Cassock and Surplice
  • Gilbert
    Posts: 106
    I was reading STTL, and it makes a point when talking about vestments for cantors, psalmists, and choir members, that cassock and surplice is not recommended, since that is clerical dress. I thought I remembered in some older documents actually requiring cassock and surplice? Am I mistaken? What's the deal here?
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Right, I'm curious too. That statement in STTL is pretty strong.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,003
    There ARE traditions. At Our Lady of Walsingham, ALL musicians wore cassock/surplice. But that may be because of such a strong Anglican tradition. I really think that a ministerial choir, or schola, should be vested in such a manner, since they are providing the music of the Mass, not just music at or during the Mass. Even most altar servers wear some sort of alb these days.

    Certain aspects could be made slightly different - rounded collars so we don't look like clergy, and rounded yokes rather than the squared off "roman" yokes. I don't think this is something that needs further "legislation". It's bad enough so many of our choirs look like Baptist or Methodist choirs with their quasi-academic gowns!

    Some musicians were a part of some minor orders back in history some time. Now we're expected to provide an important element of the Liturgy, but we can't vest in what was our traditional garb?
    Thanked by 1jchthys
  • Gilbert
    Posts: 106
    So, are the STTL statements about cassock and surplice pretty much unprecedented?
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,638
    It probably assumes that most choirs have female members. Cassock and surplice are reserved for men (see Pius XII on this). I think this statement in SttL is meant to clear that up w/o raising any hackles.
  • Palestrina
    Posts: 316
    Are there any other organists on this forum who have difficulty playing in cassock and surplice? I find myself having to hitch up my cassock so that it sort of looks like a (very poorly made!) coat with tails to leave my feet free to move around! What solutions have you devised?
    Thanked by 2cesarfranck Matilda
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    I was in in Cambridge (UK) this weekend, and went to Mass at Our Lady & the English Martyrs. The mixed choir was either side of the sanctuary and robed in plain black gowns. The arrangement and dress were dignified and unobtrusive (unlike the priest's amplification, but that's another matter). It worked.
  • Jan
    Posts: 242
    Our men's schola always were black (shirt & pants) for our OF Mass with Gregorian Chant propers & ordinary. When we sing with a mixed group, both men & women wear black (either skirt or pants, it doesn't matter). Personally I don't care for
    the black pants, white shirt attire. Looks too much like waiters.
  • Jan
    Posts: 242
    Opps....men's schola always 'wear'....
  • Jan
    Posts: 242
    ......ok it's 'wears'...
  • mjballoumjballou
    Posts: 986
    I'm interested in this because we were discussing what to wear last night at my women's schola rehearsal. Right now in our infancy, I'm happy if we're all in black. (No waiters, please.) Many scholas (scholae) feature albs - big, slightly off-white billowy things. I don't think they cover a multitude of sins; they simply enlarge or emphasize them. Add the little hood and the alb turns into a burnoose. Yikes.

    Comments from females on this topic will be appreciated. Male opinions will, of course, be entertained as well.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,191
    As to the question of what an organist should do: when I wear cassock and surplice I typically leave the bottom 10-12 buttons undone so that I can pull the bottom half of the cassock back around and leave it hanging over the back half of the bench. This keeps from having to hitch the whole thing up around my waist. (A surplice with split sleeves is a must for organist/choirmasters).

    As for whether or not cassocks are appropriate dress for the choir, the reasoning set forth in SttL seems to be rather tenuous . . . I have yet to see a typical priest wear a cassock as standard "clerical attire," and the idea that anyone can wear an alb as it represents our baptism makes no more sense. . . after all, the surplice is just a modified alb. Cassocks are basically a utility garment, not a vestment exclusive to clerical office (to my knowledge).

    It seems to me that in Anglican use there is some favor for putting the men in cassock and surplice, the women in cassock only (sometimes also with a black zuccetto or skull cap).
    Thanked by 1cesarfranck
  • The dress code for the 2005 edition of the Juventutem Pilgrims Choir was as follows: capes for the ladies, cassocks for the men, cassocks and surplices for the choirmasters, with all wearing black underneath.

