Priest's Suits and Cassocks

[Matariel]

I was wondering, what determines whether a priest wears a cassock or not? Most wear suits with roman collars, it seems. Do only certain orders of priests wear cassocks? Or is it a matter of taste for a priest to decide whether or not he wears a suit or a cassock?

Secondly, aren’t priests required to wear their clerical clothing almost everywhere? But most of the priests I know do not even wear their clericals, and always wear regular clothing, even on Sunday. I feel this is bad, as the clerical clothing is an example to others and is a visible symbol of the priest’s and the Church’s faith. Does anyone know about this?

 

[Poco]

Being Episcopalian… I don’t know… but from listening to EWTN quite a bit, many folks think they should be wearing their clerical garb more than they do. One thing I can say, if I worked for it and earned it, I’d wear it!

 

[Matariel]

Being Episcopalian… I don’t know… but from listening to EWTN quite a bit, many folks think they should be wearing their clerical garb more than they do. One thing I can say, if I worked for it and earned it, I’d wear it!

To tell you the truth, I’m pretty sure that the current trend is towards wearing them more. But I’ve always been of the understanding that it was normally a requirement for priests to wear their clericals in public.

 

[Ferds_Guiang]

Hi! I had been in the priestly ministry for almost 12 years but got my dispensation last year and what I could share about this is that priest are not explicitly required to wear the clerical shirt and roman collar when not performing a liturgical function. I find these two rules in Canon law to be relevant:

Can. 282 §1. Clerics are to foster simplicity of life and are to refrain from all things that have a semblance of vanity.

Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs

 

[Matariel]

Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs

So the requirement of wearing clerical clothing varies from one diocese to another, then? Is that what it means?

 

[Aramis]

The norms for the US are actually set at one of two levels:

1. For the Romans, by the USCCB.
2. For the Eastern Catholics, per the rules of their particular church if there are any, or the same as the Romans if not.

The USCCB guidelines I’ve read are that priests should wear a black clerical collar shirt with black trousers or a black cassock when engaged in any public non-liturgical ministry, and that’s based upon (and matches) a norm recommended by one of the committees in Rome. According to Noonan, The Roman norm also recommends the Biretta, and permits priests a black zuchetto, but that’s seldom used, and in the US, the Biretta is seldom seen except for bishops.

Bishops are supposed to wear a cassock under the alb for liturgical use as well, and all clerics may.

Transitional Deacons and Seminarians, and Subdeacons, may wear the same. Permanent deacons are more vague; the Roman guideline is that married permanent deacons should also wear the clericals when engaged in ministries, but left the decision to the local bishop.

The Byzantine Catholic Churches often add a pectoral cross to the Riassa/Raisson (Cassock) for priests, and sometimes for deacons. I’ve also seen the pectoral cross worn with the Clericals. Bishops of the Byzantine Rite also wear their englopia (a worn icon) with both cassock and clerical suit.

Some Byzantine Catholic Dioceses have had married clerics in blue or gray Raisson (cassock), others have them in black. Those which do might also have them wear matching clerical shirts. One such diocese changed that with a change in bishop…

At least one Roman diocese had their permanent deacons in slate-gray clerical shirts; I don’t know if that diocese still does. Another does not permit the married permanent deacons to wear the clerical suit unless employed full time in a clerical task; the Cassock is permitted but not mandated, but the alb and stole is used instead most of the time; any priest or deacon engaged in non-clerical employment is to wear civil attire with some symbol of Christian Witness.

According to James-Charles Noonan, Jr., in The Church Visible, the cerical suit should always be black for Roman diocesan clerics; a papal indult is present for white in tropical climes. Noonan further makes note that, if the clerical black vest is used, it may be worn over any color shirt, but the cuffs should be white, and with the jacket, the shirt should not be visible.

A Note: some orders of religious who are not clerics wear the clerical suit and/or cassock as part of their habit; a few use colors other than black. Blue is used for a few as a sign of their devotion to Mary.

As a further note: Priests and deacons in religious orders are subject to the rules for the habit of their order.

I’ve seen Dominican priests do their public non-liturgical ministries in Habit, in Clerical Suit, and in civil attire over a clerical collar (especially when working with the homeless); I’ve seen the Cassock for them only in liturgical ministries, and always with surplice.

 

[admonsta]

I have attended the FSSP Mass for 8 years now, and have never seen our priests without cassocks. I personally feel it’s a strong statement in our modern world - our priests wear a sign of their allegiance, and live their vocation. It’s like seeing the leader of an army in battle array.

I don’t know if I said that right.

