Altar server attire

[TheMc]

Lawfully approved vesture could be a nice shirt and tie, depending on the parish. Beats the shorts, t-shirt, ankle socks and oxfords worn by one woman who serves at the altar in our parish during the summer.

I don’t believe the approving of vesture is a parish level thing.
I talked to the director of my Office of worship today, and he said that right now in the US, the only real options are:

a) alb

b) Cassock and surplice (he thinks this is by far the best, and nicest looking option)

c) a habit (for religious) and surplice (if appropriate with habit. Depends on the habit design, but it works for most habits.)

He said that was the practical definition of lawfully approved vesture for the US at this time.

One other thing. Both the cassock and surplice are distinctively male clothing, which makes it inappropriate for females to wear either of them at any time, particularly when assisting at Mass. It’s akin to a man wearing a dress. When females serve, they should wear albs, which are gender neutral.

 

[Heffner]

I don’t believe the approving of vesture is a parish level thing.
I talked to the director of my Office of worship today, and he said that right now in the US, the only real options are:

a) alb

b) Cassock and surplice (he thinks this is by far the best, and nicest looking option)

c) a habit (for religious) and surplice (if appropriate with habit. Depends on the habit design, but it works for most habits.)

He said that was the practical definition of lawfully approved vesture for the US at this time.

One other thing. Both the cassock and surplice are distinctively male clothing, which makes it inappropriate for females to wear either of them at any time, particularly when assisting at Mass. It’s akin to a man wearing a dress. When females serve, they should wear albs, which are gender neutral.

Unfortunately you were given some erroneous advice.

What constitutes “lawfully approved vesture” is that which is approved by the local bishop. As someone else mentioned, it could be a nice shirt, slacks and a tie.

Both the cassock and surplice are distinctively clerical clothing as well – another good reason to wear an alb if you’re not ordained. That said there is nothing wrong with a female wearing the cassock/alb. I do question if it’s truly proper for it to be worn by any adult who is not ordained, however.

 

[TheMc]

Unfortunately you were given some erroneous advice.

What constitutes “lawfully approved vesture” is that which is approved by the local bishop. As someone else mentioned, it could be a nice shirt, slacks and a tie.

Both the cassock and surplice are distinctively clerical clothing as well – another good reason to wear an alb if you’re not ordained. That said there is nothing wrong with a female wearing the cassock/alb. I do question if it’s truly proper for it to be worn by any adult who is not ordained, however.

I recieved this advise from the director of the office of worship yesterday, whom I believe is the bishop’s delegate in areas like this. So I did receive it from a delegate of the bishop.

One reason why cassocks are still used is because waaayy back, only clerics would be allowed in the sanctuary, so they would also serve every Mass, of course wearing a cassock and surplice. After a while, altar boys/men were substituted for the clerics on account of a lack of clerics to serve every Mass. Since they are essentially “substitutes” for clerics, it is still proper to wear a cassock and surplice. I’m still also standing by the fact that only males may wear cassocks. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[Heffner]

I recieved this advise from the director of the office of worship yesterday, whom I believe is the bishop’s delegate in areas like this. So I did receive it from a delegate of the bishop.

One reason why cassocks are still used is because waaayy back, only clerics would be allowed in the sanctuary, so they would also serve every Mass, of course wearing a cassock and surplice. After a while, altar boys/men were substituted for the clerics on account of a lack of clerics to serve every Mass. Since they are essentially “substitutes” for clerics, it is still proper to wear a cassock and surplice. I’m still also standing by the fact that only males may wear cassocks. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

OK, and I have no doubt that direction is valid for your diocese. It does not mean it’s binding for other dioceses however.

While I personally don’t think it’s proper for non-ordained to wear the cassock/surplice (as it is clerical garb), the Church has no such prohibition for either males for females. NO WHERE does the Church limit the wearing of the cassock/surplice to males.

If the practice in the past had been for altar boys to wear an alb/amice/cincture and the cassock/surplice had been introduced in contemporary times, I have no doubt that those who so covet the cassock/surplice would instead be coveting the alb/amice/cincture.

