Thread: Black Gowns in the Church of England 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=024856
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :
 
I am interested in the use of the gown (often called a 'Geneva gown') for preaching. I know that a gown is traditionally worn for the University Sermon at Oxford (and presumably at another place); but is it now ever worn in parish churches? I am aware that it was the use at S. John-on-the-Wall in Bristol before it was made redundant, but perhaps the practice has now gone the way of all flesh?

My understanding is that the surplice would have been worn to conduct Morning and Evening Prayer, and the minister would have retired to the vestry during the hymn before the sermon in order to change into the gown. But is this quite right? Or would the gown have been worn for the whole liturgy, the surplice only appearing when Holy Communion is celebrated?
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
I'm afraid I don't know about black gowns for preaching in (outside the context of Russell Thorndike's Dr Syn novels). However, I wear my university gown for playing the organ at funerals as it looks reasonably smart and sombre. (Our choir cassocks are a rather bright and cheerful shade of red.)
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
I know that a gown is traditionally worn for the University Sermon at Oxford (and presumably at another place);
Well, yes, but at a University Sermon everyone wears a gown, including people in the congregation (the only exception is the cleric who gives the final blessing, who wears a surplice and hood, at least at Cambridge). Furthermore, the gowns worn are, of course, part of the University's academic(al) dress and not the so-called 'Geneva gown'.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I think George Carey sometimes used to wear a Geneva Gown (and preaching tabs?) when he was a vicar in Durham
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
I have to say that I find the idea of a Geneva Gown in an Anglican context very strange. I've seen references to preachers wearing a 'black gown', but I've always seen this glossed as referring to the gown of their degree or, for clergymen who were not graduates, a black 'lay gown' with the so called 'literate's hood', i.e. a hood of unlined black stuff (not to be confused with a hood of black stuff lined with black silk, which — depending on its shape — signifies that the wearer has a BD from Oxford, Cambridge, or Durham).

ETA: in my experience, laymen invited to preach in Anglican churches still generally wear the gown of their degree either over a cassock or a lounge suit, although this is not universal and I have seen some who simply wear a lounge suit.

[ 12. July 2012, 14:35: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
The English Preaching gown is not "Genevan" at all. That is a slur on its good character started by 19th century Ritualists. It is, like the Lutheran talar, an adaption of the late mediaeval priest's gown, and was originally clerical street dress. In those times sermons were often independent of the liturgy so were preached by a clergyman in street dress - cassock and gown - which is how the gown - preaching link came to be forged.

The practice I am familiar with from the old FCE was surplice for Morning Prayer and the Litany, then change into the black gown for the sermon. When you had two clergy present, the officiant wore surplice and tippet all the way through, and the preacher would wear gown and tippet all the way through. I do not recall the preaching gown used at Communion, but my hunch would be that it was either not used (no sermon or presbyter preached in surplice) or it was worn for the sermon and then the surplice resumed for the sacrament. This would have been a carry-over from mid-nineteenth century C of E practice.

I think by the 1980s, out of 27 churches I think only about 2 FCE parishes were still using the preaching gown. There were always rumours that some of the Proprietry Chapels, licensed by the C of E, such as St Mary's Castle Street, Reading used it, but I never happened to be in Reading on a Sunday for a looksee.

PD

[ 12. July 2012, 15:02: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
In thise times sermons were often independent of the liturgy so were preached by a clergyman in street dress - cassock and gown.


The panegyric at — or, rather, after — a requiem is preached in cassock, cloak, and biretta, which is presumably another holdover from this practice.
 
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :
 
I regularly wear cassock, gown, tippet, hood and bands, a la the Sainted Percy Dearmer of immortal memory and top it all off, in very cold weather, with a canterbury cap, but then I may be a little out of step coming as I do from darkest Shropshire. The gown is academical and not Genevan, in the English tradition; I see no good reason to adopt the garb of an overseas church!

