Right, I'm curious too. That statement in STTL is pretty strong.

So, are the STTL statements about cassock and surplice pretty much unprecedented?

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?

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.

......ok it's 'wears'...

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).

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."

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.

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.

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)

In the OF, female altar servers wear cassock/surplice.

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.

"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.

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.

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,

The capes/ cassocks are very dignified. Visual polyphony.

What does a choirmistress wear in this case?

Does an organist's "winged" cotta help?

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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)

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;-).

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.

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."