R
Rickwood
Guest
Mine is all gold.
- Status
D
DaveBj
Guest
This discussion brings up a question. What do altar servers at chapels on military bases wear? An army surplice?
(sorry. back in my hole)
DaveBj
(sorry. back in my hole)
DaveBj
R
rwoehmke
Guest
In my opinion and only my opinion, it seems a little bit off to insist on having one’s own way in this matter when the parish “standard” for servers is the alb. Sounds to me like a combat between the pride of the experts and the pride of the cassock and server person. " I am gonna drag my feet all the way and buck you all in every way possible to have my own way." That cassock and surplice must stand out like a sore thumb, like a penguin among sparrows. 
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
I agree - sadly, the USCCB’s statements can very rarely be taken as a gauge of what is encouraged or traditional in the universal Church. They have their own agenda to push. Serving in cassock and surplice is a tradition of at least a few centuries, if not far more. That said, despite the blatant fact of Vatican practice heavily favoring the cassock and surplice, there is also no official “on the books” preference for that option. It is a longstanding tradition, but not any kind of law.
One thing we know for sure on this matter: the cassock is a piece of clerical garb. That means that, barring special circumstances, non-clerics should not be wearing it.
What are some of those special circumstances? For one, since prior to 1972 seminarians were clerics (typical formation has a man receiving first tonsure within, I believe, the first year) and thus should wear the cassock, the custom of seminarians wearing it lasted after they ceased to become clerics so soon (at that point not occurring until diaconal ordination, much later in their formation). Another special circumstance was in circumstances where a non-cleric fulfilled the duty of a cleric. The most notable of those was when serving at the altar. Note here that because service at the altar was a clerical function, it was restricted to those ontologically capable of being clerics, i.e. to males. That’s why when females were allowed to serve at the altar for the first time in history a decade ago, we didn’t have an actual rule for whether they could wear cassocks but we had the common sense conclusion of our previous reasoning to say “If you can’t be a cleric, you can’t wear clerical garb.” No matter that one common sense norm had just been violated (If you can’t be a cleric, you can’t function as one), the norm for vestiture hung on. It’s unwritten, but it’s really the only thing that makes sense.
Yes, the pectoral cross is an item of pontifical vesture and thus reserved only to those granted the privilege of using it. The OP needs to stop wearing it immediately until such time as the pope grants him the concession but, as Wikipedia accurately puts it, “The practice of granting other clergy special permission to wear such vestments as a mark of honor has almost disappeared.”
That does seem to be the gist of the matter. I’m sure it arose from a well-intentioned quest for traditional and beautiful vestment, but that quest ended with the arrogation of pontificalia, and an eschewal of the cincture which, while it is correct should not be worn over a surplice, is entirely proper on a layman vested in alb. I can’t say for sure whether the fascia (band cincture) is appropriate for a layman wearing a cassock since I believe there are different customs surrounding that, but the main rule of thumb should be to obey the pastor in things licit, not buck him (or even his experts, as incompetent as they might otherwise be) when he is fully within his rights. In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.In my opinion and only my opinion, it seems a little bit off to insist on having one’s own way in this matter when the parish “standard” for servers is the alb. Sounds to me like a combat between the pride of the experts and the pride of the cassock and server person. " I am gonna drag my feet all the way and buck you all in every way possible to have my own way." That cassock and surplice must stand out like a sore thumb, like a penguin among sparrows.
BTW - In many non-Roman Western liturgies, both monastic and primatial, the proper vestment of the acolyte was the alb, not the cassock and surplice. Do cassock and surplice fit better with our secular Roman liturgical customs? Indubitably. Is their Western pedigree any longer than that of the alb? Not a chance.
R
Rickwood
Guest
That really doesn’t make a lot of sense. The clerical garb (cassock surplice) has as you note long been on loan to laymen (boys or older) who serve Mass. When that ability was extended to women, the custom of wearing the cassock/surplice was also extended because as you note, there was no specific prohibition.
Many would agree that “If you can’t be a cleric, you can’t wear clerical garb” should be the rule, but in this context it pretty much went out the window when the other long-held belief “If you can’t be a cleric, you can’t serve Mass” was made inoperable by the Church.
A
Aramis
Guest
Vatican tradition also is to use seminarians as altar servers, thus proving nothing for the validity of the alb as normative either way for non-instituted acolytes.
The Byzantine sticheron is not quite the same as an alb; it is similar. Technically, it’s a dalmatic… It fills the same liturgical role, but is not always white; often, it is worn (even by servers) in the liturgical color of the day when sufficient numbers of them are present. White is the default, however. Some byzantine churches use white only.
S
Sr_Sally
Guest
I really don’t understand why you are making a big fuss out of what you wear. It would seem that the virtue of humilty would lead you to wear what the ‘experts’ (your ‘boss’ as it were) has asked you to wear. Being an altar fashionista (or fashionisto in your case) is not a virtue that I am aware of.
