Vesting Questions of an Adult Altar Server

[Rickwood]

It is rather remarkable how many questions come up regarding how altar servers should vest in my parish. The standard is a white (or off-white) hooded alb, rope cincture in the color of the day and a cross that looks as though it was sold on the sidewalk in Haight-Ashbury in 1970.

In response I bought my own black cassock and white surplice to wear. Amazingly no one has ever challenged it. They (lay liturgical experts) did get bent out of shape that I refused to wear the cross or cincture though. They made a huge, ongoing deal about it. When my former pastor asked me nicely to comply (so as to quiet the "experts’) I did.

I responded by procuring a simple San Damiano pectoral crucifix and one of those pectoral cords worn by bishops. Neither are prohibited for lay use, and they look better with a cassock/surplice than anything else.

The cincture was a different story. Laypersons shouldn’t be wearing cinctures. Yes if one wears those amorphous once size fits all albs I guess it’s OK from a functional standpoint but there is absolutely no need with a cassock/surplice. When I asked why it was such a big deal I was met with the “uniformity” speech. So I went out and bought a band cincture, replete with tassels which is proper for a cassock but improper for a laymen. Both the pectoral cross/cord and the band cincture bother the lay “experts” but they more than satisfy my pastor.

The “experts” insist that no cuff or collar/tie show from outside my cassock. It seems to me that white cuffs under a black cassock and a white collar and black tie (not to be confused with a Roman collar) looks far more refined and formal. Either way I cannot find anything from the Church on the matter but it sure bugs the experts. My pastor is fine with it.

Does this sorta stuff go on in your parishes?

 

[Sure]

Probably.

I just wear a t-shirt under the cassock.

I have also worn the collar with the cassock…it looks much better that way.

 

[Like]

No! No one in my parish goes out and does their own thing.

 

[Rickwood]

Probably.

I just wear a t-shirt under the cassock.

I have also worn the collar with the cassock…it looks much better that way.

That’s a good point. A Roman collar does make the garb look a lot better in my opinion. While it’s the stole and not the Roman collar that is the marque of a priest or deacon in a liturgical setting, I think most Americans are ignorant of that fact and equate the collar to a priest and possibly a deacon. That would likely fry the brains of the lay liturgical experts at my parish.

 

[Sure]

That’s a good point. A Roman collar does make the garb look a lot better in my opinion. While it’s the stole and not the Roman collar that is the marque of a priest or deacon in a liturgical setting, I think most Americans are ignorant of that fact and equate the collar to a priest and possibly a deacon. That would likely fry the brains of the lay liturgical experts at my parish.

Then do it!

All the servers in the Vatican wear collars. Even the ones who are not seminarians. The whole point in wearing vestments at the altar is to dress in clerical garb which “in choir” would be cassock w/collar and surplice.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

We only has an adult alter server on those rare weekdays when no young boys are present. We don’t have adult alter server or alter girls

 

[Rickwood]

We only has an adult alter server on those rare weekdays when no young boys are present. We don’t have adult alter server or alter girls

Why attempt to derail a thread? Your comment has nothing to do with the thread. Why not start your own thread on the new topic you are trying to introduce?

 

[Aramis]

From the USCCB.org website

usccb.org[/URL]”]1"In the diocese of the United States of America, acolytes, altar servers, lectors, and other lay ministers may wear an alb or other suitable vesture or other appropriate and dignified clothing." (Girm 337)

usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/mass/altar.shtml
Other suitable vesture is vague, but the Alb is appropriate for all.

I know a canon lawyer who also says that the Alb is allowed for all who are serving, and required of clerics who are serving. I also know a Theologian (priest with a doctorate in Theology from Rome) who says the same.

Choir dress for clerics and clerks (instituted lectors, instituted cantors, instituted acolytes, tho the term itself is now deprecated, since the 1983 CIC; it was in force in the 1913 CIC.) is cassock and suplice, but choir dress is for when you are NOT serving…

also note: in Sing to the Lord, the USCCB note that:

33. Choir and ensemble members may dress in albs or choir robes, but always in clean,
presentable, and modest clothing. **Cassock and surplice, being clerical attire, are not
recommended as choir vesture. **

36. The psalmist sings the verses of the Responsorial Psalm from the ambo or another
suitable place.45 The psalmist may dress in an alb or choir robe, but always wears clean,
presentable, and modest clothing. **Cassock and surplice, being clerical attire, are not
recommended as vesture for the psalmist. **

40. The cantor exercises his or her ministry from a conveniently located stand, but not
from the ambo.46 The cantor may dress in an alb or choir robe, but always in clean, presentable,
and modest clothing. **Cassock and surplice, being clerical attire, are not recommended as vesture
for the cantor. **

In short, there is little support for the cassock and surplice… but lots for the alb. Even when specifically mentioned, as in USCCB - (Liturgy) - BCL Newsletter: In the February 2000 Newsletter, the cassock and surplice are by local custom and are not, apparently, preferred.

 

[Rickwood]

From the USCCB.org website

usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/mass/altar.shtml
Other suitable vesture is vague, but the Alb is appropriate for all.

I know a canon lawyer who also says that the Alb is allowed for all who are serving, and required of clerics who are serving. I also know a Theologian (priest with a doctorate in Theology from Rome) who says the same.

Choir dress for clerics and clerks (instituted lectors, instituted cantors, instituted acolytes, tho the term itself is now deprecated, since the 1983 CIC; it was in force in the 1913 CIC.) is cassock and suplice, but choir dress is for when you are NOT serving…

also note: in Sing to the Lord, the USCCB note that:

In short, there is little support for the cassock and surplice… but lots for the alb. Even when specifically mentioned, as in USCCB - (Liturgy) - BCL Newsletter: In the February 2000 Newsletter, the cassock and surplice are by local custom and are not, apparently, preferred.