The gown is practical, warm (which is a bonus!) and tidy. It covers a multitude of sins.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

ETA: in my experience, laymen invited to preach in Anglican churches still generally wear the gown of their degree either over a cassock or a lounge suit, although this is not universal and I have seen some who simply wear a lounge suit.
[Eek!]

I think you should get out more!

You are describning a tiny minority of CofE churches. Lay people preaching in suits, yes, but not that often, cassocks probably only if licensed Readers or assisting at Communion (and then not everywehre), and clergy sometimes preach in suits as well, (though nowhere near as often as twenty or thirty years ago) But in an academic gown? I can't remember when I last saw that in a parish church. In cathedrals sometimes, college chapels perhaps, but not ordiary churches. There is one parish near us where the organist wears a gown and hood.

The more catholic-minded places tend not to let lay people preach anyway, and when they do they are often in some sort of "deaconing" role and therefore vestments, or in cassock and surplice. In other CofE churches, whether Evangelical or MOTR, there is less dressing up (though more than there used to be) and lay people preaching (other than licensed Readers) are likely to wear whatever it is they woudl normally wear to church - which probably isn't a suit and tie for most of them. Readers will often (but not always) wear cassock and surplice.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Ken - I had noticed that the ancedotal evidence for the 'manic suit preachers' had declined a bit in recent years. I think the current in thing is an ill-fitting cassock-alb and an efnik stole - which almost makes me wish for the preaching gown back! However cassock-alb and stole is definitely preferable to a shiney suit!

PD
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
I've seen the following outfits worn by lay people preaching (priests obviously and invaribly wear cassock, cotta, and usually a stole):


I don't really approve of just showing up in a lounge suit — or jodhpurs, for that matter — it seems a bit too much of 'look at me, I'm an individual', which can too easily degenerate into a cult of personality type situation.

[ 12. July 2012, 15:29: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Trying to think what I wore on the few occasions that I- as a layman in the CofE have preached. I'd incline to agree with Ken about what is typical (and this were all in aff-cathy Southwark parishes in the early-mid 90s). When I was a lay pastoral assistant, on the staff, I always wore cassock and surplice/cotta for services and so would have preached in those. Then I preached a couple of times in my parish church as a potential ordinand, and once later as part of a series of Lent (I think) sermons by laypeople- pretty sure I wore whatever I'd have worn at that time for sitting in the congregation.
I like the idea of wearing the gown of my degree* to preach in if I were ever to preach again, but I suspect, (S)pike Couchant, that actually owning such a gown is rather more common in the circles that you appear to move in than among the population at large!

(Tho' I think that if I were to wear the very gaudy gown of my highest degree- crimson with mazarin blue / green shot silk facings!- that really would be a 'look at me' moment.)

[ 12. July 2012, 16:38: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:


(Tho' I think that if I were to wear the very gaudy gown of my highest degree- crimson with mazarin blue / green shot silk facings!- that really would be a 'look at me' moment.)
Given that the University of Wales makes provision for an undress PhD gown, it might be wiser to wear that, except perhaps on major feasts of the Church year and on certain other days of national celebration!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes indeed, I thought of that, but only after the edit window had closed, and I didn't want to double-post! Would probably be best to stick with the good old MA Cantab, which is about as plain and unshowy as it gets (rather like the academic side of my undergraduate career, in fact).

Tangent: How is CUHAGS these days, by the way? (I take it from something you've said elsewhere that you're a Cambridge man?) Is the Marquis still around?

[ 12. July 2012, 20:07: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :
 
Not CofE but the gown was the normative vesture of clergy in PECUSA before the 1820's. It was really Bishop Hobart (and others) who promoted the use of the surplice just before the arrival of the Tracts.
 
Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on :
 
At the prep school I attended in Canada, it was fairly common to see Anglican priests wearing cassock, gown, hood, scarf and tabs up until the 1980's; both for services and academic events.

