Priest's Suits and Cassocks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matariel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AJV said:
Though actually, outside very Catholic countries like France and Spain, the cassock was never worn on the street. Not even in Rome did the particular law oblige it for secular clergy. What the wore was (surprise, surprise) a clerical suit. Even cardinals, until the end of the 19th century had a special cardinalatial suit, trimmed in scarlet, with red stockings and all.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Diocesan and other secular clerics often dress according to their ministry. Those who were in parishes wore clerical clothing. Those who were at universities dressed like university professors and so forth.

It is with the founding of the first congregations around the time of the Reformation that you begin to see religious men who do not wear a habit. This was an attempt to more anonymous than their counterparts in religious orders, who always wore some kind of monastic garb, even if they were not monks. The first friars borrowed their habits from the same source as the early monks, the shepherds of the time. That’s how the use of the cowl began. The scapular was an apron that was removed when not working. It was later that some monks and friars incorporated the scapular as part of the habit. That was not always the case. If you look among Franciscans, very few branches of this family wear scapulars. However, many of us wear them for manual labor, if we wear the habit for such activities. We call them caperones. Not it’s not pasta. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
AJV said:
I suppose it is not really appros to the idea of the Pope as the inherietor of a tradition. i mean, this is why all religious leaders keep their somewhat antiquated garments, is it not? The Dalai Lama does wear a suit either - because the robes link them to something more than just the present.

Besides, the Pope would then look like Benny Hinn or something… ugh…
Click to expand...
Hahah! I see.
 
AJV said:
As others have metioned, this is not the practise in the Catholic Church - at least, in the Latin Church.

The reason why in other denominations bishops wear the purple shirt is because purple has become for them, the de facto colour of the episcopate - thus, more “Catholic minded” or “higher” bishops in those denominations will wear a purple cassock.

However, in the Catholic Church, the clerical suit takes the place of the ordinary day to day cassock or the simar. Both of these are black and only trimmed with the appropriate colour for cardinals and bishops. The fully coloured cassocks are worn with what is called “choir dress” - only if the bishops participates in a liturgical ceremony, especially when he does not celebrate but only assists.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your explanation.
 
Once I am through with my two-year probation after Baptism (God-willing), I wish to discern for the priesthood. This has become a great dream of mine, though lately the laxity with regards to clothing in priests has bothered me somewhat. Very often when walking between the Jesuit Spirituality Center and the Cathedral, downtown, I see the two reverend fathers S.J. walking along in completely neutral civilian clothes. It looks as if they’ve gone fishing or are out for a walk, not “priests forever, according to the order of Melchizedek”. I suppose I’ve just been spoiled by the be-cassock’d image of Father Brown… 😛

If God has implanted the vocation of priestly celibacy and meaning in my soul, I will receive the cassock with pride. It is not about vanity, from what I’ve seen, but it is about making yourself visible to the laity. We have many problems, and many blessings to be asked from the clergy… so they can’t hide. 😉
 
The only time that I have ever seen any other color in a suit is in very warm climates. I know, because I have often worn a grey suit with a black clerical shirt or a white clerical shirt. I can’t imagine wearing a white suit. :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The only time that I have ever seen any other color in a suit is in very warm climates. I know, because I have often worn a grey suit with a black clerical shirt or a white clerical shirt. I can’t imagine wearing a white suit. :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Gee, Brother, you don’t think you’d look good like this? (That murse could serve as a Mass kit, or just to carry your Office books):

http://whitesuit.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/White-suit-by-Gucci.jpg
 
MarkThompson said:
Gee, Brother, you don’t think you’d look good like this? (That murse could serve as a Mass kit, or just to carry your Office books):

http://whitesuit.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/White-suit-by-Gucci.jpg
Click to expand...
AAAHHHHHHHHHHHH

Words escape me :eek:

I’m a theologian and a superior, not a cleric . . . so I don’t really need a mass kit. The Franciscan Breviary is quite bulky, since it’s five volumes. Maybe I’ll just go for one of those backpacks instead. LOL

