Clergy wearing Zuchetto? Should it return?

Whats peoples views on Clergy other than Bishop wearing a Zuchetto? Black Zuchetto are allowed for Clerics (Priest/Deacons) but the tradition has seemed to have died out except for the occsion recently of Cannonisation…

Talk to me peeps!

It wouldn’t match with the civilian cloths he wears.

Since in our diocese deacons are forbidden from wearing the collar, the thought that a deacon might be distinguishable by the wearing of a zuchetto is kind of interesting. Of course, he’d have to be prepared for some funny looks if he went to the supermarket and checked out with a pound of bacon . . . .

The history of the zucchetto.

I totally think it should return.

I agree, bring it back on if its worn with clerical gear, cause the mistake for a Jewish person could cause a problem!

Anyone can wear a zuchetto – just not during the Mass. Priests and deacons are free to wear them outside of the Mass. I’m not sure they were EVER allowed to wear them during Mass except perhaps in choir or as a purely functional head warmer.

funny, shalom father?

:smiley: That’s cute Fr. Corey! :thumbsup:

The wearing of the black zucchetto by clergy went out of vogue long before Vatican II and I really have no need to see them return. We might as well bring back tricorn hats as bring back those.

All priests are permitted to wear the zucchetto. However, its use is entirely optional. It can be worn with choir, pian and daily dress. For all priests it’s made of black silk and lined depending on ecclesiastical rank: for Prelate Superiors of the dicasteries of the Holy See and for Protonotaries Apostolic supra numerum lined in amaranth red silk; for Prelates of Honour of His Holiness and Chaplains of His Holiness lined in purple silk; for all other priests lined in black silk. All this is laid down in Per instructionem a circular letter of the Congregation for the Clergy issued 30th October 1970.

thanks, most people don’t know the difference between the hats.
I think the zuchetto and keppi have a different number of sections to them. wierd thou because a knitted jewish keppi would not have visible panels. but a zuchetto would. I think mine has 4. also in catholicism the colors show level in the church. black for priests, and the pope wears white.

Is this the “tricorn hat” you are referring to?

It’s called a biretta, and personally, I think they should be brought back too … :smiley:

Per Instructionem dealt with the dress of Canons and Benefice holders - were you perhaps thinking of Ut Sive Sollicite? In any case, the use of skullcaps is not specified there for the lower ranks - it’s not addressed, and so by default, they can use what they were previously entitled to.

I am not completely sure if the poster was referring to what I’m about to type, but:

A tricorne hat was the hat in vogue before the French style of the hat took over. The French style is shown below:

And has become the de facto style for the Papal hat, as well as the hats of bishops and cardinals. However, prior to the latter half of the 19th century, the style of hat used was a tricorne as seen in this picture:

Unfortunately, I cannot get a link tot he exact page, but go down until No. 9 “Cardinal en habit de ville” to see the type of hat.

I think you’ll find that being ordained a deacon gives a man the RIGHT in Canon Law to wear clerical dress including a Roman collar, and that it is not within a bishop’s power to “forbid” a deacon from doing so, if he is a cleric in good standing.

In away both Ut sive sollicite and Per instructionem are relevant. The former document document laid down changes for cardinals, bishops, and lesser prelates. The latter one first sets out to apply the principles of Ut sive sollicite. Per instructionem applies to canons, beneficiaries, and pastors, and by explicit extension to all other ranks of ecclesiastics. Of course, neither document sets out to provide a schemata of the forms of dress for all secular clergy but rather amended the pre-existing paradigms. A more systematic list of clerical dress can be found in Appendix I of Cæremoniale Episcoporum although this still doesn’t go below the rank of canon. All documents presume the sartorial customs of the Roman Church. In addition, each episcopal conference is allowed to establish norms of ecclesiastical dress for its own territory.

I think you’ll find that being ordained a deacon gives a man the RIGHT in Canon Law to wear clerical dress including a Roman collar, and that it is not within a bishop’s power to “forbid” a deacon from doing so, if he is a cleric in good standing.

Wouldn’t this apply to permanent deacons? It seems standard practice that they don’t wear clerical dress on a day-to-day basis.

Yes, they don’t **have **to wear it, and probably most of them don’t usually wear it. I merely stated that they have the right to wear it at any time if they choose to do so.

I don’t think it’s a case of not choosing to wear it but that they are prohibited from wearing it usually in accordance with rules issued by their episcopal conference. What would give them the right to wear it?

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