 

[crenfro]

sorry, can’t resist, but whenever I hear the word “cassock” I think of ottomans and have a hard time picturing anyone wearing one…

just never mind me…I can get sidetracked by a puff of air… :sad_yes:

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi! I had been in the priestly ministry for almost 12 years but got my dispensation last year and what I could share about this is that priest are not explicitly required to wear the clerical shirt and roman collar when not performing a liturgical function. I find these two rules in Canon law to be relevant:

Can. 282 §1. Clerics are to foster simplicity of life and are to refrain from all things that have a semblance of vanity.

Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs

i think is beautifull to see the priest as a priest always. in my parish priests wear shorsts and tshirt. no one can tell who they are. it seems to be a lack of respect for priest now and days. all because they have abandoned their garments.

they used to be identified by their garments, today this has been hidden from the public.

i love to see the FSSP, they always wear their habits. it is so beautifull, just like seing the nuns in their beautifull habits. their habits do the evangelization for them.
then, they wonder about the lack of priests and religious people. out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Keep in mind that these “rules” are for secular priests.

Priests of religious orders/communities will follow what their statues/constitutions say.

As a Carmelite, we may wear the Roman collar or our habit. We may do this from the novitiate on.

So a brother, such as myself, may wear either the habit or the Roman collar.

 

[Matariel]

The norms for the US are actually set at one of two levels:

1. For the Romans, by the USCCB.
2. For the Eastern Catholics, per the rules of their particular church if there are any, or the same as the Romans if not.

The USCCB guidelines I’ve read are that priests should wear a black clerical collar shirt with black trousers or a black cassock when engaged in any public non-liturgical ministry, and that’s based upon (and matches) a norm recommended by one of the committees in Rome. According to Noonan, The Roman norm also recommends the Biretta, and permits priests a black zuchetto, but that’s seldom used, and in the US, the Biretta is seldom seen except for bishops.

Bishops are supposed to wear a cassock under the alb for liturgical use as well, and all clerics may.

Transitional Deacons and Seminarians, and Subdeacons, may wear the same. Permanent deacons are more vague; the Roman guideline is that married permanent deacons should also wear the clericals when engaged in ministries, but left the decision to the local bishop.

The Byzantine Catholic Churches often add a pectoral cross to the Riassa/Raisson (Cassock) for priests, and sometimes for deacons. I’ve also seen the pectoral cross worn with the Clericals. Bishops of the Byzantine Rite also wear their englopia (a worn icon) with both cassock and clerical suit.

Some Byzantine Catholic Dioceses have had married clerics in blue or gray Raisson (cassock), others have them in black. Those which do might also have them wear matching clerical shirts. One such diocese changed that with a change in bishop…

At least one Roman diocese had their permanent deacons in slate-gray clerical shirts; I don’t know if that diocese still does. Another does not permit the married permanent deacons to wear the clerical suit unless employed full time in a clerical task; the Cassock is permitted but not mandated, but the alb and stole is used instead most of the time; any priest or deacon engaged in non-clerical employment is to wear civil attire with some symbol of Christian Witness.

According to James-Charles Noonan, Jr., in The Church Visible, the cerical suit should always be black for Roman diocesan clerics; a papal indult is present for white in tropical climes. Noonan further makes note that, if the clerical black vest is used, it may be worn over any color shirt, but the cuffs should be white, and with the jacket, the shirt should not be visible.

A Note: some orders of religious who are not clerics wear the clerical suit and/or cassock as part of their habit; a few use colors other than black. Blue is used for a few as a sign of their devotion to Mary.

As a further note: Priests and deacons in religious orders are subject to the rules for the habit of their order.

I’ve seen Dominican priests do their public non-liturgical ministries in Habit, in Clerical Suit, and in civil attire over a clerical collar (especially when working with the homeless); I’ve seen the Cassock for them only in liturgical ministries, and always with surplice.

Thank you so much for this Aramis, it was very informative. So basically, normal parish U.S. priests are required to wear a Roman collar/black suit or a Roman collar/black cassock at all times, even outside of liturgical functions, and to disobey this is illicit?

 

[pro_multis]

i think is beautifull to see the priest as a priest always. in my parish priests wear shorsts and tshirt. no one can tell who they are. it seems to be a lack of respect for priest now and days. .

Fruits of Vatican II. Novus Ordo priests have worked hard to marginalize themselves and bring themselves down in the eyes of the people. This has been accomplished through a number of ways:

Calling priests “Father [insert first name]”
Priests not wearing clothes that identify themselves as priests in public
Priests abdicating many roles reserved for priests in the mass: reading the epistle; handling the blessed sacrament; distributing communion under both species; and other things
Abdicating many decisions in the parish to various ccommittees comprised of laypeople

In traditional parishes this is not the case. Maybe that is why a tiny order of traditionalist priests have more ordinations every year than the massive diocese of los angeles?

