Altar Girls in Cassock/Surplice

[Big_Feet]

Do you have any pics you would be willing to share? You could crop out the faces.

not currently, but I guess I can get some after this coming weekend…I’ll take some pics and PM you if you would like? Or would others like to see what I am speaking of?

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Let’s break this down. First a cassock is not a “vestment” it is (or was) everyday garb for priests. A surplice (particularly the waist-high cotta commonly worn by servers in the past) is a far less formal substitute for the alb. While the cassock/surplice was commonly worn in the past it’s by no means more formal or even more appropriate than an alb.

At some point the Church began to allow laypersons to wear albs when assisting at the Mass. This came about for a huge number of reasons, not all of which were good. Probably the principal one was because the alb is the garment of our baptisms. It took took a long time to allow the wearing of albs because I suspect (depending on the person and the alb) that it can lead to confusion over who is ordained and who is not.

Personally I think albs look a great deal better. Young servers can look just fine in cottas and cassocks but I think adults who wear them can tend to look like posers.

Cassock and surplice isn’t as formal, but it doesn’t always make sense to wear something of highest formality.

A priest in a liturgical function wears sometimes cassock/surplice/stole or alb/stole, either with cope sometimes, and for mass puts on alb/stole/maniple/chasuble. Subdeacons wear tunicles, deacons wear dalmatics, though they also wore folded chasubles at other times.

Anyway, the point is that simple cassock and surplice, which is less formal, emphasizes that the clergy assisting were only assisting (or only in choir) and not serving as a celebrant or sacred minister.

I think albs are fine for servers, that’s custom in some places, but the less formal cassock/suprlice makes sense too.

Frankly none of it really makes sense for girls. Cassock/surplice is clerical, so it should be out.

Albs have become what clerics wear under tunics/dalmatics/chasubles. Yes it’s our baptismal garment, but to pretend that anyone actually wears it after baptism except for the ceremony itself is archeologism. Do the altar girls wear the alb before and after Mass too, since they are baptized? Of course not.

But if you have to have something, I suppose alb is best.

 

[TrueLight]

Replusive? Why don’t you answer the question I asked of the OP. If you are so repulsed, just buy the Church the vestments you want them to wear?

Why would he need to buy them because he doesn’t like them? A better idea would be to charitably present some options, if he has the ear of the priest.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Replusive? Why don’t you answer the question I asked of the OP. If you are so repulsed, just buy the Church the vestments you want them to wear?

I’ll let him answer if he wants, but in my own experience … why would I spend money to buy better attire for a parish when it’s most likely an ideological issue and the pastor (or the sacristan, or the council) want to do exactly what their doing anyway?

Perhaps he could offer anyway and see what they say, but unless I had money to spare I wouldn’t go ahead and buy first.

 

[Armyvet007]

If the garments in question are just for the clergy, then no one [boy or girl] who is not of the clergy or in training for it should be wearing them.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

If the garments in question are just for the clergy, then no one [boy or girl] who is not of the clergy or in training for it should be wearing them.

This is key. Serving at the altar has always been seen as the first step towards discerning vocations for the clergy. So, in a sense, altar servers are training for clergy, which is an excellent reason why having girls as servers is not very prudent.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Why would he need to buy them because he doesn’t like them? A better idea would be to charitably present some options, if he has the ear of the priest.

The priest and I have lunch every now and then. This has been a new development since the last time we chatted. I plan on bringing it up with him at our next lunch and see what he says.

• PAX

 

[TrueLight]

The priest and I have lunch every now and then. This has been a new development since the last time we chatted. I plan on bringing it up with him at our next lunch and see what he says.

• PAX

Sounds like a great opportunity!

 

[Baelor]

This is key. Serving at the altar has always been seen as the first step towards discerning vocations for the clergy. So, in a sense, altar servers are training for clergy.

I do not like this. Altar servers have not determined that they are called to the priesthood, and are not in training for the clergy more than anyone who is developing skills related to the priesthood in any way.

 

[TrueLight]

I do not like this. Altar servers have not determined that they are called to the priesthood, and are not in training for the clergy more than anyone who is developing skills related to the priesthood in any way.

I know its hard to prove without any shadow of a doubt of causality when it comes to serving and vocations, but it makes sense that an altar server will at least think about the priesthood at some point.

If you’re a teacher’s assistant, you will think about the possibility of being a teacher.
If you’re a chef’s helper, you will think about being a Chef.
If you’re a seamstress, you will wonder if you could be a designer.

It’s just a natural thing.

It doesn’t mean that is your vocation, but it certainly opens your mind to opportunities.

 

[Armyvet007]

I do not like this. Altar servers have not determined that they are called to the priesthood, and are not in training for the clergy more than anyone who is developing skills related to the priesthood in any way.

Agreed.