    Here's a link to an image of what that looked like. And another one.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I did the same thing as David when I was at an Episcopal church: half-buttoned cassock with the rest behind me. It was a cassock made for a much, much taller man, so I had to hike it up anywhere I went. As for the surplice, I rolled up the sleeves. Of course this was at an extremely Anglo-Catholic parish where I was the only person who DIDN'T own his own C&S.

    I wouldn't object to men and women wearing the C&S, although I view the matter as entirely aesthetic and psychological, what with "hiding the personality with the office". Although I'm in a loft now, so people should just thank God I even wear pants to church. My rule in the loft is "No one can see you, but dress like they can."
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    The nice thing about singing Anglican evensong over here is that you get to wear your academic hood. I don't believe It can be justified liturgically, but what the heck, combined with surplice and cassock it looks splendid.
  • mjballoumjballou
    Posts: 986
    The capes are cute and they're not those big, white bags. Additionally, they would look quite jaunty, tossed back over the shoulders while mingling in the garden afterward. (Sorry for the silliness - it's one of those days.)

    Thanks, Aristotle.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,533
    At evensong it is proper liturgically, but not at Mass.

    noel at sjnmusic.com
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    Frog,

    That seems to be the unwritten rule. I'm not sure of it's origin, other than to speculate that it's a nod to the influence of the Oxbridge college chapels and their choirs. Perhaps we could emulate it for sung offices (in which lie the origins of evensong)?

    Ian.
  • mjballoumjballou
    Posts: 986
    If you go over to see the capes Juventutem wore (see Aristotle's item above), spend some time looking at the photos from WYD 2005. All those young and lively faces, both clergy and lay, will greatly console one.
  • G
    Posts: 1,387
    Palestrina, I'm not an organist, though I pretend i am one at our parish.
    I would find it as difficult to play in a cassock as I do in a longer skirt ("I'm female...) because rather like the hunt-and-peck typist, i NEEEED to see my feet to have any hope of tolerable pedal work.
    I always end up hitching my skirt up and sitting on it if it's too long, kind of bunched up.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • john m
    Posts: 134
    It is my opinion that the framers of SttL attempted to ban the cassock and surplice altogether for lay musicians as a timid avoidance of the gender issues surrounding liturgical attire. I believe the underlying question is not clerical vs. lay (as SttL would have it) but male vs. female, which has not, to my knowledge, been seriously addressed in liturgical lay vesture since the postconciliar acceptance of the liturgical equality of lay musicians male and female. The old tradition was based on an assumption that all liturgical roles would be fulfilled by males, and that the cassock and the surplice were the standard attire for lay singers, whom the norms assumed would be men and/or boys. There simply isn't an historical tradition to fall back on for female singers in parishes (outside of convents, of course, where the sisters just wore their habits).

    Since SttL failed to become the authoritative document for which its writers hoped, it would seem that the judgment as to what the singers should wear is left to pastors and/or the local bishop.

    Personally I do not see the choral cassock/surplice as gender-specific and prefer to see all singers attired uniformly. If they are going to be vested at all, let it be in the dignified Roman Rite tradition and not with those dreadful academic gowns and stoles. I can see the value in a longer, round-yoked and full-sleeved surplice to distinguish the lay choir from the ordained clergy.
  • Jan
    Posts: 242
    In the OF, female altar servers wear cassock/surplice.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,638
    Jan, and they probably shouldn't. At least not unless the Church decides to ordain women. I realize that this is a very ticklish subject, but IMO mixed choirs should avoid clerical attire altogether. A single-color robe is perfectly appropriate (ala the current trend for EMs). I kind of like the burlap-colored albs since they give a quasi-monastical look to choirs, but that's just me.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,191
    Perhaps someone could clarify two points:

    1) Is the cassock truly an exclusively ecclesial garment? That is, does the privilege of wearing it belong only to the clergy (priests, deacons, etc.), or is it a utility garment.

