Priest covering clothing during mass - pant legs and shoes?

[Digitonomy]

When celebrating mass, the priest covers his usual clothing with vestments, and even something as minor as the shirt collar is supposed to be covered with the amice. However, I don’t recall ever seeing the same attention paid to the shoes and the bottom of the pant legs.

Are these parts of the attire specifically exempted? Or is covering them required in theory but impractical in reality, else the priest would be stumbling over the long vestments? Was there a time in the past where this was done, or even in the present in different liturgical traditions?

 

[mwscott]

In the United States the amice is used less and less. In fact, I have never personally seen an amice used at a mass celebrated in the U.S. I did see it sometimes while visiting Rome and the Vatican but even then it was sparse. Its use is required in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The alb has many symbolic meanings mostly centered around the purity of baptism and the amice seems to aid this symbolism by covering the clothing visible at the neck. Its my understanding that the alb should technically go to the ankle line only leaving the shoes visible but unless the garment is custom to the minister this isn’t always the case so there is often pant showing. I just don’t think it is really stressed over.

 

[Kasey1]

In the United States the amice is used less and less. In fact, I have never personally seen an amice used at a mass celebrated in the U.S. I did see it sometimes while visiting Rome and the Vatican but even then it was sparse. Its use is required in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The alb has many symbolic meanings mostly centered around the purity of baptism and the amice seems to aid this symbolism by covering the clothing visible at the neck. Its my understanding that the alb should technically go to the ankle line only leaving the shoes visible but unless the garment is custom to the minister this isn’t always the case so there is often pant showing. I just don’t think it is really stressed over.

thanks for the informations bro…
http://www.photosnag.com/img/4673/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif

 

[malphono]

When celebrating mass, the priest covers his usual clothing with vestments, and even something as minor as the shirt collar is supposed to be covered with the amice. However, I don’t recall ever seeing the same attention paid to the shoes and the bottom of the pant legs.

Are these parts of the attire specifically exempted? Or is covering them required in theory but impractical in reality, else the priest would be stumbling over the long vestments? Was there a time in the past where this was done, or even in the present in different liturgical traditions?

Long ago, there were what are called “altar slippers” which were often part of the vestment set and covered in the same fabric. (If I recall, I believe they could also be in simple black. Also, and again if I recall correctly, they were not used by those regulars with footwear specific to their habit.) In any case, altar slippers gradually fell out of use, and these days seem to survive only in parts of the East and Orient, and perhaps among some Anglo-Catholics.

The trousers are a bit different. Traditionally a priest would be wearing his cassock (or, if a regular, his religious habit) and would then vest. The alb should come to the hem of the cassock (or habit), so protruding trouser legs would not have been a problem. Some priests still do this, (particularly for the EF), and it certainly makes for a “cleaner” look.

 

[Georgia]

I’ve seen priests with no long pants leg to cover. When it was hot here in the South, I have walked into churches to see priests in shorts and sandals before dressing for Mass.
When they processed into the church, there were bare ankles and sandals showing beneath the alb.

I see nothing wrong with that, but after reading these posts I wonder now if that is improper.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’ve seen priests with no long pants leg to cover. When it was hot here in the South, I have walked into churches to see priests in shorts and sandals before dressing for Mass.
When they processed into the church, there were bare ankles and sandals showing beneath the alb.

I see nothing wrong with that, but after reading these posts I wonder now if that is improper.

As long as the priest is wearing alb, stole, and chasible then I see nothing wrong with the shorts and sandals if local custom doesn’t find them strange. The stole is the symbol of his priesthood so there’s no need necessarily for a clerical collar. The only issue would be if shorts and sandals would be considered too casual. In really hot places I don’t see the problem, but others might.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It used to also be that priests wore very light weight pants under their cassocks. These were made specifically for this and were something like a pajama pant today. So when walking around town, you would see maybe socks and shoes, but no pant leg. A wool cassock is very warm in places like Spain, Italy, and southern France, so they came up with something appropriate to wear which wouldn’t also boil the priest!

Then, as a previous poster said, the priest could where altar “slippers”. This would also keep the floors near the altar clean from the heavy shoes worn on unpaved streets.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Then there are churches that have a constant rotation of priests. We have maybe 2 vestments for each “season” and 5-10 different priests who use them. Sizes ranging from tall to oompa-loompa so yes the taller priests show some pant leg, some are, well, tripping over themselves and hiking up the robe during service. I think it’s probably more important to pay attention to the mass than the priest’s nice shoes

 

[Cluny]

There was at one time in the West the “eccesiastical shoe”, which were basically slippers with buckles. Simple priests and lower wore them in black with a silver buckle. Prelates had a gold buckle. The pope wore red morocco slippers.

 

[purplesunshine]

I think sandals are ok. I am very fond of the Franciscans, and many priests I know are fond of their spirituality, too. Many wear sandals as long as they physically can, which is, in New England, from March to November, with some even pushing it farther. This includes Mass. And I think that its quite allowed.

 

[malphono]

It used to also be that priests wore very light weight pants under their cassocks. These were made specifically for this and were something like a pajama pant today. So when walking around town, you would see maybe socks and shoes, but no pant leg. A wool cassock is very warm in places like Spain, Italy, and southern France, so they came up with something appropriate to wear which wouldn’t also boil the priest!

