cassock+surplice

[VietCatholic83]

I am a big fan of priests in cassock and surplice. When is it appropriate for a priest to be vested in simply in cassock, surplice and stole? during liturgical functions outside of mass? such as confession, baptism, anointing, blessings, funerals etc? thanks

 

[FrDavid96]

I am a big fan of priests in cassock and surplice. When is it appropriate for a priest to be vested in simply in cassock, surplice and stole? during liturgical functions outside of mass? such as confession, baptism, anointing, blessings, funerals etc? thanks

Yes.

The cassock is really “street clothes,” and can be worn anytime. The surplice and stole are added during administration of sacraments and sacramentals, Liturgy of the Hours, etc, but the chasuble still has to be worn for celebrating Mass. For concelebrants, cassock and surplice is appropriate only if there’s a shortage of chasubles. As for funerals, the chasuble is worn for Mass, but the cassock and surplice may be worn in the cemetery.

 

[Spirithound]

If a cassock is worn during Mass, must the priest also wear an alb?

 

[benedictgal]

If a cassock is worn during Mass, must the priest also wear an alb?

Yes, he must wear the alb, since the alb is the first garment for the Mass. My parochial vicar wears his cassock, alb, stole, cincture and chasuble.

 

[FrDavid96]

If a cassock is worn during Mass, must the priest also wear an alb?

Yes. Remember that the cassock is “street clothes” and so has to be covered by the actual vestments. But that “alb” might come in different styles…

Actually, the surplice and alb are the same garment. A surplice is an alb with short arms and a shorter length. Over the centuries, albs kept getting shorter and shorter until the “final” version which we have today, and we call it a surplice. Some surplices are very long, coming nearly to the floor and having sleeves almost to the wrists (more common in Europe, especially England but rather rare in America)–same thing but we apply different names depending upon the style.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

The cassock and surplice is properly known as “choir dress”. Just so you know.

 

[VietCatholic83]

The cassock and surplice is properly known as “choir dress”. Just so you know.

Thanks I am familiar with the term. It just escaped my mind at the time I composed this post.

Another related question. If the cassock is a type of clerical “street clothing” and the clerical “suit” that many clergy wear today take place of the traditional cassock, then could a man wear a surplice over the suit? I know that would look rather odd, but would it be possible. I ask this because another posted wrote that the alb and the cassock are in essence the same garment (which I’m not contesting, just curious)

 

[Spirithound]

Thanks I am familiar with the term. It just escaped my mind at the time I composed this post.

Another related question. If the cassock is a type of clerical “street clothing” and the clerical “suit” that many clergy wear today take place of the traditional cassock, then could a man wear a surplice over the suit? I know that would look rather odd, but would it be possible. I ask this because another posted wrote that the alb and the cassock are in essence the same garment (which I’m not contesting, just curious)

Father David said that the alb and the surplice are the same garment.
I very often see a priest in his liturgical garments with the Roman collar visible, so at least the shirt is possible. I guess he could also wear the jacket, but (speaking as a layman), I would probably button it up first

 

[FrDavid96]

Father David said that the alb and the surplice are the same garment.
I very often see a priest in his liturgical garments with the Roman collar visible, so at least the shirt is possible. I guess he could also wear the jacket, but (speaking as a layman), I would probably button it up first

The collar really isn’t “supposed” to show-through–that’s why the amice exists to cover it, and the black of the shirt. Ideally, no street clothing should be visible at all if the priest is wearing the chasuble. Please realize that I’m just making friendly conversation here, not trying to get anyone worked up over seeing some black shirt stick out from under the priest’s vestments.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks I am familiar with the term. It just escaped my mind at the time I composed this post.