    2) Historically, the surplice is a modified form of the alb, a garment which we are taught, at least by some, represents the "white garment of our baptism." That means that anyone in liturgical ministry (who we must assume has been at the least baptized, if not also confirmed) are entitled to wear one while engaging in the rites of the liturgy.

    Taken together these arguments (the cassock is not historically an ecclesial garment, and the surplice is nothing more than a modified alb) must lead one to the conclusion that cassock and surplice is the most common and therefore most appropriate garment for anyone engaging in liturgical ministry to wear, be they a choir member, a lector, a "server", etc. I'd even go to the ropes on permitting women to wear surplice (in light of no. 2 above). Otherwise, If these are exclusively clerical, then everyone who wears them, altar boys included, should not be permitted to wear them, unless they are duly "ordained" to the order of acolyte or lector (which I believe are minor orders reserved to those who are in priestly formation).

    Q.E.D., I think. Unless someone can prove otherwise.
    Thanked by 1jchthys
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    David,

    Seems reasonable to me. I've advocated the simple open black academic gown, but that was on the reluctant understanding that cassock and surplice are problematic in Catholic practice. Now I'm not so sure. I still think the simple gown works very well, but if cassock and surplice are permissable, they're better.

    Regards,

    Ian.
  • john m
    Posts: 134
    "mixed choirs should avoid clerical attire"

    But I don't think it has been really established that the cassock and surplice is strictly clerical attire. If it is, then as David points out, its use is proscribed by everyone not ordained, including servers. The fact that the Church has traditionally permitted its use for the non-ordained, IMHO keeps the question open.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,638
    From the comments I've seen, many organists are comfortable with cassock and surplice since this dress has no clerical connections in the Anglican/Episcopal tradition (where many have worked). The Church does need to clarify this for all concerned. In the past, there was never a need for clarification, but now there is. IMO anyone who is not serving in the sanctuary should avoid wearing cassock and surplice, but it's just an opinion, no more no less.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,191
    The idea of using academic gowns (bachelor style) in place of cassock/surplice would be the slippery slope towards protestantism. It's been my experience that all too many Catholic church choirs opt for "choir robes" of the protestant church stripe (also known as "Wesleyan style"), often of colors designed to match the upholstery or carpeting of the church, but having little or no relationship to the liturgical year . . . or my personal favorite, the unbleached linen "albs" with the cotton cord cincture and an overlay that looks like a religious order scapular. Love it.

    No, let's keep this nailed down as closely to the vesture of the Western liturgical tradition as possible . . . cassocks with surplices.

    By the way IanW, I just purchased, for the fun of it, a Wareham Guild-style hood from Wippell of London (I hold a Doctor of Musical Arts from a "Big 10" university). Its design is adapted to the American academic regulation (with the institution colors in the lining and a 4-inch border of the discipline color in velvet around the bottom edge. It actually looks really amazing, and I can't wait for the opportunity, however rare, to wear it with cassock and surplice, as it was designed.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,003
    One option, only mentioned in passing so far, is also from Anglican traditions. Vest the schola/choir in cassocks of any color BUT black. There's a nice sort of Marian blue, and also a dark "Cathedral" purple, not to mention the red that used to be worn by young altar servers during festive seasons.

    Another serious consideration here is the material. Cassocks are generally cotton-blends, and breathe nicely. They are comfortable to wear during any season. Most academic gowns, and almost all "choir robes", are synthetic, and tend to be very hot to wear. I think both Rome and Canterbury had methods to their madnesses!

    We musicians are, to the Liturgy, "full-time" ministers. I mean be that - we start the music as the Sacred Ministers are vesting and preparing for their roles. Some of us finish up only after most of the congregation has left the building. Readers and EMs all come into the Sanctuary for their short-lived roles, and return to their seats, often out in the congregation. Even if the musicians are in the loft in the back of the building, I think they merit a vesture that dignifies their role throughout the Liturgy. And if they are "ministerial", and/or sing from the front of the building, and/or process/recess, then it's even more fitting that they be vested, and within a visible Catholic style of vesture.