+FA
 
Posted by mettabhavana (# 16217) on :
 
(S)pike couchant wrote:

quote:
I've seen the following outfits worn by lay people preaching (priests obviously and invaribly wear cassock, cotta, and usually a stole):
...
A plain black academic gown worn over a cassock with bands
...
Interesting - that would make the lay person look like a nonconformist minister. Methodists, Baptists, Reformed etc. reserve bands (aka tabs) to ordained (not student or probationary) presbyters. I gather the distinction is less strict with Anglicans. Do Roman Catholics ever wear bands?
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mettabhavana:

Do Roman Catholics ever wear bands?
Yes, if the Curé d'Ars is an example.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mettabhavana:
(S)pike couchant wrote:

quote:
I've seen the following outfits worn by lay people preaching (priests obviously and invaribly wear cassock, cotta, and usually a stole):
...
A plain black academic gown worn over a cassock with bands
...
Interesting - that would make the lay person look like a nonconformist minister. Methodists, Baptists, Reformed etc. reserve bands (aka tabs) to ordained (not student or probationary) presbyters. I gather the distinction is less strict with Anglicans. Do Roman Catholics ever wear bands?
That sounds like some kind of University offical to me- a proctor or some such.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
...priests obviously and invaribly wear cassock, cotta, and usually a stole...
I hope that's meant as a joke.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
...priests obviously and invaribly wear cassock, cotta, and usually a stole...
I hope that's meant as a joke.
Not in (S)c's circles, I don't think.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by mettabhavana:
(S)pike couchant wrote:

quote:
I've seen the following outfits worn by lay people preaching (priests obviously and invaribly wear cassock, cotta, and usually a stole):
...
A plain black academic gown worn over a cassock with bands
...
Interesting - that would make the lay person look like a nonconformist minister. Methodists, Baptists, Reformed etc. reserve bands (aka tabs) to ordained (not student or probationary) presbyters. I gather the distinction is less strict with Anglicans. Do Roman Catholics ever wear bands?
That sounds like some kind of University offical to me- a proctor or some such.
Actually, in this case, he was a lay canon.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
...priests obviously and invaribly wear cassock, cotta, and usually a stole...
I hope that's meant as a joke.
Not in (S)c's circles, I don't think.
Fascinated as I am to know what 'my circles' are in Angloid's estimation, I stand by that statement in a modified form. The normative vestiture of a clerk in holy orders who is preaching a sermon is a cassock, a surplice (broadly defined to include 'tropical kit'), and possibly (although by no means invariably) something around the neck (generally a stole these days, although tippets show up in some markedly old-fashioned low church places).
As evidence that this is normative, I would submit every single television series to feature an Anglican cleric in the past 30 years.
It is, indeed, so normative that I would suspect that any Anglican cleric attired otherwise is attempting to make some very definite point. This point is probably 'look at me — I"M AN EVANGELICAL', at least if the outfit is a clerical suit or something of that kind. Said cleric is within his rights, but it's no use pretending that his attire is any more normative than a priest who shows up wearing buckled shoes, a cotta trimmed in deepest lace with a mozzetta and a Spanish biretta piped in cherry, as edifying as such attire would doubtless be for all who witnessed it.
 
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :
 
quote:
The normative vestiture of a clerk in holy orders who is preaching a sermon is a cassock, a surplice (broadly defined to include 'tropical kit'), and possibly (although by no means invariably) something around the neck (generally a stole these days, although tippets show up in some markedly old-fashioned low church places).
It surely depends on the service? I am sure if the service is Baptism or Holy Communion that the normative vesture in the Church of England includes a stole; but the scarf is surely expected for non-sacramental services?