Another related question. If the cassock is a type of clerical “street clothing” and the clerical “suit” that many clergy wear today take place of the traditional cassock, then could a man wear a surplice over the suit? I know that would look rather odd, but would it be possible. I ask this because another posted wrote that the alb and the cassock are in essence the same garment (which I’m not contesting, just curious)

I don’t “think so.” The suit substitutes for the cassock, but only when the suit is worn as true street clothes. I think the fact that it would look pretty ridiculous would be more of a prohibition against wearing the surplice over a suit jacket than any “rules” for vesture might be so. It would also be rather difficult as the cleric would first have to unbutton the jacket (to get his arms up enough to get the surplice over his head without splitting a few seems in the shoulders), then re-button it under the surplice. Makes me chuckle just to sit here and try the arm movements (count your blessings folks, I don’t have a webcam).

With regard to the surplice and alb being the same garment, it’s a lot like the difference/similarity between a bowtie and a windsor knot. They’re both the “same” garment (or accessory), and serve the same purpose but they’re not literally identical. Most of the time, one can be thought of as a substitute for the other, but there are still times when it’s more proper to wear a certain one. Part of the purpose of the alb is to cover the street clothes (as we’ve been discussing already here), so the surplice isn’t always an appropriate alternative to the alb.

As for the opposite, I’ve always thought that the alb and stole (w/o chasuble) looks pretty silly. To me at least it seems like the priest “forgot” to put on his chasuble. My opinion is if one isn’t going to wear the chasuble, then go with the cassock and stole. The alb might be licit (and is), but that doesn’t mean it’s in good taste.

 

[dixibehr]

I ask this because another posted wrote that the alb and the cassock are in essence the same garment (which I’m not contesting, just curious)<<

No, they are not the same garment.

The cassock is the simple tunic that almost everyone wore once upon a time. It’s basically underwear.

The “linea alba” (whence alb) was worn over it for formal occasions.

 

[FrDavid96]

I ask this because another posted wrote that the alb and the cassock are in essence the same garment (which I’m not contesting, just curious)<<

There was a typo in one of the posts. It’s not the cassock and alb that are the same. It’s the surplice and alb being essentially the same garment, but in two different styles which have “evolved” over time. The alb came first, and over time, the alb sleeves just kept getting shorter and the length kept getting shorter until “one day” the short alb became the surplice.

 

[Aramis]

Yes. Remember that the cassock is “street clothes” and so has to be covered by the actual vestments. But that “alb” might come in different styles…

Actually, the surplice and alb are the same garment. A surplice is an alb with short arms and a shorter length. Over the centuries, albs kept getting shorter and shorter until the “final” version which we have today, and we call it a surplice. Some surplices are very long, coming nearly to the floor and having sleeves almost to the wrists (more common in Europe, especially England but rather rare in America)–same thing but we apply different names depending upon the style.

The GIRM makes note that a surplice may NOT substitute for an Alb.

 

[FrDavid96]

The GIRM makes note that a surplice may NOT substitute for an Alb.

That depends on what one means by “substitute.” I did say in another post that the chasuble is not worn over the surplice (unless it’s a surplice that’s so long it would be considered an alb, and here we get into a matter of semantics).

Here’s what the GIRM says:

336 The alb may not be replaced by a surplice, not even over a cassock, on occasions when a chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when, according to the norms, only a stole is worn without a chasuble or dalmatic.

So what it’s really saying is that the surplice can be a replacement for the alb, but not under certain circumstances. That’s different than saying that the two can never be interchanged.

For example, the cassock & surplice might be worn under the cope, on some occasions.

See also the rite of marriage outside of Mass which specifically says that a cassock and surplice is proper vesture.

 

[FrDavid96]

A picture is worth a thousand words. To illustrate what I mean about the alb eventually becoming the surplice, here’s an image of something that is sold as a “surplice” but that most people would call an “alb” at first glance. Note the the only thing making it a surplice is how the neck is cut.
murphyrobes.com/item_details.asp?catid=1&subcatid=4&prodid=1068&page=1

Now imagine over a period of some centuries this garment getting a little bit shorter every few years. What we would end up with would be rather like what most Catholics would readily call a surplice today.

 

[Joe17]

Actually, strictly speaking, the cassock is not to be worn on the streets per the 3rd Baltimore Conference of 1884. I am sure that the rule has always been bent to an extent, but that is the rule. Around Catholic grounds(schools, chruches, hospitals, etc), not off in this country.

