Altar server attire

[Aramis]

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?

I’ve seen photos of it. Some, it’s just a bow of silken or cotton ribbon, as seen in many westerns, not the full-bodied bow tie; in others, it’s a narrow but standard bow-tie. In the photos I’ve seen, it was worn so that it was through the opening of the collar of the cassock, but any hanging tails were under the surplice or inside the cassock; it’s hard to tell.

As for servers wearing the Roman Collar… the photos I’ve seen show them wearing white dress shirts sans tie in the ready room… no tab required.

 

[Brendan]

There is absolutely nothing from the Church that limits the wearing of cassock+surplice to males in the context of serving Mass. .

And there is likewise no statement that boys cannot wear a dress and a nun’s habit while serving either. That doesn’t mean that it would be correct to do so either.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

My child is an altar server.

We have 2 types of albs – the hooded, half-zip ones, and the pleated, stand up collar, that lays flat across the chest and snaps inside by the shoulder.

To me, the second type looks about 1000 times better. The material is heavier and less likely to wrinkle, and the fact that the upper part actually FITS through the shoulders makes it look much less like a nightgown. I make sure she wears that type.

The other kind are so wrinkly and shapeless, they look like unmade beds.

One other point though… I really take issue with the choice of FOOTWEAR up on the altar. I would never allow mine to wear sneakers, crocs or (it irks me to even type this) flip flops!!! Shower shoes on the altar!!! Argh! I see it from time to time in the summer.

Even when not serving, I don’t allow this footwear to Mass, especially since they sometimes ask her to pinch hit when an altar server doesn’t show up. We are always ready in the proper attire!!

 

[Heffner]

And there is likewise no statement that boys cannot wear a dress and a nun’s habit while serving either. That doesn’t mean that it would be correct to do so either.

Please stop trying to promote your personal choice by offering illogical and offensive quips.

 

[Aramis]

Please stop trying to promote your personal choice by offering illogical and offensive quips.

Heffner, you’re the one with the offensive quips. Seriously.

200 years of tradition of women not wearing cassocks has the force of law, per canon law.

 

[Heffner]

Heffner, you’re the one with the offensive quips. Seriously.

200 years of tradition of women not wearing cassocks has the force of law, per canon law.

And how many years were women not allowed to serve Mass? Nearly 1900? With allowing women to serve came their ability to wear the cassock+surplice in that setting. Canon law does not forbid women from wearing the cassock+surplice. That’s preposterous.

 

[TheMc]

And how many years were women not allowed to serve Mass? Nearly 1900? With allowing women to serve came their ability to wear the cassock+surplice in that setting. Canon law does not forbid women from wearing the cassock+surplice. That’s preposterous.

With all due respect, there are several things wrong with your reasoning.

First:
The cassock was and is clerical clothing. That is it’s most simple and basic description. As I described in an earlier post, it was and is used by servers because altar boys are “substitutes” for clerics in the sancuary.

Common sense dictates here that females should not be wearing clerical clothing. If you think otherwise, that’s a different discussion. The fact is, a cassock is clerical clothing. That’s not up for discussion. The logical implications of this is, cassocks (and by extension, surplices) should not be worn by women. They should make use of the normitive vesture for servers: the alb.

Second:
While around the time of VII, when women were allowed to serve Mass, did you notice that around that time, the chruch also made the alb the norm? This is another sign that women should not be wearing a cassock.
The documents do not give them permission to cross-dress (which they do when they don the cassock), they give them permission to serve at the altar in an alb or other lawfully approved vesture (which the cassock is not for females).

Third:
Canon law is not the only document regulating the church’s liturgy. I may be wrong, but in general, canon law does not deal with liturgy, but with more “legislative” issues.

The GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and De Musica Sacra are the types of documents we should be looking in for litirgical things.

That being said, there may be a prohabition in canon law about women wearing clerical clothing, but I don’t know where to look. Anyone know where this might be?

 

[Aramis]

And how many years were women not allowed to serve Mass? Nearly 1900? With allowing women to serve came their ability to wear the cassock+surplice in that setting. Canon law does not forbid women from wearing the cassock+surplice. That’s preposterous.

Again, with the insults?

Unless changed by positive act of law, canon law itself gives custom of over 30 years force of law, and over 100 force over passive acts. See canon 26.
Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4.HTM

Allowing servers to wear the cassock has over 100 years. Allowing women to serve does not.

The indult allowing female servers was a positive act of law.

No such positive act of law abrogates the tradition barring women from the Cassock.