As in, why am I asking? More out of curiosity than anything.

Yeah, I'm not sure. But I think I remember reading something about the cantor wearing a cope for various proclamations. Specifically, the Announcement of the Moveable Feasts on Epiphany....?

In some Benedictine monasteries (I'm thinking of Saint Meinrad Archabbey), on solemnities (and maybe feasts) you'll see Vespers being led not by the one cantor assigned for the week but by a trio of cantors in copes, huddled around a central music stand and microphone between the two sides of the choir. The cantors wouldn't always be priests, and at Vespers no distinction is typically made between lay and ordained monks anyway (although Solemn Vespers may need a priest and two deacons to be the sacred ministers; not sure).

So I don't know if it comes from Benedictine tradition or not, but when I think of lay cantors in copes, I think of a solemn Vespers (I guess Lauds could be done similarly) on a holy day. I've also heard of a lay cantor chanting the Exsultet if no deacon or priest or bishop was capable, but I don't know the rules on that and haven't experienced it.

I don't think a cope is as reserved to clergy as a stole or chasuble or dalmatic would be.

Excuse me while I go look up what a tunicle is! :-)

The use of copes by cantors on high feast days at Mass & Office is only licitly used in the EF (cf. Ceremonies of the Liturgical year; Fortesque, et. al), and is verboten in the OF (cf. Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite; Elliott). There are other elements which have been lost.

In the EF the choir and cantors (in choir dress, and cantors in copes) process with the clergy and sit in the stalls when going to sing the liturgy (unless they are already there from another function (e.g. Terce before High Mass). In the OF the choir and cantors (in choir dress, but withou copes) go to their places before liturgy begins.

There so many other little things that make a big difference that have been suppressed, that I wish would be brought back. Kissing items (cruets, biretta, etc.) that are handed back by the Priest/Deacon being one of them. It is a small thing, but it says "these items have been set aside for sacred use, they must be treated with care and respect."

I would be more interested in what liturgical norms Elliott is citing than in his book, which is not an official one.

That picture brings back many happy memories; thanks for posting.

It was taken on August 10, 2005 at Ottobeuren Basilica in Bavaria during a Pontifical High Mass (EF) celebrated by Bp. Fernando Arêas Rifan—the opening liturgy of the International Federation «Juventutem» WYD delegation. One of the men in the front row is now an FSSP priest.

Somewhat back to the topic at hand, I thought the capes for the ladies were fantastic (still do). The choir's dress code was all black (besides the blue cape for the women and the blue cassock for the men).

Salieri confirmed my suspicions. I figured this stemmed from the EF when the cantor had a more prominent role. I was not, however, aware that it was not licit in the OF.

The curiosity stemmed from a personal desire only insofar as to more visually set liturgical rarities apart. I am currently looking into, as the organist, vesting in C&S for holy week and solemnities (probably funerals and weddings as well, since it provides a visual cue to behave appropriately for unchurched congregations), but I am the cantor fire Good Friday since we don't use the organ and thought the visual of the C&S with a red cope would really open the congregation's eyes. I must confess, I would probably feel a bit silly, but this congregation needs the extra visual simulation, I think. However, if it's not licit, there's no question!

Ask your pastor and do what he says. As far as any musician or minister is concerned, he is the lawful authority - plus, you have to live with him.

Charles, you are correct. However, pastors are not always as aware of liturgical qualifications and requirements as we are. In fact, mine frequently defers to me for "what the documents say." I prefer to read up a bit before just taking a priest's word for it. :)

Choir dress does not change color with the season. If you are vested in choir, the traditional color is black. As discussed in another thread (probably the one about organists vesting) some specific places vest in another color for some site-specific reason (a dedication to the BVM, a cathedral, etc), but those are generally special cases.

The reason not to vest as an organist/cantor/director unless the whole choir is vesting has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with not making vestments about you, the wearer. If the whole choir vests- then the whole choir vests and there is nothing weird about it. If one person over (up) there vests, then its an affectation.

Liturgy is not theatre, and vestments are not costumes.

Back on a computer, so hopefully fewer typos will work their way in....

bk-XXVII

I'm stealing this. Forever. FYI, the 27 happens to be my birthday (January 27).

Red copes are not reserved for cardinals - don't get these confused with the red capes worn by cardinals as part of their habito piano ('street dress' i.e. cassock, fascia, etc.) when the cappa magna is not worn.

Okay, thanks. That's what I thought.

Choir dress does not change color with the season. If you are vested in choir, the traditional color is black. As discussed in another thread (probably the one about organists vesting) some specific places vest in another color for some site-specific reason (a dedication to the BVM, a cathedral, etc), but those are generally special cases.

