Do FSSP priests only wear cassocks?

[adawgj]

This might be a silly question, but when I see priests that are FSSP I see them only wear the cassock clothing. So I’m wondering if they wear other forms of priest clothing like the jacket or something else? Just a little curious.

 

[L_Marshall]

It depends on the situation. FSSP is usually more willing to use the cassock, but I’ve seen their priests wear a regular clerical suit. It depends on the situation, and the practicality.

For instance: a cassock is very reasonable at the parish, but it can be cumbersome when traveling, and it can easily become stuck in doors or on passerby’s luggage. Some hospitals and prisons request that the priest does not wear a cassock, but wears a clerical suit instead. This is with good reason. A cassock is awfully easy to grab onto, and difficult to shrug off, if a prisoner were to try and grab the priest. The cassock also flows around quite a bit, and this can be trouble in hospitals where blood and other biological hazards are often on surfaces, and it would be easier for the priest to keep his clothes clean, and help to stop the spread of infection in a clerical suit.

 

[bben15]

It depends on the situation. FSSP is usually more willing to use the cassock, but I’ve seen their priests wear a regular clerical suit. It depends on the situation, and the practicality.

For instance: a cassock is very reasonable at the parish, but it can be cumbersome when traveling, and it can easily become stuck in doors or on passerby’s luggage. Some hospitals and prisons request that the priest does not wear a cassock, but wears a clerical suit instead. This is with good reason. A cassock is awfully easy to grab onto, and difficult to shrug off, if a prisoner were to try and grab the priest. The cassock also flows around quite a bit, and this can be trouble in hospitals where blood and other biological hazards are often on surfaces, and it would be easier for the priest to keep his clothes clean, and help to stop the spread of infection in a clerical suit.

What *L Marshall * said. Though I want to add that FSSP priests are not required to wear cassocks. They are free to wear clerical shirts. Though, they are traditional priests, and it is “traditional” to wear cassocks. Plus, a lot of traditional parishioners like to see priests in Roman cassocks.

 

[andyklein]

I’m sure they also have something on under the cassocks too.

Sorry!

 

[JReducation]

Every society of apostolic life, just like a religious community, has constitutions (statutes). Those dictate what they would wear.

Having said this, the constitutions cannot prohibit the clerical shirt. It is against Church law for any constitutions to prohibit what the Church allows. Whether to wear a clerical shirt or not is a personal choice, even when it’s made in common.

In my community, the constitution does not prohibit a clerical shirt. We cannot do that. It’s illegal to do so. However, by agreement, we do not wear them often.

This is the same way with many other societies and religious communities. Such agreements are not legally binding.

Our reason for not wearing them often is because a clerical shirt is not a habit. It does not tell anyone that we are Franciscan Brothers. In the case of the FSSP, they are secular priests who do not have a habit. Even when they wear a cassock, it does not tell anyone that they are FSSP or Jesuit. It would not make much of a difference in terms of identifying them as FSSP. The cassock identifies them as “a man of the cloth” as they say in my hometown.

There is a law in the USA, which I don’t know if it applies to societies of apostolic life. Secular priests are not allowed to move about outside of Church grounds in cassocks. This was made law by the Council of Baltimore and the law is still in effect.

The law does not apply to anyone who is a religious or a bishop. When the law was created, there were no such things as societies of apostolic life or secular institutes. The few secular communities that existed, followed the rules set for the diocesan clergy. These were the Vincentians and Sulpicians. I’m sure there were other secular communities, but those two come to mind.

Today, the Vincentians and Sulpicians are societies of apostolic life. But this classification came into existence in 1983. Canon Law is not clear on what does and does not apply to them.

 

[Jennifoo]

I’m sure they also have something on under the cassocks too.

Sorry!

Underpants, at least.

 

[JReducation]

OK, I have a question. The moderator once said that we have to stick to the subject. So sticking the the question in the OP.

I agree with the original poster that the question is silly. It may even be a fun question. I don’t know. But here goes my question.

Why would anyone who is not an FSSP even care what they wear?

I’m coming at this as one who wears a habit 23/7. Notice I did not say 24/7. There are rare, but some occasions when I wear something else. But no one has ever asked me if I ever wear anything else. I wouldn’t even know how to answer the question.

I know the answer. I would say, just as I say here, most of the time I wear a habit. But I wouldn’t know how to answer it substantially. I mean that I wouldn’t know why the person is even interested. Therefore, I wouldn’t know if my very simple answer, “Most of the time,” would satisfy the real reason for asking.

I’m curious as to whether there is another reason for asking other than curiosity. Is there an intellectual or rational reason for asking?

You have to forgive me. I’m a superior. I’m used to the idea that no one asks me questions unless they have a reason to ask. I mean, no one every asks me, “Is it raining?” unless they have no access to a window where they can see for themselves. No one is allowed to ask me "What do you think about . . . . " unless it’s important to their salvation.