I have been informed that the statutes of Trinity Church Buxton require the use of the black gown in preaching. Whether this continues, I have no idea. I know that in other proprietary chapels (e.g., Emmanuel Church Wimbledon) the norm is now to wear street clothes for divine service. What the Reformers (or even the Evangelical leaders of the eighteenth century) make of this is anyone's guess, but I cannot believe they are happy about preachers masquerading as auctioneers.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
a surplice (broadly defined to include 'tropical kit'), and possibly (although by no means invariably)
What's 'tropical kit'?
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
The normative vestiture of a clerk in holy orders who is preaching a sermon is a cassock, a surplice (broadly defined to include 'tropical kit'), and possibly (although by no means invariably) something around the neck (generally a stole these days, although tippets show up in some markedly old-fashioned low church places).
Depends on the service. At the Eucharist in most non-Evangelical Anglican places, the preacher (if ordained) would be wearing alb or cassock-alb and stole. If the preacher was also the president, then s/he would also be wearing a chasuble.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
a surplice (broadly defined to include 'tropical kit'), and possibly (although by no means invariably)
What's 'tropical kit'?
A version of the surplice made less warm by cutting away a third or even a half of the fabric, as perhaps worn by young RN chaplains in tropical climes during the Second World War (Stephenson 1972). To further reduce heat, part of the garment may be made of lace. Any resemblance to a 'cotta' is, of course, wholly intentional.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
It is over 45 years since I last saw a clergyman wearing buckled shoes, and he was a man who if he could have got hold of a wig, or found out reliably what Parson Woodforde normally wore to take a service, he would have worn the same. He would have referred to anyone who wore,
"a cotta trimmed in deepest lace with a mozzetta and a Spanish biretta piped in cherry",
as a Papist, and meant it.

Incidentally, does any clerical outfitter still offer buckled shoes?
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is over 45 years since I last saw a clergyman wearing buckled shoes, and he was a man who if he could have got hold of a wig, or found out reliably what Parson Woodforde normally wore to take a service, he would have worn the same. He would have referred to anyone who wore,
"a cotta trimmed in deepest lace with a mozzetta and a Spanish biretta piped in cherry",
as a Papist, and meant it.

You need to get out more. I know at least one bishop and at least two priests who habitually sport buckled shoes.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

It is, indeed, so normative that I would suspect that any Anglican cleric attired otherwise is attempting to make some very definite point. This point is probably 'look at me — I"M AN EVANGELICAL', at least if the outfit is a clerical suit or something of that kind. .
While it is much rarer than it used to be to see CofE priests leading worship in clericall shirt and dog collar it is still far from unknown and by no means limited to evangelicals.

Leading worship with no distinctive clerical dress at all probably is pretty much confined to evangelicals within the CofE. particularly to the charismatic evangelicals, but its not at all an attempt to say "look at me I'm an evangelical". Many of them aren't trying to make a point by it because it is for them the unmarked state, the default state. Its what they would have been used to when they went to church when they were kids - it was probably more common then anyway - so they aren't at all making a point by it.

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
At the Eucharist in most non-Evangelical Anglican places, the preacher (if ordained) would be wearing alb or cassock-alb and stole. If the preacher was also the president, then s/he would also be wearing a chasuble.
Well yes, obviously. And both albs and cassock-albs have been getting more popular recently and there are even evangelicals who wear them now (though not chasubles so much!). Including some who would never be seen dead in a cotta. Who wouldn't even know what a cotta is. (Assuming we aren't just using "cotta" as a synonym of "surplice" which seems a rather silly usage)
 
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is over 45 years since I last saw a clergyman wearing buckled shoes . . .

You need to get out more. I know at least one bishop and at least two priests who habitually sport buckled shoes.
(Big) buckled or monk shoes?
 
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is over 45 years since I last saw a clergyman wearing buckled shoes, and he was a man who if he could have got hold of a wig, or found out reliably what Parson Woodforde normally wore to take a service, he would have worn the same. He would have referred to anyone who wore,
"a cotta trimmed in deepest lace with a mozzetta and a Spanish biretta piped in cherry",
as a Papist, and meant it.

You need to get out more. I know at least one bishop and at least two priests who habitually sport buckled shoes.
Particularly in north London.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is over 45 years since I last saw a clergyman wearing buckled shoes . . .