 

[Armyvet007]

I know its hard to prove without any shadow of a doubt of causality when it comes to serving and vocations, but it makes sense that an altar server will at least think about the priesthood at some point.

If you’re a teacher’s assistant, you will think about the possibility of being a teacher.
If you’re a chef’s helper, you will think about being a Chef.
If you’re a seamstress, you will wonder if you could be a designer.

It’s just a natural thing.

It doesn’t mean that is your vocation, but it certainly opens your mind to opportunities.

Since most altar servers are children, your examples don’t really work. As for opening one’s mind to opportunities, it doesn’t matter. The main objection on this thread has been that the garments are clerical in nature. If so, then only clerics or those in active training for the clergy should be wearing them.

 

[Baelor]

I know its hard to prove without any shadow of a doubt of causality when it comes to serving and vocations, but it makes sense that an altar server will at least think about the priesthood at some point.

If you’re a teacher’s assistant, you will think about the possibility of being a teacher.
If you’re a chef’s helper, you will think about being a Chef.
If you’re a seamstress, you will wonder if you could be a designer.

It’s just a natural thing.

It doesn’t mean that is your vocation, but it certainly opens your mind to opportunities.

I am not addressing the causal connection between altar serving and becoming a priest. I am stating that altar servers are not officially training to become priests, so the statement that it is okay for males to wear clerical garb but not females because the young boys are basically in training is totally inaccurate.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

If the garments in question are just for the clergy, then no one [boy or girl] who is not of the clergy or in training for it should be wearing them.

Except (and this has been obscured due to the presence of altar girls), men who are serving at Mass are deputized to do things that clergy should be doing.

If we had enough priests and restored minor orders, we could actually have only acolytes carry candles and handle the cruets, and so on.

When I (who am not called to the priesthood) serve, I wear cassock and surplice because I am performing a clerical function.

It’s not just an ordained man’s job to celebrate Mass … everything that happens at Mass is the job of an ordained man (though not necessarily a priest), but we make do with lay male servers out of serious necessity.

 

[porthos11]

Since most altar servers are children, your examples don’t really work. As for opening one’s mind to opportunities, it doesn’t matter. The main objection on this thread has been that the garments are clerical in nature. If so, then only clerics or those in active training for the clergy should be wearing them.

Except that altar servers are deputized towards a function that used to be called a “minor order”, that of the Acolyte, itself reserved to men, and was a prerequisite to being ordained a subdeacon. Even though current altar servers are no longer conferred the order of Acolyte, they still wear the clerical garb to show that they are performing a clerical function.

Girls could never have been ordained to the order of Acolyte (which is partially why I’m of the opinion that girls should never have been allowed to serve at the altar), so they could never have worn the cassock. A cassock has for the longest time been men’s clothing, which is why I find a female in a cassock absolutely revolting.

 

[Armyvet007]

Except (and this has been obscured due to the presence of altar girls), men who are serving at Mass are deputized to do things that clergy should be doing.

If we had enough priests and restored minor orders, we could actually have only acolytes carry candles and handle the cruets, and so on.

When I (who am not called to the priesthood) serve, I wear cassock and surplice because I am performing a clerical function.

It’s not just an ordained man’s job to celebrate Mass … everything that happens at Mass is the job of an ordained man (though not necessarily a priest), but we make do with lay male servers out of serious necessity.

Then the garments worn aren’t due to one’s status as clergy, but to what one’s function is at Mass. If so, then it doesn’t matter what a boy or girl altar server wears [a boy wearing one set, a girl wearing a different set due to her gender] since they are doing the same function.

 

[Armyvet007]

Except that altar servers are deputized towards a function that used to be called a “minor order”, that of the Acolyte, itself reserved to men, and was a prerequisite to being ordained a subdeacon. Even though current altar servers are no longer conferred the order of Acolyte, they still wear the clerical garb to show that they are performing a clerical function.

Girls could never have been ordained to the order of Acolyte (which is partially why I’m of the opinion that girls should never have been allowed to serve at the altar), so they could never have worn the cassock. A cassock has for the longest time been men’s clothing, which is why I find a female in a cassock absolutely revolting.

Then what they wear needs to be changed to reflect that fact .

 

[Blue_Jr]

I dont agree with women on the altar myself in any way, doesn’t matter what they wear. I’d be interested to know if there’s a gender divide here, as in whether women support it and men dont.

 

[porthos11]

Then what they wear needs to be changed to reflect that fact .

Correct. I may personally object to altar girls, but unfortunately for me, that’s a competence given to the bishops, so it is what it is. However, they ought to wear something more suited to female laity and less tied to the clerical state, such as a decent choir robe or something.

 

[Kellyreneeomara]

I am a new Catholic that was just confirmed on Holy Saturday. One of the things I love about my Catholic faith is, it stays true to tradition, has strict guidelines and has structure. The alter girls are fine .But I think they should wear what is traditional for girls and the boys should do the same.