S
Sure
Guest
In fairness to the original poster, he was wondering what were the experiences of others. It’s a valid inquiry. And just because there are liturgically ill-formed committees and individuals in some parishes that make bizarre and non-traditional impositions on servers, doesn’t mean that servers have to sit back and just take it.
Men and boys serving at the altar can wear cassock and surplice (with or without collar). They can also wear the alb. Although, in keeping with long-standing liturgical traditions of the Church, they should vest as clerics sitting in choir - cassock and surplice.
Women and girls should vest in something, but not as clerics, so they should vest in albs.
So, it’s not about being a “fashionista”, it’s about upholding the liturgical traditions of our Faith. Dressing correctly shows respect for our Lord and correctly treats the liturgy as a foretaste of the Heavenly Jerusalem.
R
rick43235
Guest
“Whoosh.” Right over everyone’s heads.This discussion brings up a question. What do altar servers at chapels on military bases wear? An army surplice?
(sorry. back in my hole)
DaveBj
R
Rickwood
Guest
Oh?
I don’t think it’s a good idea for laypersons to wear pectoral crosses while serving Mass. I don’t think cinctures are a good idea either and are best avoided.
Those “experts” are not my “boss” – in this case my pastor is. I do wonder why they struggle so desperately to try and control me and others, though.
D
DaveBj
Guest
Looks like it. Or everyone is (and quite properly, too) simply ignoring the pun-ishment.“Whoosh.” Right over everyone’s heads.
DaveBj
R
rick43235
Guest
Ouch! Enough. Enough!!
P
Pong
Guest
You’re problem is that “you don’t think” has become more important than what the people responsible for the altar server’s think. My heart goes out to your poor pastor who has to contend with your inability to work well with others in addition to all his other duties. :tsktsk: It sounds like the “experts” whom you’ve spent a good deal of time deliberately slighting know more about proper vestry than you do. The debate about women’s fitness to wear the cassock and surplice aside, the fact of the matter is that the USCCB encourages the use of the alb while showing little support for the cassock and surplice; you would do well to part with your pride and submit yourself to the authority of those in higher office.
R
Rickwood
Guest
Your problem is that you judge others and you really have no idea about what you are talking about.
Cinctures have a very specific meaning – that meaning should not be lost on those who wear them for nothing more than a fashion statement or to keep their baggy albs in line. They should be avoided when possible under such circumstances. Same with a pectoral cross.
Nothing “poor” about my pastor. He has no problem with the way I vest. The only ones who seem to have a problem are those lay “experts” who struggle to force people to conform to their notion of what is proper. Said “experts” are not in a “higher office.”
YOU would do well to check YOUR pride before responding to threads. Just re-read your response. It’s terribly inaccurate and judgmental.
P
Pong
Guest
You posted a thread in on an internet forum, presumably, with the intention of getting replies. I am not judging you, aside from drawing a conclusion based on your own words. As for not knowing what I am talking about, I’m not the one trying to override the USCCB.
Yes, they do. They are also permitted when worn with an alb. And if I’m not mistaken, you aquired a pectoral cross, which is not proper for laymen, and you yourself just stated that the pectoral cross should be avoided.
.
He very well may not have a problem with the way you vest, but I don’t think it is going to far to speculate that his life would be easier without one person going out of his way to rock the boat.
Ah, but you have also tried to raise youtself to the position of “lay expert” by disregarding the norms of your parish in favour of, what shall I call it, “self-expression?”
Show me where I have been inaccurate and I will glady recant.
R
Rickwood
Guest
Responses are on thing, crude judgments like the following are something altogether different: “…you would do well to part with your pride and submit yourself to the authority of those in higher office.”
I never said that cinctures and/or pectoral crosses were not permitted – please don’t suggest that I did. What I did say was: “I don’t think it’s a good idea for laypersons to wear pectoral crosses while serving Mass. I don’t think cinctures are a good idea either and are best avoided” and I’ll stick by that. In my opinion it’s not a good idea to use a cincture as a “belt” when they have a very specific history and meaning within the Church. So while I never said they are not permitted, I think it’s very wrong to force a server to wear a cincture when none is needed. Further, there is no prohibition against servers wearing pectoral crosses – I simply didn’t want to wear the issue ones that are crudely carved out of redwood with no corpus.
He doesn’t have a problem with the way I vest. In fact he has asked me for copies of vendor catalogs.
My actions have absolutely nothing to do with “rocking the boat” – again please don’t suggest they do. They have everything to do with vesting in the best and most appropriate way I know how.
The “norms of my parish” mean zippo in this instance. A position agreed to by my pastor.
Read my comments.
T
THurifer2
Guest
There is no formal prohibition for a priest to dress like a nun either
- Status