You need to get out more. I know at least one bishop and at least two priests who habitually sport buckled shoes.
(Big) buckled or monk shoes?
The former, in the cases of which I'm thinking. As, for example,
this picture of three impeccably dressed persons (I almost said 'gentlemen', but that would have been incorrect, of course, as neither a Bishop nor a Prince, however well behaved, can ever be a gentleman).

There does seem to be a fashion for monkstraps amongst some moderately high priests, however. I suppose it's a way of wearing buckles without drawing attention to them.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Wonderful - I've always hoped they'd remake The Little World of Don Camillo! Especially like the look of the bearded Peppone in the Russian fur hat. Do you know when it'll be on?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is over 45 years since I last saw a clergyman wearing buckled shoes, and he was a man who if he could have got hold of a wig, or found out reliably what Parson Woodforde normally wore to take a service, he would have worn the same. He would have referred to anyone who wore,
"a cotta trimmed in deepest lace with a mozzetta and a Spanish biretta piped in cherry",
as a Papist, and meant it.
I still do! Well, actually I would say something like 'He dresses like a Papist!' And believe me that is not a compliment coming from me. I am not a rabid Low Churchman, but an old-fashioned High Churchman Protestant. The sort who will wear a chasuble to celerate Communion but would not be caught dead in anything lace.

PD
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is over 45 years since I last saw a clergyman wearing buckled shoes, and he was a man who if he could have got hold of a wig, or found out reliably what Parson Woodforde normally wore to take a service, he would have worn the same. He would have referred to anyone who wore,
"a cotta trimmed in deepest lace with a mozzetta and a Spanish biretta piped in cherry",
as a Papist, and meant it.
I still do! Well, actually I would say something like 'He dresses like a Papist!' And believe me that is not a compliment coming from me. I am not a rabid Low Churchman, but an old-fashioned High Churchman Protestant. The sort who will wear a chasuble to celerate Communion but would not be caught dead in anything lace.

PD
Did anyone wear a chasuble, or even a coloured stole before the mid/late nineteenth century?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Did anyone wear a chasuble, or even a coloured stole before the mid/late nineteenth century?
Catholics?

(Actually this long article about Danish vestments here (which I have not read all of) seems to imply that Lutheran ministers wore chasubles in the 16th & 17th century and that they gradually fell out of use in Germany but were continued in Denmark and Norway)
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is over 45 years since I last saw a clergyman wearing buckled shoes, and he was a man who if he could have got hold of a wig, or found out reliably what Parson Woodforde normally wore to take a service, he would have worn the same. He would have referred to anyone who wore,
"a cotta trimmed in deepest lace with a mozzetta and a Spanish biretta piped in cherry",
as a Papist, and meant it.
I still do! Well, actually I would say something like 'He dresses like a Papist!' And believe me that is not a compliment coming from me. I am not a rabid Low Churchman, but an old-fashioned High Churchman Protestant. The sort who will wear a chasuble to celerate Communion but would not be caught dead in anything lace.

PD
Did anyone wear a chasuble, or even a coloured stole before the mid/late nineteenth century?
Not in England. They seem to have appeared in a few C of E parishes about 1850 (stoles) and about 1854 (chasubles). However, there was always a case to say they were legal on the basis of the Ornament's Rubric. On the other hand, those opposed to the use of the chasuble could appeal to the 1604 Canons which remained in use until the mid-1960s.

Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Lutherans retained the chasuble, usually worn over an alb, or perhaps a straight sleeved surplice. Most north German Lutheran churches used the chasuble until the 18th century. The first major attack on the use of the chasuble was under Frederick the Great's father (a Calvinist) who ordered the Prussian Lutherans to get rid of the traditional vestments and use only the talar. Frederick reversed the order, but by then the damage was done.

PD
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
There seems to be evidence that some Non-Jurors at least considered wearing chasubles, although whether they actually ever did wear them is less probable.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Ooops, missed the edit.

Thus the chasuble in Lutheran Germany disappeared over the period of 75 years starting in 1731. Brandenburg and Prussia were the first to drop it. It survived late (1790s/1800s) in Hannover, Leipzig, Nuremburg, and Hamburg. IIRC, Hamburg was the last to drop the chasuble - in 1806!

