Ship of Fools: Surplice for Holy Communion

Thread: Surplice for Holy Communion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022549

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

Hello All,

Whilst I have worn all sorts of things to serve at HC in the past, in the church I presently serve, one option is to wear a cassock with a cotta. However, I don't presently have a cotta, but I do have a surplice which I wear (with a hood) when leading Evensong.

Am I bad and wrong for wearing a cassock with surplice for serving/deaconing at a very down-to-earth HC service? The presiding priest certainly isn't particularly bothered about what I wear, I assure you! And I keep thinking that surely Pusey, Keble and Newman wore cassock, hood and surplice to celebrate the HC, and that therefore such a practice has been sancitifed by those who have gone before me.

Or should I fear the Guild of the Servants of the Sanctuary (solemnly) breaking down my door, slapping me around the head with a copy of Ritual Notes and burning my surplice?

I only ask as when I mentioned this to my good sound, learned Anglo-Catholic friends, they looked at me with utter horror that I would even consider wearing such a thing.

AV

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Even in an advanced Anglo-Catholic parish I used to attend, the deacon was known at low masses to assist in surplice with deacon's stole; the celebrant in fiddleback chazzie.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

Aren't they just different local forms of the same thing anyway?

Posted by Devils Advocate (# 16484) on :

Nothing wrong with a surplice at all for serving or acting as a deacon. The only problem that may occur is purely practical in that the long, full sleeves of a surplice could possibly knock the cruets over. When I was a chorister I longed for a surplice ( we wore cotta's) Now Im a Server I always wear a Cotta ( Lace inlet panels for best and a plain one for Lent And Advent) The thing is if you are getting a cotta make sure its long enough. Theres nothing so silly IMHO as a Cotta that finishes at your waist. One that comes to just above the knee is far more aesthetically pleasing

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

If your question boils down to "What's the difference between a surplice and cotta" then, to be honest, there isn't really one: there terms are used virtually inter-changeably, although there are different fashions for this liturgical garment.

Therefore you might be guilty of a "Fashion faux pas" in your church but no theological error!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I hope you don't wear the hood. But a surplice is just a big cotta.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

No, a cotta is a tiny awful surplice, worn in overly warm southern continental countries and in Anglican churches that have been unduly influenced by the Italian Mission.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

The Cotta versus Surplice debate is a small-scale symbolic clash between Continental-leaning Anglo-catholics and Sarum-Rite Dearmerites.

Cottas are not that bad if they are worn properly as ending by the knees and not by their waists. I prefer surplices however on choristers and clergy as it just looks good to see a sea of overflowing white robes in procession rather than a bunch of skimpy, square-necked white outfits tottering around.

In terms of the OP, for Low Masses, I think it is entirely appropriate to simply vest in surplice and stole. Simplicity is of course a virtue especially if one prefers a simple mass.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Our vicar used to wear cassock and surplice when celebrating up till about a year ago. Converted to cassock-alb now.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Tell your vicar to go back to surplice and stole. The cassock-alb is a ghastly invention. If it must be worn, it should be hidden as much as possible beneath a very large gothic chasuable.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The Cotta versus Surplice debate is a small-scale symbolic clash between Continental-leaning Anglo-catholics and Sarum-Rite Dearmerites.

Cottas are not that bad if they are worn properly as ending by the knees and not by their waists.

At a well-known London A-C joint with certain continental influences I was told by one saucy server that my not-quite knee length cotta looked like a dress. I myself thought that the taller servers at said shack looked very bad in cottas that reached only to their waists. As one shop assistant at Watts said disapprovingly when I was trying on a cotta that proved too short, "It doesn't even cover your bum".

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Tell your vicar to go back to surplice and stole. The cassock-alb is a ghastly invention. If it must be worn, it should be hidden as much as possible beneath a very large gothic chasuable.

