Dalmatics For Concelebrants

[NonNovi]

We have a funeral tomorrow with 2 concelebrants. I have seen an instruction that allowed concelebrants to wear dalmatics instead of chasubles when you use a complete set of nice old vestments. We have a very nice black set, but the problem is that I can't find where I read that it is allowed... So, am I making things up or is this really allowed (and if so, where is the proof?)?

 

I know the general instructions for Mass say that concelebrants should wear what they would wear for an individual Mass. But I have 2 priests who are with me on this, but also don't seem to find where it is written...

[cappie]

From the Caeremoniale Episcoporum:

 

    “22. Presbyteri, qui celebrationes episcopales participant, id solum quod ad presbyteros spectat agant; (SC n. 28) absentibus vero diaconis, aliqua diaconorum ministeria suppeant, numquam tamen vestibus diaconalibus induti.”  … “Let priests taking part in a celebrations by bishops, do only that which pertains to priests; but if deacons are absent, they may fill in some of the ministries of deacons, but never dressed in diaconal vestments.”

 

The Ceremonial of Bishops does not allow a priest ever to vest as a deacon when the bishop is celebrant.  It doesn’t say that they can’t do that when a priest is celebrating, though it seems to be implied.  It does, however, allow a bishop to dress as a deacon, for a bishop may wear the dalmatic beneath his chasuble.   Furthermore, in the papal ceremonies, bishops, indeed cardinals who are consecrated bishops of the order in the College of Cardinal Deacon, dress in the dalmatic and accompany the Roman Pontiff quite often.

 

#337 and # 338 of the GIRM (at least in the version published in Australia) reads as follows:

 

    337. The vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other sacred actions

    directly connected with Mass is, unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn

    over the alb and stole.

 

    338. The vestment proper to the deacon is the dalmatic, worn over the alb and

    stole. The dalmatic may, however, be omitted out of necessity or on account of

    a lesser degree of solemnity.

 

Now 337 only refers to “the priest celebrant” so presumably the priest who is not a celebrant (or concelebrant) is not covered by #338. Thus if he is acting as a deacon (presuming the Caeremoniale is not relevant and no bishops are about) since he still is presumably a deacon #338 would be relevant. I do not think #119 says anything that would preclude this.

 

I would say that if  a priest were to act as a deacon then he would not be a concelebrant