 

[Heffner]

Sure there is. We just raised that question here. Please do not speak in such absolutes.

No, there really isn’t. From purely a position of elegance and classiness, an alb with the correct accessories is superior to the cassock+surplice. That’s objectively true, particularly with the absence of a Roman collar which results in a very unfinished appearance.

It’s not until people factor in their memories of years past that the cassock+surplice appeals to them so greatly.

 

[Brendan]

That said there is nothing wrong with a female wearing the cassock/alb. I do question if it’s truly proper for it to be worn by any adult who is not ordained, however.

A female wearing an alb, yes. A female wearing a cassock, no. That is specifically male vesture.

It is about as appropriate as noting that since a religious habit is permissable, having the boys a nuns habit.

The Church has not issued any statements saying that altarboys cannot dress up in a nuns habit either, but that doesn’t mean that it would be correct to do so.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

A cassock and surplice are not distinctly clerical. You can see boy choristers wearing them at the major English cathedrals (Anglican and Roman), as well as at St. Peter’s in Rome, and I daresay a lot more places than that.

But in any case, we are really talking about the cotta, which looks like a suplice but is shorter. The surplice is generally more reserved for clergy, but the cotta most definitely is not.

Of course, ecclesiastical dress often is derived from popular dress of a particular time and place. The chasuble, for example is a survival of Roman dress. The cassock and the alb resemble the jallabiya seen all over the middle east and south Asia, even today.

HERE IS A NEW SUBQUESTION: How many of those who wear albs also wear amices? When I put one on for the first time in a long time, my priest almost broke out laughing. He had seen them before, but he had never worn one.

SUBQUESTION OF SUBQUESTION: How many who do not wear the cassock-alb wear a cassock under the alb and amice?

Unfortunately you were given some erroneous advice.

What constitutes “lawfully approved vesture” is that which is approved by the local bishop. As someone else mentioned, it could be a nice shirt, slacks and a tie.

Both the cassock and surplice are distinctively clerical clothing as well – another good reason to wear an alb if you’re not ordained. That said there is nothing wrong with a female wearing the cassock/alb. I do question if it’s truly proper for it to be worn by any adult who is not ordained, however.

 

[TheMc]

If the practice in the past had been for altar boys to wear an alb/amice/cincture and the cassock/surplice had been introduced in contemporary times, I have no doubt that those who so covet the cassock/surplice would instead be coveting the alb/amice/cincture.

But the thing is, it wasn’t. That may be been true, because some of us do like things in a spirit of continuity (just like the pope does), but have you ever thought there might be more to it than you think? Albs were around, so that’s not why they weren’t used. The church knows what she is doing. Everything that was changed by the council wasn’t nessicarily broken or bad. Maybe there was a reason why the church preferred cassocks for altar boys before the council.

 

[Aramis]

No, there really isn’t. From purely a position of elegance and classiness, an alb with the correct accessories is superior to the cassock+surplice. That’s objectively true, particularly with the absence of a Roman collar which results in a very unfinished appearance.

It’s not until people factor in their memories of years past that the cassock+surplice appeals to them so greatly.

You seem to badly misunderstand the term “objectively”…

You’re applying it to an opinion.

What is objectively true here is that the Alb is listed as suitable attire for servers. The Cassock and Surplice are also approved.

The Cassock and Surplice, or cassock and cotta, are, by various documents, specifically clerical attire. (Rome makes almost no distinction between the Surplice and the Cotta. Unlike the Episcopalian/Anglican community.) They are the called for choir dress of priests and deacons of the Roman Church. Every priest and deacon should have at least one each, cassock in black, surplice in white; if in certain tropical and subtropical climates, also a cassock in white.

Roman Minor Clerics (Porter, Lector, Acolyte) (and their modern equivalents, the Instituted Ministers - Acolytes and Lectors) specifically wore Cassock and Surplice as vestment; Subdeacons (who were then considered major orders) wore Alb, Maniple and Tunicle as vestment, but cassock and surplice as choir dress.

The wearing of Cassock and Surplice was extended to lay servers, and lay readers, and even cantors, but only as vestment, not as choir dress.