It depends on the surplice. Full English surplices with flowing sleeves look great: the sort of skimpy cheapo job that most clergy wear (because they are cheaper: I must admit I own one and have never been able to justify the expense of a proper one) look horrible. Many cassock-albs (especially if worn without cincture) look much better.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

To be a bit cynical, I've always detected a bit of a gender dynamic when it comes to discussing this issue:
Cotta: effeminacy
Surplice: masculinity

Is there a dead horse lurking in the shadows of this issue?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Nowt wrong with a surplice, though it would be impractical for a thurifer - long flowing sleeves = fire hazad.

As for the GSS, they're nearly all elderly and couldn't burst a paper bag. (At age sixty, I am the youngest member in our chapter).

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Tell your vicar to go back to surplice and stole. The cassock-alb is a ghastly invention. If it must be worn, it should be hidden as much as possible beneath a very large gothic chasuable.
It depends on the surplice. Full English surplices with flowing sleeves look great: the sort of skimpy cheapo job that most clergy wear (because they are cheaper: I must admit I own one and have never been able to justify the expense of a proper one) look horrible. Many cassock-albs (especially if worn without cincture) look much better.

Oh no, Angloid! A cassock-alb without a cincture looks like some sort of house-coat or moo-moo. Ugh!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

De gustibus non est disputandum! [Biased]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No, a cotta is a tiny awful surplice, worn in overly warm southern continental countries and in Anglican churches that have been unduly influenced by the Italian Mission.

There's really no need for describing the Roman Catholics in language like that, even in jest, Lietuvos. It's a distraction if nothing else.

Thanks.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Devils Advocate:
Nothing wrong with a surplice at all for serving or acting as a deacon. The only problem that may occur is purely practical in that the long, full sleeves of a surplice could possibly knock the cruets over. When I was a chorister I longed for a surplice ( we wore cotta's) Now Im a Server I always wear a Cotta ( Lace inlet panels for best and a plain one for Lent And Advent) The thing is if you are getting a cotta make sure its long enough. Theres nothing so silly IMHO as a Cotta that finishes at your waist. One that comes to just above the knee is far more aesthetically pleasing

Perversely, perhaps, I was always best at not knocking things over when wearing a long full surplice. The sleeves were so big that they just stayed out of the way!

There is nothing wrong with the deacon assisting at Communion in a surplice. Indeed it was the norm for assisting clergy towear surplice/cotta except at a Solemn Mass in the old days.

I actually do not mind if the celebrant wears a surplice at the Eucharist if that is the established custom of the parish. I am far more likely to get to ticked with a guy who teaches wrong doctrine rather than wears the "wrong" vestment.

PD

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Tangent I know, but an idiosyncratic use of the surplice that I've seen in some parishes in the Diocese of Texas is for the surplice to be substituted for euchies during Lent: cassock, surplice and violet stole; except for Good Friday, when it may only be cassock, with a stole thrown over that if there is communion from the Reserved Sacrament (they wouldn't have a proper altar of repose nor a full mass of the presanctified in such places). The notion seems to be that chazzies are too festive for Lent and that the surplice and stole are more sober/somber. Very odd IMO. Has anyone else come across this elsewhere?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

It seems to be a minority use - rather than an eccentricity - to substitute surplice for mass vestments during Lent in dioceses that used to be, and still are relatively, Low.

The cassock only thing on Good Friday brasses me off as it disobeys the Anglican tradition of always using at least a surplice in liturgical worship. ISTM that it is a bit of ritualistic cuteness that has no basis in history before about 1880. In parishes where they have Matins Litany and Ante-Communion I encourage the use of surplice and tippet. In those that have some form of the Good Friday Liturgy I encourage surplice or alb and stole. If the parish has the 'dry' version of that liturgy I encourage them to use a cope if they have one of an appropriate colour, or if they have communion I encourage the use of the chasuble for the except for the veneration of the cross and the reproaches. If they have the Seven Last Words, or the Three Hours, then it might be appropriate to use cassock only - but only if they do not have a gown to wear over it!

PD

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

PD, have you only seen this in the States, or anywhere in England as well?

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

This may be an ignorant question, but is an alb not an option? That's what I usually see deacons wear (with cassock underneath and stole, of course).

