Which garb looks best for an adult male altar server?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Solomonson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
peter26 said:
Personally I think a black cassock with a surplice looks best.
Click to expand...
I agree. But if such is not available, a proper alb (not one of those thin cotton hooded ones the kids wear) looks good too.
 
In Anglicanism the Priest often wore black cassock and surplice. Altar servers the cotta; adults with black cassock and youth more often with the red. I like the black cassock for both.

Albs were usually reserved for clergy and seminarians.
 
As long as they are clean, pressed and fit the altar server, it really doesn’t matter. Also, if there are two or more altar servers, they should be wearing the same garb.

The ides is to look professional, like this isn’t the first time you did this.
 
My apologies. I did not add my personal favorite and it will not allow me to now.

Black cassock, black cincture, white amice, white roman alb.
 
A rather provoking question. Are you trying to make us gay?
 
Solomonson said:
Which garb looks best for an adult male altar server?
Click to expand...
Could you please explain your terminology? Parts of it do not make sense

You speak of
Black cassock, black cincture, lacey white surplice and amice
The last time I saw a black cincture worn directly over a cassock – which was a cincture of the type and consistency I wear over my alb and under my chasuble on All Souls Day – it was by a young Père du Sainte-Croix of the Congregation of the Blessed Moreau; before that young priest, the last Père du Sainte-Croix I saw thus was some 30 years ago…and he was ancient. Do you mean the fascia?

Secondly, you list, twice, cassock, cincture, surplice and amice. I have been doing this for decades. I have certainly worn an amice over my cassock and under my alb – although I favour albs which obviate the need for an amice – but I can’t imagine what you mean by ending with an amice. Someone puts an amice on over a cassock and a surplice? Or between the cassock and surplice? Why?

In the days when we did the vetus ordo, there were “assistants at the throne” who wore cassock, surplice, amice…under a dalmatic.

In addition to a cope over cassock and surplice, over the decades, I have worn a mantelletta and a mozzetta over cassock and rochet…which today is interchangeable with the surplice, for all intent and purpose.

But never have I seen anyone, outside a sacristy and that in the process of vesting, whose upper-most garment was an amice.
 
An interesting distribution so far. I had no idea what the results would be, but I figured one or possibly two would be highly favored. As it is, the distribution is quite spread out thus far.
 
Kielbasi said:
As long as they are clean, pressed and fit the altar server, it really doesn’t matter. Also, if there are two or more altar servers, they should be wearing the same garb.

The ides is to look professional, like this isn’t the first time you did this.
Click to expand...
Lots of truth to that…
 
One thing I really don’t care for is the “unfinished” appearance of wearing a cassock without a Roman collar.

While the Roman collar is not really a mark of the authority of a priest (the stole is), in a practical way it is in the US and perhaps other countries so it would cause confusion. If an adult lay male server was serving Mass in Italy, he would wear the Roman collar without a problem. In the US it would no doubt cause great confusion, distress and probably some bitterness in select people.
 
Solomonson said:
One thing I really don’t care for is the “unfinished” appearance of wearing a cassock without a Roman collar.

While the Roman collar is not really a mark of the authority of a priest (the stole is), in a practical way it is in the US and perhaps other countries so it would cause confusion. If an adult lay male server was serving Mass in Italy, he would wear the Roman collar without a problem. In the US it would no doubt cause great confusion, distress and probably some bitterness in select people.
Click to expand...
Given that in many - if not most U.S. dioceses - permanent DEACONS aren’t allowed to wear the Roman Collar, the idea of lay servers wearing it would truly be beyond the pale.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Given that in many - if not most U.S. dioceses - permanent DEACONS aren’t allowed to wear the Roman Collar, the idea of lay servers wearing it would truly be beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
Permanent deacons have nothing to do with whether or not lay servers wear the Roman collar.

I cannot say for certain as I have no example, but I strongly suspect that in some parishes, lay servers (particularly kids/teens) DO wear the Roman collar with their cassocks.
 
Solomonson said:
Which garb looks best for an adult male altar server?
Click to expand...
Personally, I like the cassock and surplice on altar servers up through the teens and maybe their 20’s. I prefer the look of the white alb on older assistants
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Given that in many - if not most U.S. dioceses - permanent DEACONS aren’t allowed to wear the Roman Collar, the idea of lay servers wearing it would truly be beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

I find the American proscription regarding their permanent deacons – as other distinctions they make – most bizarre.

Lay servers should not properly be wearing what is, in reality, a collar intended for clerics or at least ecclesiastics.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
Indeed.

I find the American proscription regarding their permanent deacons – as other distinctions they make – most bizarre.

Lay servers should not properly be wearing what is, in reality, a collar intended for clerics or at least ecclesiastics.
Click to expand...
Do you apply your belief to the cassock as well? How about the surplice? Both are garb intended for ecclesiastics which are often “loaned” to the lay server. I find the American acceptance of allowing laypeople to wear the cassock and surplice while proscribing the wearing of the Roman collar to be rather odd. It’s nice to see that behavior isn’t uniform throughout the Church.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
Indeed.

I find the American proscription regarding their permanent deacons – as other distinctions they make – most bizarre.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense to me either. The same applies to many of my friends who are either priests or deacons.

The objection seems to be that the bishops are worried that a deacon might be seen wearing a clerical shirt while he is accompanying his wife; and that this would scandalize people. I’m not saying it makes sense, only that this seems to be the explanation.

Personally, I believe the real underlying motivation is a sort of anti-clericalism among certain bishops. I do not mean any in particular (not by name), but just a certain undefined sub-set of the whole.

When I was a deacon, I was required to wear clerical attire whenever I was out in public (within reason, of course). It never caused any problems.

There are quite a few entirely artificial distinctions the U.S. bishops try to make with regard to permanent vs. transitional deacons. It is almost as if some of them just do not want to admit that permanent deacons are actually ordained.

I haven’t seen statistics, but I do think that the U.S. has the highest proportion of permanent deacons. Maybe the numbers have some influence on the attitude. I don’t know.

There is a certain recommendation out there (which has no binding authority, of course) which suggests that there should be different ways of addressing written correspondence to deacons, depending on which type. It’s very strange.

Just so that other readers understand what I mean there: the Church does not issue binding laws on how one writes an envelope.

Some bishops outright refuse to entertain the idea of ordaining permanent and transitional deacons at the same ceremony; not just as a matter of scheduling, but to the extent that they seem to want to say that there are 2 entirely different Orders of Diaconate.

The U.S. bishops are really struggling with the entire concept of restoring the permanent diaconate. Oddly enough, in terms of numbers, they’ve embraced it enthusiastically. They just don’t seem to know what to do about it.
Lay servers should not properly be wearing what is, in reality, a collar intended for clerics or at least ecclesiastics.
Click to expand...
Yes. Indeed.

I have never seen that done. I have had occasion to see altar boys wear a shirt with a white collar (entirely by coincidence and very rarely) under the cassock, something like a low cut turtleneck, and I admit that it does “look better.” Still, the burden does not outweigh the benefit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top