they represent the “People of God” during Mass. This seems to be against what I’ve always understood the role of the deacon to be.

Do other dioceses make the same distinction between permanent and transitional deacons that our bishop does?
[/quote]

Our bishop loans dalmatics to his deacons that match his vestments. This is done on special occasions. The rest of the time, it has become somewhat of a tradition not to wear the dalmatic except on special occasions. I have never heard anyone told that they could not wear one. We have many days of 100 plus weather here and the expense of having more than one has probably something to do with it.

Deacon Tony

[quote=Brendan]Where to these people come up with this wierd theology?

I thought dioceses that forbid the ‘permanent’ deacon from wearing clerics, or from being referred to as “Rev. Mr.” was bad.

But to forbid the wearing of the dalmatic??

Many do, mostly on either coast. I’m surprized to hear of a Nebraska diocese doing the same.

:amen:

No kidding. It’s not like the Church lost the Permanent Diaconate, it’s always had it. Why can’t a bishop just pick up a phone and ask a Eastern bishop how to treat a deacon. They have 2,000 years of history there, why not leverage it?
[/quote]

Brendan: I was actually quoting another poster. It’s not here in the archdiocese of Omaha, but rather in Muledog’s diocese.

I wear a dalmatic all the time.

And use the honorific “Rev. Mr.” regularly, for that matter.

We are ordaining our largest class ever of deacons on November 5th - 17 of them! Last year, when I was ordained we had 9, and each year we usually have 6-8 ordained. Pray for these men as they assume Sacred Orders.

Peace to you all,

[quote=Diaconia]Brendan: I was actually quoting another poster. It’s not here in the archdiocese of Omaha, but rather in Muledog’s diocese.

I wear a dalmatic all the time.

And use the honorific “Rev. Mr.” regularly, for that matter.

[/quote]

Wheew!

Yep, you’re right, I quoted incorrectly. I’m glad some of that left coast wierdness hasn’t infiltrated Ohmaha. I had otherwise heard good things about Archbishop Curtis, so I am much relieved to hear your response.

quote]

We are ordaining our largest class ever of deacons on November 5th - 17 of them! Last year, when I was ordained we had 9, and each year we usually have 6-8 ordained. Pray for these men as they assume Sacred Orders.

Peace to you all,

Fantastic. There are 16 men in my class, which is about average for Detroit

(although there were only 4 Ordained in this years class. One was Alex Jones though, the former Pentecostal Minister who converted, and brought half his congregation along with him. )

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.