T
TimothyH
Guest
I wear a cassock and surplice regularly as a server at the Ordinary Form. The pastor does not frown on it. On the contrary, the Church paid for the vestments.
-Tim-
-Tim-
We switched from albs for our servers to Cassocks with surplice a couple of years ago. Even though at first skeptical, I do like it very much now. It adds an addition sacredness to the mass.Friends,
Can anyone give insights about the acceptability of wearing a cassock and surplice to serve at regular Ordinary Form Masses in North America, as opposed to an alb? What do celebrants generally think, these days?
I’m under the impression that the wearing of a surplice for altar servers has become very unpopular with many bishops and priests. They frown on it implicitly, if not explicitly. Cassock & Surplice = “pre-Vatican II”, and alb = “Vatican II”. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, this is a very narrow question… but I am looking to serve on a regular basis. I would prefer the cassock & surplice, but I don’t want to waste my money if wearing it would make me a “liturgical outcast” and thus unable to serve!
Any experiences or advice would be appreciated.
While young people in cassocks do look fancy, holy even, I doubt that it add “sacredness” to a Mass. I think the sacredness comes from Christ’s presence, no?We switched from albs for our servers to Cassocks with surplice a couple of years ago. Even though at first skeptical, I do like it very much now. It adds an addition sacredness to the mass.
Deacon Frank
At my parish we use to have an elderly couple who served about once a month. One Sunday they were both wearing cassock and surplice. What servers wear typically doesn’t bother me at all. On this occasion, however, it felt just a bit inappropriate.There’s also the issue of vesture for altar girls. As frequently discussed here, while apparently there is no specific rule against girls wearing cassock and surplice, those are typically regarded as male clerical attire. While I have no problem with girl altar servers, I think they do look out of place in cassock and surplice. So with a mixed corps of servers, albs would seem to be a better solution. But maybe that’s just me.
What we wear adds to what we do. As a church of signs and symbols, the way the servers are vested does make a difference. the mass is a sacred celebration, so all that we can humanly do to focus our minds and hearts upon the celebration, does add to the sacredness.While young people in cassocks do look fancy, holy even, I doubt that it add “sacredness” to a Mass. I think the sacredness comes from Christ’s presence, no?
![]()
While young people in cassocks do look fancy, holy even, I doubt that it add “sacredness” to a Mass. I think the sacredness comes from Christ’s presence, no?
![]()
Isn’t it the task of the parish or other community you are serving to give you the proper vesture?Friends,
Can anyone give insights about the acceptability of wearing a cassock and surplice to serve at regular Ordinary Form Masses in North America, as opposed to an alb? What do celebrants generally think, these days?
I’m under the impression that the wearing of a surplice for altar servers has become very unpopular with many bishops and priests. They frown on it implicitly, if not explicitly. Cassock & Surplice = “pre-Vatican II”, and alb = “Vatican II”. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, this is a very narrow question… but I am looking to serve on a regular basis. I would prefer the cassock & surplice, but I don’t want to waste my money if wearing it would make me a “liturgical outcast” and thus unable to serve!
Any experiences or advice would be appreciated.