Right. My question about "red" pertained only to the cope which, thanks to the folks that have responded, I now understand is not part of choir dress, especially in the Norvus Ordo.

The reason not to vest as an organist/cantor/director unless the whole choir is vesting has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with not making vestments about you, the wearer.

An excellent point. I can see how it might read to a congregation if no one else is vested. I hope you understand, though, that that isn't so much the place I was coming from. If I could, I certainly would want the entire choir to vest... but it gets costly. I suppose, too, that there are bigger issues within the liturgy that need to be worked out so we're not polishing the doorknobs while the church burns behind them. :)

It's nice to be noticed.

Interesting! I love the color distinctions in the Improperia.

Resurrecting for a tangent. I am beginning to talk to people about various music ministers vesting. How would you introduce this to a staff and congregation that has perhaps never seen it before?

BK-XXVII,
(Benedict-Karl XXVIII?)

There's nothing inherently evil in the choir vesting, but you'll have quite a fight on your hands if parish staff and congregation are completely unfamiliar with it. I don't know your particular parish situation, but you want to avoid the appearance that the choir is trying to draw attention to itself: the purpose of the uniform cassock for a choir, in a litugical setting, is to remove distinction, not bestow it (unlike at an academic setting, where the hood is distinctive and intentionally so). If the purpose is to bring greater sense of discipline to the choir and reverence to the liturgy, dress simply. Otherwise, you're likely to set off a chain reaction of "me-too-ism", so everyone under the sun will suddenly need distinctive dress for Mass......

Black has the advantage of neutrality, both religiously and visually: it's not associated with any season, and it won't especially clash with anyone's own color (hair/eye/complexion).

There are those who object to women wearing cassocks as it is traditionally considered clerical attire.

This deserves highlighting.

I've seen academic robes on non-evangelical Protestants: e.g., UCC ministers.

Anyway, the local Anglican-use congregation uses them for Evensong, but in the general Roman-rite context, I agree they're not used.

Chonak -
WHERE is this Anglican Use church that wears academic gowns for evensong? They must be reported immediately to our Vestment Police. This is unheard of!

Seriously: which Anglican Use church is near you?

All your ideas are spot on, faultless.
Godspeed in implementing them.

(Except that vesture is worn at all liturgy, not just on special occasions. Every single liturgy is a special occasion.)

I do agree with bkenney27. Back in my Anglican days, black cassock and surplice were standard for the organist and choir, women included--I was once asked to play a service as I walked into the church in a brown suit, and felt very undressed on the bench. In Gerre Hancock's time at St. Thomas's, NY, Fr. Andrew introduced red cassocks and long surplices for the choir. Here in western Mass there are no vested choirs and organists in the Catholic churches I know, and music is generally neglected. To my mind, vesting a choir implies that it's a real choir, and serious about its musical and liturgical business, but getting the congregation I sit in these days to understand that wouldn't be easy.

My suggestion would be for you to begin wearing C&S at every single Mass and liturgy and have your choir and cantors begin wearing all black at all times. Then raise funds for C&S for the gentlemen of the choir and male cantors. Then either leave it as is or add some plain blue choir robes for the women.

I think Ben was specifically referring to the Anglican practice of C & S for choirs, women included.

Here's what the U.S. Bishops' document, Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship says about choir vesture:

(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.

Um, we know what albs are; but um, what is a 'choir robe'?
Curious, too, is that the alb, the attire of priests and properly dressed acolytes, is apparently considered non clerical, whilst c&s, which is choir habit, is implied to be strictly clerical. I would read the word 'recommended' as operational in this odd assertion. For Anglican Use Catholics, whose choirs wear choir habit, there exists no problem.

Luckily, STTL has no intrinsic authority.

Ben, I beg to differ. STTL was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at its November 2007 General Meeting. Yes, it was published as guidelines, and not liturgical law.

But in my estimation, any document approved by the full body of our bishops deserves serious consideration and respect, and does reflect an intrinsic authority of sorts, whether that document is about liturgical music, social justice issues, or other areas of concern.

The authority of Episcopal Conferences is something very real, as mentioned in documents of the Second Vatican Council.

Father, if they felt so strongly that it should be "important for our serious consideration and respect", then why was it not submitted to Rome, so that it could gain our respect as legitimate liturgical law?

Probably because they knew it'd be rejected, if you ask me. Try finding another plausible reason. That seems pretty obvious by the fact that it included things that were directly contrary to the Missal, so much that Rome even saw a need to change them. If they can't even sort out basic things like that (or, as was more likely, they could, and decided to disobediently put it in there anyways), then it deserves no respect from me.