 

[Heffner]

You seem to badly misunderstand the term “objectively”…

You’re applying it to an opinion.

What is objectively true here is that the Alb is listed as suitable attire for servers. The Cassock and Surplice are also approved…

Certainly not by name in the GIRM.

 

[Heffner]

But the thing is, it wasn’t. That may be been true, because some of us do like things in a spirit of continuity (just like the pope does), but have you ever thought there might be more to it than you think? Albs were around, so that’s not why they weren’t used. The church knows what she is doing. Everything that was changed by the council wasn’t nessicarily broken or bad. Maybe there was a reason why the church preferred cassocks for altar boys before the council.

Pope Benedict XVI has never expressed a preference that servers vest in cassock+surplice.

I never posted anything about the “spirit of continuity.” I merely pointed out that the alb and accessories are far more elegant and classy looking than the cassock+alb.

Albs used to be quite a bit different in years past. They were very much like underwear – often thin, sometimes with lace and fairly unfinished looking necks – we still see them today from time to time. Imagine trying to get altar boys to appear uniform in those! I suspect that why altar boys wore the cassock+surplice.

The newer “concelebration” albs do not have those problems. It’s sad that people denigrate their use simply because they do not have the same perceived “spirit of continuity.” If you would have attended my parish in say 1850, the servers (be they adult or boys) would have been wearing cottas right over their street clothes. Hardly the 1950’s vision of the altar boys perfectly clad in black or red cassocks and freshly ironed cottas.

FWIW the wearing of albs by servers was not a function of VC2. When females were allowed to begin serving Mass (1986?) there was absolutely no language from the Holy See that said females could not wear the cassock+surplice. The change in allowing females to serve was a big deal in my opinion. If that big of a change was realized in the Church I would suggest that allowing females to wear already approved garb was part of the change. The cross-dressing argument is fallacious.

 

[Aramis]

Certainly not by name in the GIRM.

True, but it is approved.

Note the references in the following:
usccb.org/liturgy/innews/022000.shtml

The approval dates back quite some time, mid 19th C or earlier. I can’t recall nor find the text, ask the trad crowd, they should be able to direct you to it.

 

[Phemie]

I never posted anything about the “spirit of continuity.” I merely pointed out that the alb and accessories are far more elegant and classy looking than the cassock+alb.

Obviously you are talking about the type of alb worn by concelebrants and not the type of alb usually worn by altar servers. Altar servers’ albs typically are polyester-cotton hooded, ill-fitting nightgown looking vestments that make it seem as though the server just stumbled out of bed.

Would that they all had the heavy, non-cincture requiring fitted albs I once had the opportunity to wear. Those look classy.

 

[Heffner]

Obviously you are talking about the type of alb worn by concelebrants and not the type of alb usually worn by altar servers. Altar servers’ albs typically are polyester-cotton hooded, ill-fitting nightgown looking vestments that make it seem as though the server just stumbled out of bed.

Would that they all had the heavy, non-cincture requiring fitted albs I once had the opportunity to wear. Those look classy.

That’s not representative of the albs I have seen servers wearing around here. Any parish that bought el cheapo albs (no matter what the reason) would also buy el cheapo cassocks+cottas.

I’ll add another reason why I think the alb is superior to the cassock+surplice/cotta. To the uninitiated, a cassock+surplice/cotta can look a great deal like a long black or red skirt topped by some white lingerie. This was particularly true back in the good old days. I think that look turned some boys off from serving.

 

[Phemie]

That’s not representative of the albs I have seen servers wearing around here. Any parish that bought el cheapo albs (no matter what the reason) would also buy el cheapo cassocks+cottas.

I’ll add another reason why I think the alb is superior to the cassock+surplice/cotta. To the uninitiated, a cassock+surplice/cotta can look a great deal like a long black or red skirt topped by some white lingerie. This was particularly true back in the good old days. I think that look turned some boys off from serving.

Oh, yeah, because they’re falling all over themselves to serve now so they can wear albs.