FYI, those weren’t exactly trousers: they were knickers, in the full sense of the word! In cooler climates or seasons they were of heavier weight and fabric, and in warmer climates or seasons of a lighter one.

At one time the cassock (or habit) was worn as “street attire” which means that trousers were not worn. As an accommodation in warmer climates, particularly in summer, the cassock was often white instead of black, and/or may have been constructed of lightweight wool or even cotton instead of wool. (I don’t think a change of color was normal for habited regulars, but I seem to recall that there were such things as “summer weight” habits of a lighter material.) The “old” custom is still alive in some places and among certain communities of regulars.

These days, trousers are often worn under the cassock or habit (perhaps better said that the cassock or habit is worn over the trousers). If the cassock or habit is not properly tailored, (or if the trousers are too long), the trouser leg often shows which I, personally, find unsightly. It looks even worse when a priest is vested liturgically.

 

[malphono]

There was at one time in the West the “eccesiastical shoe”, which were basically slippers with buckles. Simple priests and lower wore them in black with a silver buckle. Prelates had a gold buckle. The pope wore red morocco slippers.

True, but those weren’t the same as the altar slippers.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

FYI, those weren’t exactly trousers: they were knickers, in the full sense of the word! In cooler climates or seasons they were of heavier weight and fabric, and in warmer climates or seasons of a lighter one.

At one time the cassock (or habit) was worn as “street attire” which means that trousers were not worn. As an accommodation in warmer climates, particularly in summer, the cassock was often white instead of black, and/or may have been constructed of lightweight wool or even cotton instead of wool. (I don’t think a change of color was normal for habited regulars, but I seem to recall that there were such things as “summer weight” habits of a lighter material.) The “old” custom is still alive in some places and among certain communities of regulars.

These days, trousers are often worn under the cassock or habit (perhaps better said that the cassock or habit is worn over the trousers). If the cassock or habit is not properly tailored, (or if the trousers are too long), the trouser leg often shows which I, personally, find unsightly. It looks even worse when a priest is vested liturgically.

Exactly. In other words priests used to wear their cassocks as regular clothes and not something put on top of an ordinary outfit (shirt and pants). I know several Franciscans who do the same with their habits–ie, they couldn’t take them off in the street and still be decent!

I don’t really have a preference either way in terms of pant legs showing under vestements, but I do like to see priests regularly wearing cassocks. We had several priests at our parish in the past who did (and still do at their new assignments) but our current set of priests just don’t have that ‘habit’.

 

[MusicMan]

I find it disconcerting that people actually take time away from their focus on Jesus at Mass to concern themselves with whether or not the priest’s alb covers his pants legs, or the cleanliness of the “look” of a cassock versus pants.

 

[Cat]

Then there are churches that have a constant rotation of priests. We have maybe 2 vestments for each “season” and 5-10 different priests who use them. Sizes ranging from tall to oompa-loompa so yes the taller priests show some pant leg, some are, well, tripping over themselves and hiking up the robe during service. I think it’s probably more important to pay attention to the mass than the priest’s nice shoes

Oompa loompa?!

We had an oompa loompa priest. He looked like a child, he was so small. Interestingly, although his body was small, he had the biggest heart of all, because he sacrificed his good life in the United States to return to his family and his people in his dangerous home country, where he was wanted as a terrorist (for preaching the Christian Gospel). The penalty for his “crime” is death.

He felt that people needed priests there more urgently than they do here.

We don’t know if he’s safe or dead. I pray for him often. I won’t give his name (it’s not safe). Just pray for Father Oompa Loompa.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I find it disconcerting that people actually take time away from their focus on Jesus at Mass to concern themselves with whether or not the priest’s alb covers his pants legs, or the cleanliness of the “look” of a cassock versus pants.

MusicMan:

I’m sure our Lord understands the diversion if we don’t take it too seriously… Haven’t you ever been distracted by a girl with a “mini-skirt” or a low-cut blouse? An exceptionally well dressed man, or woman? A crying baby? Or, Someone singing “Off-Key”?

The problem, like most everything else, is when we allow our focus to shift from our Lord to the priest’s pant leg, woman’s hem-line, baby’s crying, or person’s singing…

I hope you can understand this and allow your brothers & sisters some leeway…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[MusicMan]

Awful big difference between cleavage and alb length. I’ve been distracted by a low cut top revealing a woman’s cleavage. I’ve never even noticed the length of a priest’s alb, to say anything of being distracted by it, much less in the same way that cleavage is distracting.

 

[benedictgal]

I have noticed, during the course of the many Papal Masses that I have seen on EWTN since the election of Pope Benedict XVI, that I rarely see a pant’s leg on the Holy Father. I was noticing his red shoes, but, not a pant’s leg. Oddly enough, I also noticed the same thing when a prelate friend of mine celebrates Mass while wearing his cassock beneath his vestments. I will notice the magenta socks, but, there is not a pant’s leg.

I asked him about that and he told me that (not sure if he was joking), but, that they make clerical knickers, kind of like what was worn back in the late 18th century. But, I’m not sure.

 

[cam100]

I seem to recall seeing, in my days as an altar server, some priests roll up the bottom of their pant legs before vesting. I also know a priest who cuts off the bottoms of the pant legs for the pants he wears under his cassock.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Dear Lord please watch over Father Oompa-loompa and his mission. Keep him safe in your Sacred Heart and bless his work. Amen.