Joe

 

[Aramis]

Actually, strictly speaking, the cassock is not to be worn on the streets per the 3rd Baltimore Conference of 1884. I am sure that the rule has always been bent to an extent, but that is the rule. Around Catholic grounds(schools, chruches, hospitals, etc), not off in this country.

Joe

3rd Plenary Baltimore (Since there are 3 plenary councils and 9 provincial councils in Baltimore, as well; you need to specify) also reaffirmed the 1st and 2nd Plenary Baltimore findings… which include a ban on any rite other than the Roman Missal within the US (1st Plenary Council of Baltimore). Given that the Dominican Missal, 5 byzantine rite churches sui iuris each with 2 or 3 forms of divine worship equal to the mass, and the Chaldean, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, Armenian, and Coptic Churches sui iuris all with 2 or more forms of divine worship are all in use in the US, the plenary council decisions need to be taken with careful consideration. A great many of their provisions are no longer upheld.

 

[Spirithound]

3rd Plenary Baltimore (Since there are 3 plenary councils and 9 provincial councils in Baltimore, as well; you need to specify) also reaffirmed the 1st and 2nd Plenary Baltimore findings… which include a ban on any rite other than the Roman Missal within the US (1st Plenary Council of Baltimore). Given that the Dominican Missal, 5 byzantine rite churches sui iuris each with 2 or 3 forms of divine worship equal to the mass, and the Chaldean, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, Armenian, and Coptic Churches sui iuris all with 2 or more forms of divine worship are all in use in the US, the plenary council decisions need to be taken with careful consideration. A great many of their provisions are no longer upheld.

Given that those are all rightful Rites of the Catholic Church, I’m unsure of whether the bishops could have had the authority to make that pronouncement.

 

[Aramis]

Given that those are all rightful Rites of the Catholic Church, I’m unsure of whether the bishops could have had the authority to make that pronouncement.

Consider that a pope, rather than overturn the general instruction, extended immunity to the decisions of local councils unto the clerical orders… because plenary councils DID. The right to one’s own rite didn’t exist until Vatican II…

 

[Chris_ArmyCA]

Hello Everyone!

This is my first time on Forums… I can’t believe that this question is what finally caused me to sign up! I’m glad that I’m not the only one who thinks about this stuff!

I hope I’m not re-asking the same question… I grew up Southern Baptist and went into the Methodist church about 6 years ago and then to the Episcopal church and finally home to Rome in 2007! The Episcopal parish that attended was very “Anglo-Catholic” and “traditional.” (I blame them for making me Catholic! LOL!)

I noticed that some Anglican clergy tend to wear “choir dress” more often with just a cassock, a long-sleeved surplice that covers the “street clothes” (cassock). From what I have read this is more of an English thing. They also wear a differnt type of stole sometimes that is wider and longer and called a tippet.

My question is if it is wrong for the celebrant to wear a long surplice instead of an alb during Mass with the chasible and other required vestments?

I’m not trying to be an Anglican but I think that the long surplice looks better than the alb.

I’m going to chase a rabbit now… I’ve been told that some Anglicans have held on to past traditions that they inherited from the Catholic Church, better than we have in some cases. (For example, lighting the candels a certain way and in a certain direction before and after Mass.) One of the things that I miss about my experience with the Episcopalians is how they treated the liturgy. I’d rather have truth over looks but it seems like the majority of American Catholics are sloppy with the liturgy. (Just an opinion! I’m cool with contemporary! Don’t get angry at me! As long as it’s in accordance with the GIRM everything is peachy!)

By the way, for those of you who may be Anglican/Episcopalian and may be thinking about the Catholic Church there is something called the “Anglican Use” in the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II allowed an Episcopal congrepation along with it’s pastor to convert and maintain their Anglican identity and way of worship. The pastor is married and is now an ordained Catholic priest. You can read all the specifics on their website, just google “Our Lady of the Atonement” or “Anglican Use.” This isn’t just another Anglican splinter group who thinks they’re Catholic!

What was my question again? Oh ya, surplice or alb!?

God Bless 'yall,

Chris