PD
 
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on :
 
The first recorded use of a chasuble in the Church of England was when one, made from two Oxford MA hoods sewn together (somehow!), was worn by Thomas Chamberlain at St Thomas the Martyr, Oxford, on Whitsunday, 1854.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
The first recorded use of a chasuble in the Church of England was when one, made from two Oxford MA hoods sewn together (somehow!), was worn by Thomas Chamberlain at St Thomas the Martyr, Oxford, on Whitsunday, 1854.
That must have been a sight to see!
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
There seems to be evidence that some Non-Jurors at least considered wearing chasubles, although whether they actually ever did wear them is less probable.
OTOH the Scottish Non-Jurors - a.k.a. the Scottish Episcopal Church - were faithful to the black gown right down to the 1820s/30s. The intruded English and Irish cleric in the Qualified Chapels wore the surplice. Apparently the use of the surplice spread into the SEC from the Qualified Chapels as the latter began to be absorbed from about 1793 onwards as the penal laws against the
SEC had been lifted.

I should perhaps have mentioned that the talar is the black preaching gown used in the Lutheran, Reformed and Union Churches in Germany. The various Landeskirchen each have their own shape, and there are some other weird little things. For example the Reformed, Union and Lutheran churches use different styles of Beffchen (preaching bands) - the Lutheran shape being the same as that sported by Anglicans. The two tabs are sewn together in the Reformed tradition, and sewn halfway - predctably - in the Union churches. However, you will occasional see the ruff in Scheswig-Holstein as it use to belong to Denmark.

PD

[ 17. July 2012, 20:24: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :
 
Here is another reference to the use of the black gown in the Church of England:

http://jmichaelpovey-retiredpoveinsarasota.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/strange-case-of-dr-dodgson-sykes-and.html

When a preacher removes the surplice and dons the gown, is the tippet and/or the hood added?
 
Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
The Dean of St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney always wear a Geneva gown over a suit for services, whether they are eucharistic services (when the altar trolley is wheeled in), or at the other 'church gatherings' i.e. services. His brother the Archbishop is almost always impeccably attired in convocation robes - seeing the two of them together makes an interesting picture.

[ 30. July 2012, 22:43: Message edited by: emendator liturgia ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
Here is another reference to the use of the black gown in the Church of England:

http://jmichaelpovey-retiredpoveinsarasota.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/strange-case-of-dr-dodgson-sykes-and.html

When a preacher removes the surplice and dons the gown, is the tippet and/or the hood added?
As a rule the tippet and hood are worn with the black gown, though on occasions I have seen just a gown over the cassock. Strictly speaking that is not quite pukka as at least the tippet should accompany the gown.

PD
 
Posted by mettabhavana (# 16217) on :
 
quote:
eucharistic services (when the altar trolley is wheeled in)
??? [Ultra confused] [Eek!]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mettabhavana:
quote:
eucharistic services (when the altar trolley is wheeled in)
??? [Ultra confused] [Eek!]
Does a hostess invite one to choose between bread, wafer or Black Forest Gateau?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I cannot quite understand why the Jensens cannot let the cathedral be the cathedral, and cut out the neo-Puritan crap. I really do not care if the services are all conducted in surplice and tippet and follow the order of the BCP (either Trad or Mod language) but the cathedral should set a standard of liturgical worship. The Gospel Hall stuff belongs in a Gospel Hall. J. C. Ryle looks like a raving Anglo-Papalist alongside these guys as he insisted upon a dignified Church service and loved the BCP as defending Reformed theology.

PD
 
Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
During the re-ordering of St Andrew's Cathedral about 10 years ago (which did restore the Cathedral's original layout), the altar [ooopps,I mean, Lord's Table - heavens forbid, there are no altars in the Anglican Church, or so I was told by a visiting Sydney church leader i.e. clergy] was removed, not repositioned, removed. Nowadays, under Dean Jensen, when there is a Holy Communion service, the Lord's Table is wheeled in (its on castors) from somewhere off stage, and then removed again later.