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Tell your vicar to go back to surplice and stole. The cassock-alb is a ghastly invention. If it must be worn, it should be hidden as much as possible beneath a very large gothic chasuable.
It depends on the surplice. Full English surplices with flowing sleeves look great: the sort of skimpy cheapo job that most clergy wear (because they are cheaper: I must admit I own one and have never been able to justify the expense of a proper one) look horrible. Many cassock-albs (especially if worn without cincture) look much better.

I dont thonk they are all that expensive. Watts do a full one for about £100. That's two fill ups in the car or less than one years TV licence.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
PD, have you only seen this in the States, or anywhere in England as well?

I am sure there is at least one place in England that does that, but that caveat accepted, it seems to be a US peculiarity in the sense of it being done systematically. In the UK you usually get places which are cassock-alb and stole that drag out their one and only chasuble on major feasts. One used to occasionally run into places which were Mass vestments at the Early Celebration of Communion, but surplice and stole when the captains and colonels had their monthly Communion at or after the 10.30am service.

PD

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
This may be an ignorant question, but is an alb not an option? That's what I usually see deacons wear (with cassock underneath and stole, of course).

I tend to be a bit leary of the assisting minister wearing a alb at low celebrations of the Eucharist. It is somewhat against tradition. Even Sarum and the other English Uses which made more extensive use of albs than the Curial version of the Roman Rite favoured cassock and surplice/rochet over alb at low celebrations.

PD

Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No, a cotta is a tiny awful surplice, worn in overly warm southern continental countries and in Anglican churches that have been unduly influenced by the Italian Mission.

Oh, they're not all short. [Biased]

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
This may be an ignorant question, but is an alb not an option? That's what I usually see deacons wear (with cassock underneath and stole, of course).
I tend to be a bit leary of the assisting minister wearing a alb at low celebrations of the Eucharist. It is somewhat against tradition. Even Sarum and the other English Uses which made more extensive use of albs than the Curial version of the Roman Rite favoured cassock and surplice/rochet over alb at low celebrations.

PD

I thought the alb was always appropriate for Eucharistic services, or indeed any service?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Depends on your tradition: liturgically edumacated Anglicans wouldn't view the alb as appropriate for the Daily Offices, for example. It does seem that the alb has become the all-purpose liturgical get-up for other mainline American protestants, however (I don't mean to be snide -- IMO it's a huge improvement over a black Geneva or academic gown).

Posted by Episcoterian (# 13185) on :

Dunno... If a chasuble is not going to be worn (and among Presbyterians, save one known exception, Hell might need to cool down a bit before the hypothesis of wearing chasubles is even considered), then I'm all for the Geneva robe + stole look. Fuller/richer than the plain alb + stole.

And the robe + stole look has the advantage of screaming "Presbyterian" in thy face! Or Methodist. Oh, well.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
]I dont thonk they are all that expensive. Watts do a full one for about £100. That's two fill ups in the car or less than one years TV licence.

I take your point. But as I rarely had cause to wear a surplice of any kind (alb stole and chasuble at mass, alb and stole for weddings/funerals etc) for many years it didn't seem a justifiable expense.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

In my yoof, surplice and stole was the usual vesting in traditional low church Sydney, and is still so in the churches which remain true to that tradition. (The newer Sydney Anglicans/Moore College group will dress formally by wearing a tie and shoes.) It is what the Wesleys, Keble, Pusey and even Newman would have worn, although they probably added a hood for choir dress.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I would prefer the black gown and bands, with or without stole, to the tatey-sack alb (one of my parishioners back in Lincolnshire used to cassock-albs "Tatey Sacks"). The blooming things were never designed to be seen apart from a relatively small amount of the skirt, therefore the best thing to do with one is bury it under a chasuble.

One of the things that tweeks my tail is the way that a lot of confessional Lutherans in the US have abandoned the traditional dress of their Church - gown and bands, or alb and chasuble - for the tatey sack and stole routine. I suspect a lot of this has to do with the desire 'not to be ethnic' but it does not do them any favours.

PD

Posted by FatherRobLyons (# 14622) on :

I am a bit schitzophrenic in my view of vesture. I see a lot of merit from a lot of different points of view. I actually really like the alb-and-stole only look on the basis of it being an in your face confession of both the egalitarian unity we share through baptism, as well as an equally obvious confession of the apostolicity of the ordained ministry.