That’s my mindset.

 

[Aramis]

OK, I have a question. The moderator once said that we have to stick to the subject. So sticking the the question in the OP.

I agree with the original poster that the question is silly. It may even be a fun question. I don’t know. But here goes my question.

Why would anyone who is not an FSSP even care what they wear?

The same reason we care what your house wears as a habit - so we know who is what.

The FSSP is in good standing, and their mode of dress helps those identify their station. Well, if it were distinctive, it would. Since it isn’t, it merely is indicative of their clerical status (since non-liturgical wear of the cassock tends to be indicative of either clerical, major or minor, status).

The Roman collar is even less indicative, as it’s worn by so many religious as well, and by many protestants.

A uniform has several purposes:

• Identification of members to members
• Identification of members to non-members
• Indication of rank or status
• protection from the elements
• modesty
• triggering of particular mental states in the wearer
• triggering of particular mental states in the viewer

The habit is a uniform. The clerical dress is a uniform. Even vestments are a uniform.

Your habit marks you as a man apart - a member of the Franciscan community, and possibly of a particular house. It identifies you to the public as a consecrated religious. It is a warm garment, and protective and modest. And, in putting it on, you are put into a particular mindset. Further, it (should) protect you from people making sexual advances. It also puts faithful Catholics (and Orthodox) into a mental state of being reminded to pray.

That the FSSP uniform is just secular clerical dress is a let down for some, but it also is a reminder: they are, first and formost, priests, deacons, seminarians and minor clerics.

 

[JReducation]

The same reason we care what your house wears as a habit - so we know who is what.

The FSSP is in good standing, and their mode of dress helps those identify their station. Well, if it were distinctive, it would. Since it isn’t, it merely is indicative of their clerical status (since non-liturgical wear of the cassock tends to be indicative of either clerical, major or minor, status).

The Roman collar is even less indicative, as it’s worn by so many religious as well, and by many protestants.

A uniform has several purposes:

• Identification of members to members
• Identification of members to non-members
• Indication of rank or status
• protection from the elements
• modesty
• triggering of particular mental states in the wearer
• triggering of particular mental states in the viewer

The habit is a uniform. The clerical dress is a uniform. Even vestments are a uniform.

Your habit marks you as a man apart - a member of the Franciscan community, and possibly of a particular house. It identifies you to the public as a consecrated religious. It is a warm garment, and protective and modest. And, in putting it on, you are put into a particular mindset. Further, it (should) protect you from people making sexual advances. It also puts faithful Catholics (and Orthodox) into a mental state of being reminded to pray.

That the FSSP uniform is just secular clerical dress is a let down for some, but it also is a reminder: they are, first and formost, priests, deacons, seminarians and minor clerics.

It’s an interesting answer. We’re not particularly interested in being singled out in public. But that’s a Franciscan thing. Franciscans wear a habit for a totally different reason, one which you did not mention.

We wear it because it links us to the poverty and penance of our Seraphic Father. You’ll have to understand that to be identified as a religious has never been an interest of Franciscans, since our founder encouraged us to be as anonymous as possible. Of course, in the 13th century, there was no Franciscan habit. The “habit” was the clothing of the farmer, a tunic with a cowl for cold weather and another tunic without a cowl for warm weather. A rope was used as a belt. Francis never required a particular design or color. These things came much later, purely by accident, except for the habit of the Observants (OFM), which was deliberately designed at the time of the Leonine Union. That was to avoid political conflicts within the union.

If you notice, each branch of the order has only one habit. You never know who is and who is not ordained. We are now reverting to the titles Friar, Frater, or Brother. The younger generation of clerics will no longer be known as Father or Deacon. Father will only be the superior. There is that whole thing about anonymity again. From where I come from, this is an interesting a question that we would never expect anyone to ask us, because the habit is not something to which we give much thought. As you have probably noticed, we’re a rather sloppy bunch. LOL

The cassock is an interesting garment, because Catholics have always mistakenly believed that the cassock and the collar is clerical; but that’s not the case. Among diocesan clergy, it is clerical. That’s because they’re all clerics. The cassock is also worn by religious such as the Holy Cross Brothers. St. Andre Bessett comes to mind.

I don’t think it should be a letdown for anyone that the cassock is secular dress. It was meant to be secular dress. Even those religious communities that adopted the cassock instead of a habit did it precisely for anonymity. Some communities that come to mind are the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Jesuits, Holy Cross Brothers, Piarists, Maryknoll, Holy Spirit Missionaries, Divine Word Missionaries and others. The mind of the founders was that their men move through society undetected. You were not supposed to be able to distinguish between a diocesan priest and a Holy Cross brother.

There is a very good reason for the cassock being “generic”, to use a modern word. It’s a noble reason. It’s all about humility and anonymity. “Do good and disappear.”