 

[Matariel]

Fruits of Vatican II.

I disagree. I believe the list of problems you mentioned are true problems that have as of yet to be addressed, but this is not the “fruit of Vatican II”. Rather, it is the “Fruit of a false spirit of Vatican II”. Heretic “Catholics” say they are doing things in the name of Vatican II, but usually it is an intentional misrepresentation of what Vatican II truly meant. In other words, they refuse to interpret the pastoral council Vatican II in continuity with the previous Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Filioque]

Prior to Vatican II, priests in the USA usually wore the suit and collar when travelling or if they left the rectory for a sick call, primarily because the USA is a Protestant country and there was (and still is) lots of anticatholic sentiment. Around the parish and liturgically the cassock was required. In areas that were predominantly Catholic the parish priest would usually wear the cassock at all times, even when going out on a sick call.

 

[Matariel]

Prior to Vatican II, priests in the USA usually wore the suit and collar when travelling or if they left the rectory for a sick call, primarily because the USA is a Protestant country and there was (and still is) lots of anticatholic sentiment. Around the parish and liturgically the cassock was required. In areas that were predominantly Catholic the parish priest would usually wear the cassock at all times, even when going out on a sick call.

Well now the USCCB states they should wear the clericals even during non-liturgical times. Plus, while this is the Protestant nation, I see that as all the more reason to wear them. We need to evangelize Protestants, as they need to convert to the true Catholic Church.

 

[Aramis]

Thank you so much for this Aramis, it was very informative. So basically, normal parish U.S. priests are required to wear a Roman collar/black suit or a Roman collar/black cassock at all times, even outside of liturgical functions, and to disobey this is illicit?

No. Only when doing “Priestly things” aka non-liturgical ministries.

So:
Cutting the lawn? No.
Visiting the Sick, Yes.
Preaching to the imprisoned? Yes
Counseling a parishioner? Yes.
Counseling a drug addict as an outside commercial job? no.
Working as a pharmacist to put food on the table? No.
Teaching in a Catholic School? yes.
Teaching in a Public school? No.
Hiking with a youth group? Maybe.

 

[catholic101]

I was wondering, what determines whether a priest wears a cassock or not? Most wear suits with roman collars, it seems. Do only certain orders of priests wear cassocks? Or is it a matter of taste for a priest to decide whether or not he wears a suit or a cassock?

Secondly, aren’t priests required to wear their clerical clothing almost everywhere? But most of the priests I know do not even wear their clericals, and always wear regular clothing, even on Sunday. I feel this is bad, as the clerical clothing is an example to others and is a visible symbol of the priest’s and the Church’s faith. Does anyone know about this?

Well if you see a Catholic preist wearing a cassock its almost certain they are not a coward modernist ecumaniac. On the other hand if they refuse to wear clericals all the time they are probably a modernist, just a strong correlation, obviously not a casual relationship between the two.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Fruits of Vatican II. Novus Ordo priests have worked hard to marginalize themselves and bring themselves down in the eyes of the people. This has been accomplished through a number of ways:

Calling priests “Father [insert first name]”
Priests not wearing clothes that identify themselves as priests in public
Priests abdicating many roles reserved for priests in the mass: reading the epistle; handling the blessed sacrament; distributing communion under both species; and other things
Abdicating many decisions in the parish to various ccommittees comprised of laypeople

agreed. here is a video about the warnings of ST Pius X

youtube.com/watch?v=qBCAxNFkpsM

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Well if you see a Catholic preist wearing a cassock its almost certain they are not a coward modernist ecumaniac. On the other hand if they refuse to wear clericals all the time they are probably a modernist, just a strong correlation, obviously not a casual relationship between the two.

Whatever your issues are, calling every priest who doesn’t wear a cassock a “coward modernist ecumaniac” isn’t the solution.

 

[Filioque]

Well now the USCCB states they should wear the clericals even during non-liturgical times. Plus, while this is the Protestant nation, I see that as all the more reason to wear them. We need to evangelize Protestants, as they need to convert to the true Catholic Church.

I agree with the statement that we need to evangelize, and priests need to wear clerical collars, (moreso the cassock or habit). The anti-catholic bias at the time that clerical suits were permitted for travel, were at the time due to physical attacks on Catholic Churches and clergy. As we rarely see that today, I’d advocate a return to the European practice of wearing the cassock or habit at all times in public and private. The religious life is not a part-time venture.