I do not think I have ever seen what you are describing.
Wait, why wouldn’t you wear pants under a cassock?
Yes, why not wear pants/trousers? Where else can they keep a handkerchief?
The cassock is a piece of regular clothing. It looks very silly, imo, to wear visible pants underneath it. I think long johns would be okay, which are not able to be seen, but pants under a cassock is a bit… weird looking. They can store items under their fascia! That is what I would do with a money clip or keys or whatever. Or you can have a pocket sewn in the interior and pop a button open for access. Or store things in your biretta!Right, but it’s a coat substitute, not a pants/shirt substitute. Going back to ancient times, the cassock was a development of the Roman long tunic or toga. Romans wore pants under their tunics/togas.
The cassock is not outerwear as far as I know. Perhaps breeches were worn under it in the past, but those would not have been seen.
No, it isn’t for that. If tied correctly the sash won’t slip.
I would find it weird to see pantlegs under a cassock; it just strikes me as unseemly and untidy. Long dress socks–which would be worn with pants or a cassock anyway–solve this problem. You’d never see legs under a cassock unless the cleric is wearing weird footy socks. I agree, that would be very odd.
Yes, that’s quite right.
Those who habitually wear a cassock as “house dress” do not wear trousers underneath. OTOH, they normally don’t wear 'long johns" either, but rather a type of full-cut boxers that are sometimes knee-length. (In French it’s called “calçon” … I’ve forgotten the precise Italian word but it’s similar.) And, of course, socks that rise at least mid-calf (some also use sock-garters to ensure that they stay in place). As a rule, those who habitually wear a religious habit (no pun intended) do the same. I’m not sure where you come from, but this is very unusual to me. It is strange NOT to wear something under your cassock, as it IS a piece of outerwear. When serving I normally wear black slacks underneath, which are invisible not only because the cassock covers them all the way to my feet, but also because they are the same color as the cassock.
The cassock is not outerwear as far as I know. Perhaps breeches were worn under it in the past, but those would not have been seen.
Well, for servers, of course it is very common to wear pants under the cassock. The rules governing what they wear are considerably more ambiguous and less technical than the rules governing what priests wear. I do think it would be odd for servers to not wear pants or something under their cassocks, unless one owns his own cassock. A priest’s cassock is (in principle) also his every day house dress.
Yes, that’s definitely reasonable.Well, for servers, of course it is very common to wear pants under the cassock. The rules governing what they wear are considerably more ambiguous and less technical than the rules governing what priests wear. I do think it would be odd for servers to not wear pants or something under their cassocks, unless one owns his own cassock. A priest’s cassock is (in principle) also his every day house dress.
My point isn’t so much about not wearing pants under the cassock as it is about not seeing what is worn under the cassock, unless it is socks. Although, as I have said, if the cassock is worn by a cleric as his everyday street clothes (house dress), it seems weird to wear pants with it anyway. The cassock is not, in principle, outerwear. It is not a coat, a cape, a sweater or a jacket. It is a full-body garment intended to be able to be worn in basically any condition within reason, functioning on its own or with a piece of outwear (greca or tabarro).
I really don’t understand why seeing a pants leg would bother you?Well, for servers, of course it is very common to wear pants under the cassock. The rules governing what they wear are considerably more ambiguous and less technical than the rules governing what priests wear. I do think it would be odd for servers to not wear pants or something under their cassocks, unless one owns his own cassock. A priest’s cassock is (in principle) also his every day house dress.
My point isn’t so much about not wearing pants under the cassock as it is about not seeing what is worn under the cassock, unless it is socks. Although, as I have said, if the cassock is worn by a cleric as his everyday street clothes (house dress), it seems weird to wear pants with it anyway. The cassock is not, in principle, outerwear. It is not a coat, a cape, a sweater or a jacket. It is a full-body garment intended to be able to be worn in basically any condition within reason, functioning on its own or with a piece of outwear (greca or tabarro).
My question is mainly this: where are the rules governing what is worn under a cassock?Well, for servers, of course it is very common to wear pants under the cassock. The rules governing what they wear are considerably more ambiguous and less technical than the rules governing what priests wear. I do think it would be odd for servers to not wear pants or something under their cassocks, unless one owns his own cassock. A priest’s cassock is (in principle) also his every day house dress.
My point isn’t so much about not wearing pants under the cassock as it is about not seeing what is worn under the cassock, unless it is socks. Although, as I have said, if the cassock is worn by a cleric as his everyday street clothes (house dress), it seems weird to wear pants with it anyway. The cassock is not, in principle, outerwear. It is not a coat, a cape, a sweater or a jacket. It is a full-body garment intended to be able to be worn in basically any condition within reason, functioning on its own or with a piece of outwear (greca or tabarro).