I hate to be so cynical, but it's worked pretty well: they put together a document that couldn't pass as liturgical law, but still wanting it to be out there, they decide to publish it on their own. While it technically has no authority, many (most?) still treat it like it does, leaving it in a state of faux-law difficult to argue against, yet easy to spread.

This is kind of like the USCCB's page on the Holy Thursday Mandatum. It directly contradicts both the Missal's text AND the CDW's clarification of the question. Yet it remained online still, available by a quick search on the USCCB's site for either "foot washing" or "holy thursday". I won't even link to it. Just go to their site, and you can find it in 20 seconds. First thing that comes up.

Again, while this document has no authority on it's own, simply being published under the header of the USCCB gives it an air of authority, just like you say STTL should have authority. This is particularly disturbing, because again, it directly contradicts the rubrics of the missal, and in the case of the Holy Thursday mandatum page, it even admits that this is so ("While this variation may differ from the rubric of the Sacramentary which mentions only men...[feel free to do it anyway]"), EVEN AFTER being corrected by the CDW.

If they wanted the document to have authority and respect, they should have submitted it to the CDW. As it stands, they refused to do so, so it will have no such respect from me.

Regardless of STTL's "authority," I think it is well worth considering: It represents the thinking and interpretation of the relevant issues by the Bishops. Dismissing it out of hand seems as imprudent as following its counsel blindly. The thinking should at least be considered as part of the range of inputs one uses for figuring out what is the best approach in your particular situation.

That being said, I disagree with the thinking regarding C&S for choirs.

Also, I think trying to find documentary support for every single liturgical practice is a little...um.. what's word? ... something. It's definitely something.

Anyone know what the rules say about organ shoes? Paper color for printed programs? Whether pews should be cushioned or not?

that doesn't mean he can wear a dalmatic.

Dang. I better call Almy and cancel my order...

Pardon my lack of precision. I wrote "ministers" when I meant "clerics" (and you are correct to observe that even instituted acolytes are not clerics).

My point is that even instituted acolytes wear cassock & surplice with regularity, and have not been contradicted by a bishops' instruction.

The vestment common to all liturgical ministers is the alb, and not the vestments placed over the alb (stole, dalmatic, chasuble) and worn by ordained ministers. A surplice/cotta is actually a mini-alb.

Now we're getting somewhere! Why, then, should the choir (serving in liturgical ministry) be disallowed from wearing the mini-alb?

There was some point in the past when cassocks became non-exclusive to clerics.
My question would then be... at what point prior to that did they become exclusive to clerics.

Regarding Sing to the Lord:

The problem with dismissing it out of hand is that it is co-authored by a number of bishops and approved by a majority of bishops. Who are the Church (in the hierarchical sense)? Yes, I know someone will say "we are ALL the Church!" Well, yes ... but again, when we speak of who the legislators and interpreters and chief liturgists are, who IS the Church? The bishops!

It is not as though a group of academic liturgists wrote the document. Then you could say "Well, they can suppose what they want, but it's not backed up by the Roman Missal and they have no authority." This was written by a combination of real Church authorities.

It is walking a REAL fine line, in my opinion, to begin arguing about definitions of documents and canon law in terms of which item has more weight, etc. Those arguments seem, to me, more academic and more suited to a canon law class.

The bottom line is this: rest assured that if Rome had real problems with the contents of that document, it would be GONE. Especially under Pope Benedict, under whom it came out. If Pope Benedict had taken exception to it, you would not be hearing about Sing to the Lord anymore. And please don't say "Rome isn't aware of what it says." Sure they are. In fact, in one area in which Rome DID take exception, tropes for the Agnus Dei, they stepped in and said "fix that." And the USCCB did.

The bishops don't operate in a vacuum. When Sing to the Lord was in draft form, having been distributed to the bishops to look over, I was handed a copy by - someone - asking for my thoughts on it. This someone wanted my input, and probably the input of others as well, before they gave the bishop THEIR input, so that he could go back to vote on it.

It is not as though a group of academic liturgists wrote the document.

Just a nitpick: actually, it was. It was written by a commission, including Leo Nestor, Fr. Anthony Ruff, and a whole mixed bag of personalities (and frankly, it reads like it).

Now, it was approved by the bishops, and so carries due weight. We can't just disregard the document, but it is fine to recognize it as non-legislative as long as you are aware that are departing from it.

It is walking a REAL fine line, in my opinion, to begin arguing about definitions of documents and canon law in terms of which item has more weight, etc.