Now the shoes I must have. :cool:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
You are correct. Diocesan and other secular clerics often dress according to their ministry. Those who were in parishes wore clerical clothing. Those who were at universities dressed like university professors and so forth.
Click to expand...
All clerics - until 1965/66 and after with documents relaxing the rules on garb - were required to wear clerical clothing, no matter what their ministry, or face censure. The typical rule for clerical clothing was cassock in the house, church, or in Catholic institutions and clerical suit (with the Roman collar or the French rabat, which by 1956 was mandatory in almost every country) everywhere else. Even on holidays, clerics were not allowed to don secular clothes but had to be distinguished in some way. The clothes could be removed, if they had to, for recreation purposes but had to be donned immediately after. But our modern custom of priests dressing in completely secular garb is a new fangled thing after 1965.
JReducation said:
The pope only has that kind of authority over religious, not over the diocesan and other secular clergy. They do not make any vows of obedience to him, only to the local bishop and it is restricted to matters pertaining to ministry, not personal things such as dress. There are some bishops who have dress codes while their priests are on duty. They can do that.
Click to expand...
With respect brother, the Pope is the supreme legislative authority in the Church and can, in fact, do this. This has been done before with Popes most notably Urban VII, Benedict XIII and the XIV. Pius IX did the same but on a smaller scale.
As far as secular deacons, priests and bishops are concerned, these men are not consecrated men. The dress rules for them are going to depend on the diocesan bishop and only as it pertains to work, not to what they wear when they are off duty. If a pope took to governing the dress of secular deacons, priests and bishops, then he would be imposing something on them that is not appropriate to their secular state.
Click to expand...
No he would not, as it is not at all incompatible. Why is why there have always existed regulations, either in specie, or in genre for clerical clothing. In some cases Popes have permitted certain things. In others they have urged adoption. And in others they have commanded it, as they have a right to do. That the Pope chooses (prudently) to let local customs define the dress, instead of making it a law does not mean that he cannot, or that it is incompatible…
 
AJV said:
All clerics - until 1965/66 and after with documents relaxing the rules on garb - were required to wear clerical clothing, no matter what their ministry, or face censure. The typical rule for clerical clothing was cassock in the house, church, or in Catholic institutions and clerical suit (with the Roman collar or the French rabat, which by 1956 was mandatory in almost every country) everywhere else. Even on holidays, clerics were not allowed to don secular clothes but had to be distinguished in some way. The clothes could be removed, if they had to, for recreation purposes but had to be donned immediately after. But our modern custom of priests dressing in completely secular garb is a new fangled thing after 1965.
Click to expand...
Then why are there photos of then Fr. Ratzinger in suit and tie before then? Oh, yeah… because he was assigned to a college, not a parish or chancery, and so wore academic garb, not clerical… which was, of course, Suit and Tie.

Oh, to the OP: His Holiness donned a suit and tie when meeting with his brother Georg in 2005. freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1690880/posts traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A168rcRatz-Suit.htm

There are also some photos of him inside the apartments in black cassock.
 
AJV said:
All clerics - until 1965/66 and after with documents relaxing the rules on garb - were required to wear clerical clothing, no matter what their ministry, or face censure. The typical rule for clerical clothing was cassock in the house, church, or in Catholic institutions and clerical suit (with the Roman collar or the French rabat, which by 1956 was mandatory in almost every country) everywhere else. Even on holidays, clerics were not allowed to don secular clothes but had to be distinguished in some way. The clothes could be removed, if they had to, for recreation purposes but had to be donned immediately after. But our modern custom of priests dressing in completely secular garb is a new fangled thing after 1965.

With respect brother, the Pope is the supreme legislative authority in the Church and can, in fact, do this. This has been done before with Popes most notably Urban VII, Benedict XIII and the XIV. Pius IX did the same but on a smaller scale.

No he would not, as it is not at all incompatible. Why is why there have always existed regulations, either in specie, or in genre for clerical clothing. In some cases Popes have permitted certain things. In others they have urged adoption. And in others they have commanded it, as they have a right to do. That the Pope chooses (prudently) to let local customs define the dress, instead of making it a law does not mean that he cannot, or that it is incompatible…
Click to expand...
I realize that there were many rules that once governed the dress of clerics, their life of prayer and many other parts of their lives. What we must also realize is that from the time of Pope John XXIII and during the papacy of Pope Paul VI the issue of the difference between the consecrated and the secular were revisited.

