What are these Altar Boys wearing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoyalViews
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think that they are Roman collars because they are VERY tall. But I think it may be blurring the lines just a bit. Curious to find out what these are!

Pax
 
Where was this photo taken at? I know that in some parts of Italy altar servers are allowed to wear them.
 
My understanding is that Altar Servers take the place that is originally meant for clergy, and as such, are allowed, when serving such an office, to wear the Roman Collar.

Besides, it looks somewhat goofy to wear a cassock with no collar.
 
Looks like what I remember wearing in Lynn, MA, in the '50’s (the photo may date to that time) but thankfully we didn’t wear a collar.
 
They are Roman collars. That being said, we must remember that the Roman collar is not just for priests. It is worn by deacons and brothers too. It is not blurring the lines in the sense that it is not just for priests.

The altar boy does not replace the cleric. The altar boys replaced the acolytes. Acolytes were not clerics. Many acolytes eventually became clerics, but not always. All monks and friars are acolytes, but only 1/3 are priests, none of permanent deacons and few are bishops.

The altar boy must wear whatever is determined by the priest who is celebrating the mass. The GIRM does not make a specific statement about what they must wear, only to say that the lines of the vestment must reflect dignity and beauty, without being ornate. This applies to the vestments of the deacon and the priest as well.

The rabbata (white collar) looks very high. I’m wondering if this is an adult size. These boys look very little.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
They are Roman collars. That being said, we must remember that the Roman collar is not just for priests. It is worn by deacons and brothers too. It is not blurring the lines in the sense that it is not just for priests.

The altar boy does not replace the cleric. The altar boys replaced the acolytes. Acolytes were not clerics. Many acolytes eventually became clerics, but not always. All monks and friars are acolytes, but only 1/3 are priests, none of permanent deacons and few are bishops.

The altar boy must wear whatever is determined by the priest who is celebrating the mass. The GIRM does not make a specific statement about what they must wear, only to say that the lines of the vestment must reflect dignity and beauty, without being ornate. This applies to the vestments of the deacon and the priest as well.

The rabbata (white collar) looks very high. I’m wondering if this is an adult size. These boys look very little.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Where do you get the idea that there are no permanent deacons among the monastics? I know a few myself.
 
They are Roman collars. That being said, we must remember that the Roman collar is not just for priests. It is worn by deacons and brothers too. It is not blurring the lines in the sense that it is not just for priests.

The altar boy does not replace the cleric. The altar boys replaced the acolytes. Acolytes were not clerics. Many acolytes eventually became clerics, but not always. All monks and friars are acolytes, but only 1/3 are priests, none of permanent deacons and few are bishops.

The altar boy must wear whatever is determined by the priest who is celebrating the mass. The GIRM does not make a specific statement about what they must wear, only to say that the lines of the vestment must reflect dignity and beauty, without being ornate. This applies to the vestments of the deacon and the priest as well.

The rabbata (white collar) looks very high. I’m wondering if this is an adult size. These boys look very little.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Well, strictly speaking Acolyte was Minor Order, and (citing from Wikipedia, so with a grain of salt) "While acolytes did not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, they were considered part of the clergy, and were considered a step on the way to Holy Orders. "
 
Where do you get the idea that there are no permanent deacons among the monastics? I know a few myself.
You are correct. I should have said friars, because most orders of friars frown on permanent diaconate among their ranks, because it clericalizes the order.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Well, strictly speaking Acolyte was Minor Order, and (citing from Wikipedia, so with a grain of salt) "While acolytes did not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, they were considered part of the clergy, and were considered a step on the way to Holy Orders. "
They were considered part of the clergy, but it was an incorrect assumption, because they did not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders to become acolytes. In my order, every friar is an acolyte and lector. Only 1/3 are ordained priests. We have had this practice since 1221. We never referred to the acolytes as clerics. They were always called lay brothers. This was a later introduction by the secular clergy.

The same confusion was added when people considered all ordained men as consecrated men. That too was used. But that too was doctrinally incorrect. Consecrated men are men in vows. Diocesan priests, priests in societies and priests in priestly fraternities are not consecrated men. They make no vows.

What we are doing today is clarifying defintions. That’s what canon law tried to do in 1983. Acolytes are lay and priests are secular unless they become make vows in a religious order or a religious congregation.

Fraternally,

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