    If the problem for people is the shape of the "Roman collar", even without the white plastic insert, then consider this: Many bishops will not allow even their permanent deacons to wear even a Roman collar shirt! They are very afraid of anyone mistakenly addressing any one as "Father" who is not a priest of above. These bishops need to get a life, and their congregations need to get catechized!
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    David,

    The hood sounds great. Why don't you give yourself a holiday and go sing or play Evensong, to give you an opportunity to wear it with cassock & surplice (but don't tell anyone I suggested that).

    I agree that cassock and surplice are in the tradition in a way that academic robes aren't. However, if the parish is one which is uncomfortable with quasi-clerical attire for musicians, a black undergraduate-style gown is better than the alternatives: while it lends a sober dignity, its unobtrusive nature doesn't attempt to ape Protestant choir robes. And being open, it's cool when the temperature rises.

    Regards,

    Ian.
  • Aristotle, any idea about where the Juventutum folks got those capes and blue cassocks? Why were some of the men not in cassock? Thanks
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,016
    Aristotle,

    The capes/ cassocks are very dignified. Visual polyphony.

    What does a choirmistress wear in this case?
  • Michael: To tell you the truth I have no idea where those were obtained — in fact I was surprised (pleasantly) that the choir would be robed/caped. It may have been throughThe cassocks were the exclusive domain of the maestri di capella and organists.

    Kathy: That's a very interesting question that I cannot answer. The more senior trebles in that particular group were also caped, but none of them took up any conducting responsibilities.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,764
    Does an organist's "winged" cotta help?
  • mjballoumjballou
    Posts: 986
    From a comment made by Lazlo Dobzshy about the conference on liturgy in Hungary, I think they use a similar cape arrangement there for singers. They can be put on easily over street clothes. Recruit a dressmaker or tailor into your schola.
  • In the Anglican church, and in Angican Use Catholic Churches, the cassock & surplice have ever of old, even to Sarum times, been considered choir habit. I never was in situations, until recently, that the cassock and surplice were considered strictly clerical. They ARE choir habit. Which brings up a point which I have been meaning to throw out for discussion here. The amice and alb (preferrably apparalled) are by far the more ancient and appropriate raiment for acolytes and servers in the sanctuary;
    yet we have the irony that liturgically conservative Catholics seem to prefer the cassock & surplice (more often those dinky, chopped-off surplices called cottas) to signal what they believe to be a greater propriety of vesture, while it is (for lack of a better word) the trendies among us who tend to use the acolytes' true and ancient garb, the amice and alb. Still - cassock and surplice are choir habit. Any comments on this seeming anomaly of vesture between conservative & not-conservative Catholics?
  • Following the many arguments given above, the boys and men's choirs at St. Paul Church in Cambridge, MA ignore the SttL reservations concerning cassock and surplice. The cassock and surplice have been the standard choral attire at St. Paul since the 1940s. When Jennifer Lester arrived a decade ago as Assistant Director and as the first woman involved in a leadership role at the choir school, no thought was given to changing the custom. Now that she is Director, I can't imagine it being an issue.

    It should be noted, however, that the St. Paul Parish Adult Choir, a top-notch mixed ensemble that sings at the 9:30AM Sunday mass, does not wear cassock/surplice or choir robes. The men do wear jackets and ties, however. For many parishes that in itself would be a significant improvement.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • Chonak:

    Yes the organist's cotta allows free access for manual playing, but the cassock can be an issue regarding the pedals. When I'm called upon to play the organ at St. Paul's, I always unbutton the lower portion of my cassock. Is this just a psychological benefit? Sometimes, but visible access to the pedalboard and pistons really is a help. (You needn't remind me, I know there have been many great blind organists.)
  • Very interesting comments, but I'm most interested in the rules as they apply to the TLM. With the rules that are still in effect, women should not wear cassock and surplice. One may find that horribly old-fashioned or entirely appropriate, but as far as I can tell, the restrictions are still in place. For the Ordinary Form, SttL still only has advisory status and many churches still haven't come to terms with following actual Church law yet, much less an advisory document.

