F
FrDavid96
Guest
The important point to keep in mind when talking about these “concessions” is that the chasuble-alb is seen as a replacement for the alb, and not as a replacement for the chasuble. I’ve re-read Japhy’s post (above) and it’s clear (though not crystal clear) that this concession was made because this new type of vestment was viewed as a new style of alb. That’s why it’s only allowed for concelebrants, and not the principle celebrant.
For that reason, we can’t say that the chasuble-alb can replace a proper chasuble. An alb, perhaps; but not a chasuble.
As for the question of why are priests still wearing the stole over the chasuble?
Most of the priests who wear them this way do so because of the simple fact that the vestment is in the sacristy closet, and they wear the vestment the way it was designed to be worn. They’re not trying to make a point, and they’re not intended to be disobedient to the norms. They just don’t give a lot of thought to this particular issue.
I know a few priests who say that they don’t like this style, but they will wear them until the vesements wear out or otherwise get replaced. I’ve sometimes asked “why not just wear the stole underneath?” and the response is that they weren’t designed that way.
There are a very few priests (many of them belonging to a certain “generation” ordained from the 60s through the 80s) who insist on wearing the stole over the chasuble because they are indeed trying to make a point–that they are going to do it specifically because that’s how it was not done before Vatican II. I’ve known a few who insist on doing it this way even when they are wearing vestments clearly designed for the stole to be underneath. A few years back I knew a priest ordained in the 70s and when he visited my parish he did it this way in spite of the fact that all the vestments in the closet looked outright ridiculous with the stole on the outside (that was no accident, as I had them made that way
)
For that reason, we can’t say that the chasuble-alb can replace a proper chasuble. An alb, perhaps; but not a chasuble.
As for the question of why are priests still wearing the stole over the chasuble?
Most of the priests who wear them this way do so because of the simple fact that the vestment is in the sacristy closet, and they wear the vestment the way it was designed to be worn. They’re not trying to make a point, and they’re not intended to be disobedient to the norms. They just don’t give a lot of thought to this particular issue.
I know a few priests who say that they don’t like this style, but they will wear them until the vesements wear out or otherwise get replaced. I’ve sometimes asked “why not just wear the stole underneath?” and the response is that they weren’t designed that way.
There are a very few priests (many of them belonging to a certain “generation” ordained from the 60s through the 80s) who insist on wearing the stole over the chasuble because they are indeed trying to make a point–that they are going to do it specifically because that’s how it was not done before Vatican II. I’ve known a few who insist on doing it this way even when they are wearing vestments clearly designed for the stole to be underneath. A few years back I knew a priest ordained in the 70s and when he visited my parish he did it this way in spite of the fact that all the vestments in the closet looked outright ridiculous with the stole on the outside (that was no accident, as I had them made that way
)
It’s the same crowd who, on the rare occasions they ever don a cassock, wear a semi-jebi that is both too short (trousers clearly hanging below the hem) and improperly closed. And it goes without saying that the idea of a cassock under an alb is totally anathema to them. Biretta? 