The reason that was revisted was because we had slowly slipped into a mode of thinking where we began to impose, not only dress, but also many other customs on secular clergy that were part of the consecrated life, not part of the secular life. We did the same to religious, by placing many expectations on them that were more appropriate for the secular clergy. As result, new paradigms developed and are still developing. Not all of the points are settled. We have to find a good middle ground.

For that reason, the Congregation on the Clergy lifted most of those dress codes from the secular clergy, leaving in place some rather obvious requirements such as modesty, simplicity, attention to climate, customs, culture, financial situation of each cleric and so forth. They handed the issue to the diocesan bishops where the decisions should be made, because of the large diversity between dioceses around the world. There is still a regulation in the books that says that clerics shall wear clerical garb. But it does not define whether this is a cassock, clerical shirt, or other. One can safely assume that clerical garb is whatever is usual and customary for clerics in a particular region and whatever is suitable given climate, culture and the nature of their work. That’s where we see the practice of people like Pope Benedict, when he was a professor, wearing the traditional clothing of a professor, which was a shirt and tie, at least in Germany.

Another question that came up was the question of the promise of obedience made by secular clergy. This question was really about whether or not the promise of obedience made by a secular cleric is the same as the vow of obedience made by a religious. The conclusion is that it is not.

The religious surrenders his will and his life to the hands of his superior and his conferes. The secular cleric has always promised to obey his bishop in everything that pertains to the care of souls: assignments, pastoral practices, celebration of sacraments, deportment and many things that the pastoral care of souls involves. They have never been bound to the same kind of obedience as the religious.

Not every angle has been exhausted. There is still much work to be done in the understanding of the promise of obedience and how to help secular clerics be who they are supposed to be and at the same time preserve their secular state. The Church does not want them to be religious (as in consecrated religious) and she does not want them to be worldly either.

Every pope from John XXIII to Benedict XVI has been emphatic about the principle of subsidiarity. There are matters that properly belong to the local bishop or the religious superior. This is where the pope bows out of those issues that do not need his intervention or where his intervention would be inappropriate, because it could potentially override the authority of the person at ground zero, bishop or religious superior. Dress codes is one of those issues that can be taken care of within each diocese or within each religious institute. All they have to do is submit their statutes to the Apostolic See for approval. The Apostolic See does not create the statutes.

Finding this balance is not easy. I don’t know of any diocese that has mastered this tension. There has to be one somewhere. I just don’t know about it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I beleive that priest,s should were the cloths that show that they are a priest,this way we can say hello father in his among us in the streets, or if he is walking around the church
area, wereing reg cloths,and you don,t none him, we can,t go too and say hello father if we don,t know if he is wereing reg cloths, even nun,s are doing the same, but the older
priest and nun,s still were the cloth,s that show that there a priest or nun.Even the
frias were cloths the way there suppose too, If I was a priest or a frair I would were them.
 
Well like I posted before…If I became pope all non religious order priests would wear the cassock…the religious orders can keep their habits.🙂
 
HCC said:
A pause for frilly surplices…

View attachment 8653

View attachment 8654

View attachment 8655

View attachment 8656

View attachment 8657

View attachment 8658
Click to expand...
I visited a parish where they gave me something like to wear over my habit. Talk about an eye sore. :eek:

Our habit is a very heavy, almost denim like, fabric. The contrast was horrible. These are really meant to be worn over the typical cassock. The monastic habits are too rough looking for these. A cassock is more dressy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Did anyone else watch the most recent episode of “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo” (here is a link to the aftershow: ewtn.com/news/blog.asp?blog_ID=2)??) In case you had not, one of the interviewee was Joseph Cardinal Zen, the Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong. His Eminence wore the essentials of the typical “episcopal suit” (black coat and trousers, clerical shirt, and pectoral cross), but he also was adorned in a red vest. I have never seen this ensemble before. Since scarlet is the color for cardinals, I was wondering if this was just a derivant of his own sense of style, or if any other cardinals ever wear red vests with their clericals (perhaps it is an East Asian fashion)?
 