That being said, I usually don't feel that the alb and stole look that good on their own. One needs a really full alb (with hood, without cincture) to make it look like a vestment in and of itself (as opposed to underwear). As a result, I remain - for the most part, an alb, stole, chasuble guy at the Eucharist.

I share the distaste for the square-yoked surplice (and, personally, for any surplice that contains tatty lace... a past bishop of mine referred to it as 'hooker's neglege' and I've never been able to get that image out of my mind!) and prefer the Old English form, except that at 5 ft 8 in, 230 pounds, it looks far more like a potato sack on me than does an alb!!!

I use gown and bands often for services here at the hospital that are non-eucharistic. I like it fine, but do find that the gown I have is far too bulky to feel right.

Rob+

Posted by jordan32404 (# 15833) on :

I prefer my priest in surplice and really everyone serving in them, full English surplice. The cotta is an ugly garment not fit for Anglican worship. I find, aesthetically speaking, that if someone is going to wear Eucharistic vestments, why not wear them all? The alb looks bare without a chasuble.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FatherRobLyons:

I share the distaste for the square-yoked surplice (and, personally, for any surplice that contains tatty lace... a past bishop of mine referred to it as 'hooker's neglege' and I've never been able to get that image out of my mind!)

"A hooker's negligee" or "Hooker's negligee"?

[Smile]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by FatherRobLyons:

I share the distaste for the square-yoked surplice (and, personally, for any surplice that contains tatty lace... a past bishop of mine referred to it as 'hooker's neglege' and I've never been able to get that image out of my mind!)
"A hooker's negligee" or "Hooker's negligee"?

I am trying not to wonder how the bishop had acquired knowledge of what hookers might wear in informal contexts.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

There is a large marble statue of Richard Hooker in the Close at Exeter. (Just google "Richard Hooker statue Exeter".)

He does not appear to be wearing a cotta on that occasion.

He is also crossing his legs.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"A hooker's negligee" or "Hooker's negligee"?

I am trying not to wonder how the bishop had acquired knowledge of what hookers might wear in informal contexts.

Priests are wicked (that's why we wear black), but bishops are much worse.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by FatherRobLyons:

I share the distaste for the square-yoked surplice (and, personally, for any surplice that contains tatty lace... a past bishop of mine referred to it as 'hooker's neglege' and I've never been able to get that image out of my mind!)
"A hooker's negligee" or "Hooker's negligee"?

I am trying not to wonder how the bishop had acquired knowledge of what hookers might wear in informal contexts.

Well, a poster on another thread suggested that not all bishops are 'decent'.

Posted by Meerkat (# 16117) on :

When I am serving to the Celebrant or actually administering the Chalice, I wear a double-breasted cassock in the chosen colour of our Church, covered by what some of you might call a cotta, or some a short surplice. Whatever it is, it is square-necked, fairly wide-sleeved and ends just below my knees.

On several occasions, when I am 'packing up' after a service, casual visitors have mistaken me for the Priest (who by that time has left). Those occasions have been when I have had a white-collared shirt under the cassock and it has started to show above the neckline! [Big Grin]

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

It's always cassock and surplice at Low Church bastion, Grace Episcopal, Manhattan.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Another anomaly in its diocese.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

The seems-to-be permanent (alas!) MC in our parish -- he has just about enuf knowledge and skill to be a 3rd asst verger if such were needed -- proudly showed me his recent purchase: not just 1 but 4 of what he called surplices (square-necked, pleated, knee-length & lace-trimmed). I said 'very nice' but noted that what he had actually acquired were Roman-style rochets -- the narrow sleeves gave the game away. I didn't tell him, because it would have taken too long to explain, and even then he wouldn't have understood. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by FatherRobLyons:

I share the distaste for the square-yoked surplice (and, personally, for any surplice that contains tatty lace... a past bishop of mine referred to it as 'hooker's neglege' and I've never been able to get that image out of my mind!)
"A hooker's negligee" or "Hooker's negligee"?

Ahem.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0