Every parish I’ve been in where the altar servers were in albs, they were the cheap hooded nightie type. I haven’t been in a parish with cassock/surplice vested altar server since my baptismal parish discovered hooded albs back in the late 60s.

 

[Brendan]

Pope Benedict XVI has never expressed a preference that servers vest in cassock+surplice…

The cassock and surplice are the vestments that he provides for the boys who serve in his personal chapel.

True, in recognition of the tastes of the local bishops, he has not mandated how altar boys should be attired when he celebrates Mass when he visits other diocese, but in his personal Masses, the mandate is for cassock and surplice.

I see that as an expression of personal preference at least.

 

[Aramis]

The cassock and surplice are the vestments that he provides for the boys who serve in his personal chapel.

True, in recognition of the tastes of the local bishops, he has not mandated how altar boys should be attired when he celebrates Mass when he visits other diocese, but in his personal Masses, the mandate is for cassock and surplice.

I see that as an expression of personal preference at least.

I’d suggest it is more indicative that he lacks a preference for an alb… which isn’t quite the same thing as a preference for the Cassock and Surplice.

 

[SKWill]

I’ll add another reason why I think the alb is superior to the cassock+surplice/cotta. To the uninitiated, a cassock+surplice/cotta can look a great deal like a long black or red skirt topped by some white lingerie. This was particularly true back in the good old days. I think that look turned some boys off from serving.

Surplices are a stylized derivative of albs. Anyone can wear an alb, but only clergy or laymen serving liturgical roles in lieu of clergy can wear cassocks and surplices. I think these distinctions make the cassock and surplice a more formal garment. Also, outside of liturgy, cassock and fascia are generally considered more formal than clerical suits. (One rule of thumb I’ve been told is clerical suit are equivalent to business suits, cassocks and facia are equivalent to black tie, and cassocks with facia and ferraiolo are equivalent to white tie.)

As far as lacy surplices are concerned, it is my understanding that servers/acolytes’ surplices can have lace, but minimal amounts – a surplice with too much lace becomes a rochet which is reserved for bishops and other prelates.

I wonder if your experiences have been at parishes that buy cheap cassocks but awesome albs

 

[Heffner]

Surplices are a stylized derivative of albs. Anyone can wear an alb, but only clergy or laymen serving liturgical roles in lieu of clergy can wear cassocks and surplices. I think these distinctions make the cassock and surplice a more formal garment. Also, outside of liturgy, cassock and fascia are generally considered more formal than clerical suits. (One rule of thumb I’ve been told is clerical suit are equivalent to business suits, cassocks and facia are equivalent to black tie, and cassocks with facia and ferraiolo are equivalent to white tie.)

As far as lacy surplices are concerned, it is my understanding that servers/acolytes’ surplices can have lace, but minimal amounts – a surplice with too much lace becomes a rochet which is reserved for bishops and other prelates.

I wonder if your experiences have been at parishes that buy cheap cassocks but awesome albs

There is absolutely nothing from the Church that limits the wearing of cassock+surplice to males in the context of serving Mass. Formally allowing females to serve Mass (once a male only thing) was a huge change for the Church. Allowing females to wear the cassock+surplice (also once a male only thing) is not only part of that huge change, it’s tiny potatoes in comparison.

The Church also does not define or limit the amount of lace a server’s surplice might include. A surplice with a lot of lace most certainly does not become a rochet. A surplice has far fuller arms and is historically shorter than a rochet. They are two different garments.

 

[Heffner]

I’d suggest it is more indicative that he lacks a preference for an alb… which isn’t quite the same thing as a preference for the Cassock and Surplice.

I would add two things. First, the Pope has better things to do than worry about vestments for servers and that most of his private Masses are served by adult males. Second, in that setting lay males (adult or child) would wear the Roman collar. That tidies up the glaring shortcoming here in the States of an “unfinished” neck.

I have heard many older folks mention that boys used to wear bow ties with their cassocks? Not those Anglican frilly things but actual bow ties. Has anyone ever seen this? Do they tie the bow tie on the outside of the cassock’s neck or does just the bow protrude through the opening or what?