    Anyway, if anyone has any idea where I can find a place that makes capes in the style of the Juventutem event, I'd love to hear from you!
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,191
    Michael,

    You raise an interesting philosophical question, one that often gets used by progressivists to argue against the TLM altogether, which is whether or not all of the traditions (lower-case "t") that attended the Missal of 1962 must still be observed in a scrupulous fashion. For the progressivists, who love to reduce everything they don't agree with to black-and-white, the answer is "yes, you must follow everything, whether it's rubric or attending custom from the time, if you're going to celebrate the TLM." (It's ironic, given that when it comes to everything that came after the Missal of 1970, anything (ANYTHING) goes, hang the rubrics.)

    So, let's look at this from the standpoint of two things: 1) tradition, and 2) organic development of liturgy, as fostered by Summorum Pontificum and the Holy Father's notion of a hermeneutic of continuity.

    Yes, traditionally choirs were made up of all men, going all the way back to when choirs were essentially seminarians and clerics then later deputized lay men and boys hired to provide the singing when the music became too complex for clergy and untrained singers to execute. This is perhaps where the prejudice against women wearing cassocks, let alone surplices or even singing in choir at all, came about.

    However, we are now in a different situation. The deputization of lay men and boys has over time fell out of practical application or cultural preference. There are still men and boy's choirs in both the Catholic and Anglican traditions, and we may see a time when they gain resurgence, but for the time being we have a paradigm wherein women are singing in choirs. We also now live in a time where "pastoral provision" has given way to "Anglican Use" parishes, and within that tradition women and men alike are vested in choir dress, that is, cassock and surplice.

    ISTM that the cassock is a utility garment, not a clerical one, and the surplice is nothing more than a modified alb. Traditionalist of a scrupulous nature would tell us that the alb is a clerical garment and therefore not appropriate for lay people, especially women, to wear. Progressivists tell us that the alb is the "symbol of our baptism, and is the most appropriate garment for lay people in ministry to wear." So which one is it? Is the cassock a clerical garment or a utility garment? What of the alb?

    It's a tough call if you're going to be scrupulous or try to adhere to the absolute letter of any law or guideline. However, to my mind the most obvious solution is one similar to what I saw at St. Clement's Philadelphia (which I've mentioned before), that is, the men and boys in cassock and surplice, the women and girls in cassock only, with some kind of cap in a matching color. Those who serve as a cantor/psalmist could, on solemnities, wear capes (the proper name of them eludes me), which I've seen done at St. Louis, King of France, in St. Paul MN.
  • Why would anyone take SttL seriously when we have ready access to all the relevant papal documents and instructions?
    In the 'strictest' Anglo-Catholic parishes, the women choristers wear simple black quasi-academic gowns and (sometimes) black caps, while the men choristers wear cassock and surplice. The assumption is very much that females should not wear what was classically considered male choir garb.
  • Aris, we are looking into choir dress for the choir and choristers of St. Anne (FSSP parish). I like the Juventutem cassocks and capes a lot, and I have a few questions for you, since you've seen them in action.
    1) Did the boys/ men also wear surplices during Mass, or was it always cassock alone? Do you know the rationale behind that?
    2) What would a choir mistress wear? I'm thinking some arm slits on the cape or conducting with an open cape would suffice. I don't really want to wear a surplice.
    3) Were the girls/ women wearing their own black clothes under the capes, or was their a black uniform dress/outfit?
    4) Would you happen to have any more Juv. choir pictures? I'm looking for one or a few that a seamstress could use for detail.

    Sorry to bug you with all these questions; this is newish territory for me.
  • TorquemadaTorquemada
    Posts: 20
    A liturgical document from the USCCB? Thanks, but I'll probably find more things in keeping with our liturgical patrimony in the funny papers, then in anything published from this inept organization. Perhaps the good Bishops are unaware that the function of a liturgical/ecclesiastical choir (a "schola" more specifically, as opposed to a mixed choir) *IS* a clerical function, just as much as serving at the altar, and reserved to men.