I wish more priests would dress as priests all the time. My current pastor wears his black and the collar at all times. I have never once seen him without the black. This is a huge contrast to some priests that used to be around who have been seen wearing cut-off jeans and hawaiian shirts.

There was a once an article in the local newspaper about priests wearing their priestly attire in public. There were a few more conservative/traditional priests who said they had no problem wearing it in public no matter what the current view of Catholic priests with the scandal going around. A number of the more liberal priests stated that they got nervous sometimes wondering what people thought of them when they wore black.

I personally know more than half the priests interviewed and know about all the rest, so I can be pretty safe with the liberal/conservative labeling here. 😃
 
Did you folks know that the Church deliberately has always avoided defining what is the proper dress for a priest and the reason why? I’m not talking about at mass or other liturgical rituals. I’m talking about day to day.

The 1983 code just reworded the 1917 code. To paraphrase, it says that priests who do not have a habit should wear whatever is proper to other clerics.

Here is the reason for the ambiguity. It is deliberate ambiguity. Why?

First: many priests belong to religious orders. Many religious order prohibit the distinction between priest and lay brother. Everyone must look the same. Everyone either wears a habit, or a cassock or a shirt and Roman collar.

Second: some priests are brothers. In communities where a priest is really a brother and there are other brothers who a not priests, but they are equal in rank, duties and rights, distinctions are not allowed. Again, t hey all were the same thing.

Third: if a priest belongs to a religious community that has a habit, the appropriate dress for him is a habit, not a Roman collar, unless his community allows the Roman collar.

That leave us with secular priests. Secular priest can belong to a diocese (Diocesan priests) or to a priestly fraternity (SSPX. FSSP, Christ the King, Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Vincentian, Oratorians and many others). They are all secular. None of them are consecrated men.

For a very long time, secular priests dressed very differently from one region of the world to another and in some places they still do. If you look at a picture of Bl. John Henry Newman, he’s wearing a black top with an open white collar. If you look at a picture of St. Vincent de Paul, he’s wearing the same black top, with a white collar that is buttoned. If you look at St. John Baptist de La Salle he’s wearing what is known as a rabatta, it’s a collar with two strips of cloth handing down the front. The differences continue to this day.

I’ll show you a picture of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger wearing the typical garb of a priest professor

View attachment 10215

Now do you see why the Code is deliberately vague? The dress of the priest is different from culture to culture. And then there is the difference between the priest who is a religious and the priest who is a secular. Finally, you have many male religious who are not priests who also wear either a collar or a cassock, depending on the custom of their community. Brother Andre wore a cassock. When he walked down the street, many called him Father.

I know that many of you love the garb, but don’t become too narrow-minded. The garb does not mean that the man is a priest or that he is not a priest. The garb speaks about the presence of the Church in the marketplace.

You must also be very respectful of those who belong to religious communities. There were founders of male religious communities who did not want their men to be noticed. They never gave their men distinctive garb. One of these is Mother Teresa. The male Missionaries of Charity go through the world in anonymity. They may not even wear a crucifix. They wear a white shirt and slack, because this is traditional Indian dress for the working man. In other words, please don’t go wishing that every Missionary of Charity wore some kind of garb. That would be very offensive to them and to Jesus. Jesus revealed that he did not want them to wear this kind of garb.

One last note. Does everyone now how we got the shirt with the collar and black suit?

It came from the Episcopalians. The Catholic Church officially encouraged priests and brothers in the USA to wear it so as not to stand out, because this was the garb of the Episcopal priest. It was so comfortable and easy to maintain that it every European and South American priest and brother who visited our country took one home. Now, they’re all over the place. They are not truly Roman collars.

OK, I’ll let you into a little secret. What makes them Roman is that the white square is only worn by Roman Catholics and now by some Oriental Catholics. Originally it was a white band around the neck. After the Council of Baltimore all secular priests and those religious priests and brothers who were allowed to do so, wore the white band with slacks and coat.

That still leaves open the question, what is the official garb for a priest?

Ans> Whatever is either

a) Allowed by his bishop

b) Allowed by his order

c) Usual and customary in his region

d) All of the above

Correct Answer: D - All of the above.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top