 

[PacoG]

This might be a silly question, but when I see priests that are FSSP I see them only wear the cassock clothing. So I’m wondering if they wear other forms of priest clothing like the jacket or something else? Just a little curious.

We have an FSSP priest “in residence” in our parish. He is part of the diocesan hospital chaplaincy and is assigned to the three hospitals in town. He also assists our pastor (a diocesan priest) by saying two OF Masses during the week and two on Sunday.

I have never seen him a cassock. He’s usually in black pants, a clerical shirt and roman color.

 

[BertBlyleven]

The norm for the FSSP is the cassock, but can and do wear the clerical suit when permitted by superiors/country/local custom. I know many who do particularly while traveling or at events with diocesan clergy. Nonetheless, the cassock is viewed by the FSSP as a “habit,” even though not explicitly so.

 

[PacoG]

The norm for the FSSP is the cassock, but can and do wear the clerical suit when permitted by superiors/country/local custom. I know many who do particularly while traveling or at events with diocesan clergy. Nonetheless, the cassock is viewed by the FSSP as a “habit,” even though not explicitly so.

Citation?

 

[Aramis]

It’s an interesting answer. We’re not particularly interested in being singled out in public. But that’s a Franciscan thing. Franciscans wear a habit for a totally different reason, one which you did not mention.

We wear it because it links us to the poverty and penance of our Seraphic Father.

That’s creation of a state of mind.

The cassock is an interesting garment, because Catholics have always mistakenly believed that the cassock and the collar is clerical; but that’s not the case. Among diocesan clergy, it is clerical. That’s because they’re all clerics. The cassock is also worn by religious such as the Holy Cross Brothers. St. Andre Bessett comes to mind.

Remember, good friar - consecrated religious used to be lumped in with minor orders under canon law… Tonsure made a male a minor cleric. Lots of novices left before profession, but after tonsure - and bore the protection (and liabilities) of the minor clerical state under civil law. EG: Galileo Galilei.

I don’t think it should be a letdown for anyone that the cassock is secular dress. It was meant to be secular dress. Even those religious communities that adopted the cassock instead of a habit did it precisely for anonymity. Some communities that come to mind are the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Jesuits, Holy Cross Brothers, Piarists, Maryknoll, Holy Spirit Missionaries, Divine Word Missionaries and others. The mind of the founders was that their men move through society undetected. You were not supposed to be able to distinguish between a diocesan priest and a Holy Cross brother.

There is a very good reason for the cassock being “generic”, to use a modern word. It’s a noble reason. It’s all about humility and anonymity. “Do good and disappear.”

Anonymity and conformity fall under creation of a mindset in the viewer and wearer…

 

[John_Lazarus]

Underpants, at least.

Well, as they say in Rome, semper ubi sub ubi.

 

[JReducation]

That’s creation of a state of mind.

It was a state of mind desired by the founder.

Remember, good friar - consecrated religious used to be lumped in with minor orders under canon law… Tonsure made a male a minor cleric. Lots of novices left before profession, but after tonsure - and bore the protection (and liabilities) of the minor clerical state under civil law. EG: Galileo Galilei.

This is inaccurate. This was only applicable to congregations, not to orders. In orders there were the clerics, who became clerics when they were ordained subdeacon. Under the Code of 1983, they now become clerics when they are ordained deacon.

Those religious in orders who are not ordained, are not clerics. They never received minor orders. They never were clerics, nor were they part of the laity either. All men in solemn vows were hermits, monks, friars or Jesuits. But not all men in solemn vows were clerics.

Some of the congregations were also exempt from minor orders, but still wore cassocks. The Brothers of the Holy Cross is one of them. That’s why I mention them, as were the Xaverians, Alexians, and Medical Mission Brothers.

You have to be very careful when you cite Canon Law. One must remember that there are exceptions to the laws. There are other laws that trump the canon. Then there are interpretations of the law made by the Holy See and the Sacred Congregations that make up the Curia.

Anonymity and conformity fall under creation of a mindset in the viewer and wearer…

Anonymity was the mindset that the founders desired. It is the vision of the founder with which the religious and the rest of the Church must aspire to comply. If the rest of the faithful, outside of a religious community, does not accept the vision of the founder, then it begs the question, do the faithful appreciate the gift that the Holy Spirit has raised up within this community as is, not as we the faithful want it to be?

Bl. John Paul II brought this question to the table and I think it’s a very important question. He wrote that there is a dichotomy between the mind of the founders and the rest of us. He said that to be in harmony with the Will of the Holy Spirit, one must be in harmony with the gift as it is given to the Church. Putting aside human sinfulness, which will always be with us, the consecrated life remains a gift from the Holy Spirit and it must be accepted on His terms, not our own. If the Holy Spirit wishes for anonymity, as is the case in some religious institutes, then we too should wish for the same anonymity. For some mysterious reason, known only to God, this anonymity is good for the Church.