    Pope St. Pius X addressed this issue (when lay and mixed choirs were already widespread) in his document Tra Le Sollecitudini:

    "12. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music.

    13. On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir. Whenever, then, it is desired to employ the acute voices of sopranos and contraltos, these parts must be taken by boys, according to the most ancient usage of the Church.

    14. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise. It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze."
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • I wear cassock and surplice at Sunday and Holy Day Masses, as well as Weddings. Funerals, First Fridays, Devotions, Good Friday, and days less festal I wear cassock only.
    At one parish, the curate encouraged me to wear an all-white server robe for Easter and the Vigil (Lumen Christi was his motive).
    BMP (whose pastor just gave him a BEAUTIFUL surplice a couple of weeks ago)
  • Mary Ann, here's what I remember from the inaugural Juventutem/WYD pilgrimage:

    The male choristers only wore blue cassocks, while the females wore capes (I believe they were circular). The choirmasters and organists wore surplices in addition to the cassocks. Both men and women were instructed to wear black underneath regardless -- the choristers were expected to bring those along.

    In this environment, a choirmistress would wear an open cape (none of the capes had arm slits).

    Unfortunately, I personally don't have pictures from Juventutem 2005. You may want to try here but I can't guarantee that the links still work.
  • BrophyBoy
    Posts: 38
    Ok...two points of reference. At the large, Metropolitan Cathedral where I previously served, everybody wore C&S, first with square yoke, and more recently, with round yoke. We referred to the latter as "choir cottas." There had been some criticism by one of the Masters of Ceremony about the idea of the choir being in C&S at all. We attempted to fix this with the round yoke. And, actually, the choir was in albs, but they looked like cassocks because they were worn with surplice/cotta. I actually had a cassock that matched the albs in colour (red). In this situation, the choir was in the sanctuary 80% of the time, and the rear gallery the other times.

    Now where I am at, at the weekly EF Mass, the men wear black cassock, and white surplice with round yoke (cotta). The woman are in street clothes. At the OF Masses, street clothes are worn, excepting Solemnities, such as Christmas, Holy Week, and Easter, when C&S are worn by the men. The choir is always in the rear gallery.

    Of course, during Lent, were sackcloth exclusively;-).
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 928
    I also wear an organist's cassock and cotta (with the arm flaps). The cassock I have solves the issue with pedal work, too: it doesn't button, it zips under a flap of faux-buttons. The zipper bottom is a couple of feet from the bottom of the cassock, leaving plenty of room for maneuverability. This cassock frees the legs for playing, and the cotta frees the arms. It works great!
  • Adam Schwend
    Posts: 203
    Currently my choir wears the big flowing "choir robe" albs. Not a huge fan of them, but replacing them isn't a huge priority at the time. I wear a standard alb.

    I find the idea of the cape interesting, but what liturgical history does it have? As women in choir are a relatively new development in the life of the Church, I'm curious as to how the development of the "cape" occured.
  • As far as historical origin goes, my guess is that the cape (like the one worn by the girls and women in the traditinalist group Juventutem) reflects the mantle worn by women religious. Kinda like the discalced Carmelite mantle you see worn by St. Therese in some pictures. Since lay choirs (men, women, and eventually mixed) were an outgrowth of religious choirs, this would make sense.
  • BrophyBoy
    Posts: 38
    Interestingly, I found this about those in Cathedral churches. The last line includes the "chanters!"

    "In addition to being the principal color for Prelates, purple is also the color of livery. It is the color used by the whole Pontifical Household, no matter their rank (and so, even the altar servers at the Papal Vatican Basilica wear purple), but it is also the color of episcopal livery. While this latter use is not seen now as frequently as it once was, it remains the legitimate custom of the Roman Rite. According to this custom, "the Master of Ceremonies of the cathedral church, the train-bearer of the Bishop, the cross-bearer of the Metropolitan, all the members of the diocesan seminary, as well as the employees of the cathedral, namely, sacristans, ushers, chanters, etc., all should wear purple cassocks."
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    I guess I'm the odd one out right now...

    What is "SttL", and where can I find it?