I don't agree here. If a document such as STTL conflicted, directly or in emphasis, from an established liturgical norm that carried legislative weight, it's quite important indeed to recognize which is the leading document. This doesn't seem to be the case with STTL, but I can imagine a case where it might be.

Wow. Nail on the head. Only about halfway through reading, but already feel as if I could have written it myself!

Black academic robes actually have their origins in clerical attire. In my own situation they are entirely appropriate as the choir is the choir of a Catholic College and we are all given our academic robe at our matriculation ceremony.

A hairshirt.

A hairshirt.

There is no requirement for a cope to have a hood with an embroidered vesica. The Romans in fact don't usually do so, cf. the following image:

I'm reviving this old post only to answer the original question: whether laymen may vest in a cope?

O'Connell ("The Celebration of Mass..."), speaking of the 1962 Mass, says that this is forbidden, citing a decree made in 1871 (S.R.C. 3248).

Regarding lay singers wearing cassock and surplice, Tra le Sollecitudini says that this is a fitting practice for men and boys.

So this is what applies to the EF, at least. I don't know the relevant rules for the OF, but this at least gives you the attitude in the past.

Incardination:
I can't comment on Vespers or on straw sub-deacons, but O'Connell--in speaking of laymen and boys singing at Mass--says "They may not wear copes (S.R.C. 3248 [4])."

Shawn, I think my real point was that your reference may either be superseded (1962 vs. the decree of the SRC in question from 1871) or is too specific to the more general question of whether - in some circumstance - laity may wear the cope... given that O'Connell was also involved in the publication of the 1962 Fortescue edition I mentioned.

@GerardH

From Fortescue, this is an old edition from 1917,

https://archive.org/details/ceremoniesofroma00fort/page/198

Unfortunately, I don't have a resource for the OF.

In reality, nobody does. The closest you can get is Eliott's "Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite", but even with that a lot of the Office ceremonial, IIRC, is applied to the OF from the EF. Most places that I have heard of that do sung Vespers on a regular basis are either Benedictine monasteries, who follow the Rule and have their own liturgical books, or use EF Vespers, or an adaptation thereof for the Modern Calendar, and follow the EF rubrics (whether 1960 or earlier).

When Abp Lefebvre came through St. Mary's, Ks. in 1982, we had Pontifical Solemn Vespers with 6 Assistants in cope. All six were lay. In his same visit, for the Pontifical Mass (at the throne, no less), the 4 cappellani (all lay) were in cope (although that was perhaps an European affectation since the rubrics simply mention vimpae for the principal 2 cappellani, which they had in addition to the copes). In addition to the cappellani, the Assistant Priest was also in cope, so that was five all of one color - white / gold. For Vespers, it was seven - green. It isn't necessarily uncommon for parishes to have multiple sets of a given color (especially green), which allows ability to have Assistants in cope of the same color although not necessarily matching.

I don't know what you mean by "if the choir is not in the sanctuary". What I'm referencing presumes exactly that... the choir (i.e. the liturgical choir of all men), vested in cassock and surplice, on opposite sides of the sanctuary. Several times in the past several years at our principal parish we've had two Assistants in cope (both clerics) with the rest of the choir (10-14 men in cassock and surplice, both cleric and lay) in the sanctuary.

My experience, both with lay sub-deacon and lay Assistants in cope is that this isn't something typically advocated for by laity eager to play dress-up, but because of an earnest desire to have Solemn ceremonies (usually by the clergy) where it can be reasonably done. I haven't seen it that often (sub-deacon maybe 2x; lay Assistants in cope maybe 2x)... particularly as - more and more - we have clerics that can fill those roles.

The original question was (as I read it), whether such a thing was allowed. I think I was pretty clear that

... it is permissible (not desirable)...

:)

I checked the Ceremonial of Bishops to look for OF rubrics.

For the celebration of Vespers on major solemnities (note that proviso), the bishop is to wear amice, alb, cincture, pectoral cross, stole, and cope. Priests may wear a cope over a surplice or alb; deacons may wear either a cope or a dalmatic. [Sec. 192]. [For a simpler form of celebration on other occasions, the bishop may wear alb and stole and cope.]

Cantors are mentioned later, but no specification of their vesture is given. In a chapter on general norms, the alb is identified as the vestment common to ministers in general. It should be worn with a cincture, and with an amice if it is needed to cover the minister's secular clothing at the neck. Also, that section says that ministers may wear other lawfully approved vesture: thus there may be instructions elsewhere about what they are to wear in specific cases.

Incard - no, we don't have sung Vespers.