That is excellent information, thank you.

 

[Aramis]

That is excellent information, thank you.

You’re welcome.

 

[Sure]

From the USCCB.org website

usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/mass/altar.shtml
Other suitable vesture is vague, but the Alb is appropriate for all.

I know a canon lawyer who also says that the Alb is allowed for all who are serving, and required of clerics who are serving. I also know a Theologian (priest with a doctorate in Theology from Rome) who says the same.

Choir dress for clerics and clerks (instituted lectors, instituted cantors, instituted acolytes, tho the term itself is now deprecated, since the 1983 CIC; it was in force in the 1913 CIC.) is cassock and suplice, but choir dress is for when you are NOT serving…

also note: in Sing to the Lord, the USCCB note that:

In short, there is little support for the cassock and surplice… but lots for the alb. Even when specifically mentioned, as in USCCB - (Liturgy) - BCL Newsletter: In the February 2000 Newsletter, the cassock and surplice are by local custom and are not, apparently, preferred.

It’s not surprising that the USCCB wants to stay away from cassock and surplice, after all they can only be worn by men and boys. One could make a case that there is a definite custom of men and boys serving in cassock and surplice. It is what is worn in nearly every cathedral and in the vatican.

 

[DaveBj]

Thanks for the GIRM quote, Aramis, you beat me to it.

When I serve for weekday masses, I wear black dress-slacks (that’s part of my uniform anyway) and a long-sleeve white shirt.

DaveBj

 

[Rickwood]

It’s not surprising that the USCCB wants to stay away from cassock and surplice, after all they can only be worn by men and boys. One could make a case that there is a definite custom of men and boys serving in cassock and surplice. It is what is worn in nearly every cathedral and in the vatican.

Not really. While I certainly believe it’s only proper (based on historical use) for clerics, seminarians and boys to wear the cassock/surplice, there is no formal prohibition to keep females from wearing them. None.

Our annual September parish celebration is called “heritage day.” Our pastor wants servers to wear cassocks and surplices on that day as a means to pay tribute to the past. That is an absolutely wonderful idea. Very unexpected. The sad part is that on that day, at least five women/girls will wear cassocks surplices that day. That’s not our heritage. He is trying to do a wonderful thing but there is at least one rather difficult unexpected consequence…

 

[muffinmojo]

Cassocks on servers just *look * way better. I’ve always thought alba look sorts trashy/unkempt, sorta " blah". They’re undergarmets for a priest…

 

[mullenpm]

As I mentioned in a thread under a different topic, the altar servers at my church wear a black cassock and a white surplice; even though, one of those servers is a woman.

Other posters have said these garments may be worn only by men; why is that? The woman in my church wears the garments because that is what our Rector wishes and by wearing the cassock and surplice she is dressed exactly as the male counterpart. Actually, it took me a few minutes to realize it was a woman.

I don’t approve of females as altar servers but since that is the way it is (at present) why should a female not dress in the so-called male garments so as to fit in and not bring notice to the fact she is a woman?

 

[Rickwood]

As I mentioned in a thread under a different topic, the altar servers at my church wear a black cassock and a white surplice; even though, one of those servers is a woman.

Other posters have said these garments may be worn only by men; why is that? The woman in my church wears the garments because that is what our Rector wishes and by wearing the cassock and surplice she is dressed exactly as the male counterpart. Actually, it took me a few minutes to realize it was a woman.

I don’t approve of females as altar servers but since that is the way it is (at present) why should a female not dress in the so-called male garments so as to fit in and not bring notice to the fact she is a woman?

There is no prohibition in the Church for the wearing of cassock/surplice by female altar servers.

However there is a long (centuries) tradition of loaning that purely clerical garb to lay acolytes and altar servers. There is nothing that ever extended that tradition to female altar servers.

Your rector should be more respectful of the history. On the other hand, he’s not breaking any hard and fast rules.

 

[Rickwood]

Cassocks on servers just ***look *** way better. I’ve always thought alba look sorts trashy/unkempt, sorta " blah". They’re undergarmets for a priest…

Not even close. While a nice cassock/surplice looks OK (they look quite unfinished without a Roman collar) a nice alb can look downright regal.

 

[jprioli]

Cassocks on servers just *look * way better. I’ve always thought alba look sorts trashy/unkempt, sorta " blah". They’re undergarmets for a priest…

Actually, they are baptismal garments.

That is why the other garments go over the alb, because Baptism is the foundation of all the other sacraments.

As Augustine said, “With you, I am a Christian; for you, I am a bishop.”

 

[muffinmojo]

Actually, they are baptismal garments.

That is why the other garments go over the alb, because Baptism is the foundation of all the other sacraments.

As Augustine said, “With you, I am a Christian; for you, I am a bishop.”

Yeah yeah I know lol its just that’s how they appear to me, what they always make me think of, even though I was baptized in them just a few months ago. Something about the contrast and the way the surplice frames and drapes around the cassock just looks so dignified and “holy” to me, I think the only time solid- color robes ever looked good to me was in a video I saw of monks serving in a white habit, but it was a different cut and fit than an alb. I guess Im just hard to please

 

[bpbasilphx]

I responded by procuring a simple San Damiano pectoral crucifix and one of those pectoral cords worn by bishops. Neither are prohibited for lay use, and they look better with a cassock/surplice than anything else.

**I believe the green and gold cord with the gold tassel in the back IS reserved for bishops, as it’s part of the insignia.

An abbot wears a black and gold cord; a cardinal wears a red and gold cord.**