BTW, for what its worth, the Dean is a firm believer in the priesthood of all believers, so he has everyone join him in saying the Prayer of Consecration.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
He needs to read more Luther. Particularly the bits about a properly called and ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament. Fudging on that point is decidedly against the teaching of the magisterial Reformers and again points out that the Jensenites are not quite Pukka Evangelicals.

PD
 
Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
Given the direction in Diocesan developments of a new ecclesiology since the 1950s, based on the works of local numeries as Broughton Knox, Donald Robinson, and Peter O'Brien (which defines church as being an heavenly gathering - I can provide you with more detail of that if you like), the indentification of 'church' with the individual is being consistenly played out. One can read this into their views on lay presidency.

(Mind you, Broughton Knox believed that Christ's baptism was merely a metaphor and hence there was no need for the sacramental washing of sins).
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by emendator liturgia:
.... the identification of 'church' with the individual is being consistently played out. One can read this into their views on lay presidency....
Emendator, can you explain this please? Are you saying they identify the 'church' which most of us think is some interpretation of 'the body of Christ' or 'the visible assembly of the faithful' with 'me, me, me', each of us our own church? That would be not just heretical but weird. Or are you criticising them for not identifying 'the church' with the ordained ministry or a building, neither of which would be controversial.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I think that discussions about the ecclesiology of the Jensens belongs on another thread, and accusations of bad faith and heresy on their part are not suitable for Ecclesiantics.

Back to your scheduled thread!

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
The black gown was worn by clergy of the Reformed Episcopal Church here in the States as late as the 1970s. I think the tippet may have been worn as well. That has all changed in recent years as the REC has climbed the candle. Cassock, surplice and tippet are the norm for choir offices; stole for Holy Communion. I'm not aware that anyone wears the chasuble, though I may be wrong. The denomination is still on the "low" side liturgically.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
The black gown was worn by clergy of the Reformed Episcopal Church here in the States as late as the 1970s. I think the tippet may have been worn as well. That has all changed in recent years as the REC has climbed the candle. Cassock, surplice and tippet are the norm for choir offices; stole for Holy Communion. I'm not aware that anyone wears the chasuble, though I may be wrong. The denomination is still on the "low" side liturgically.
A while back, I looked at a bunch of websites of REC parishes, and a lot of the ones with photos seemed to have a prie-dieu and big chair at each end of the altar (er, table?), which might be a hint at north-ending. I could be wrong.
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
I know the REC through personal contacts, but I'm not an Episcopalian, so I don't know the term "north-ending". Fill me in.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
I know the REC through personal contacts, but I'm not an Episcopalian, so I don't know the term "north-ending". Fill me in.
Some Books of Common Prayer instruct the Minister to stand at the "north side" of the Holy Table. There have been various interpretations of this; one has been that the Minister is not to stand in the center like a Roman Catholic priest would but at the narrow north (left) end. One reason for this was an avoidance of appearing to offer a sacrifice at an altar. Another feature of this style was an avoidance of manual acts beyond touching the bread and chalice.

Here's an excellent description of north-ending by our PD.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
The black gown was worn by clergy of the Reformed Episcopal Church here in the States as late as the 1970s. I think the tippet may have been worn as well. That has all changed in recent years as the REC has climbed the candle. Cassock, surplice and tippet are the norm for choir offices; stole for Holy Communion. I'm not aware that anyone wears the chasuble, though I may be wrong. The denomination is still on the "low" side liturgically.
There are plenty of Chasubles in the REC but they would tend to be rarest in the Old NY and Phila Synod, and commonest in the Midwest where some of their parishes transferred in from the Continuum (putting a favourable construction on what happened!)

The old chair at either end of the Altar able thing was pretty typical Episcopalian liturgics in the mid-nineteenth century. IIRC North ending was common in the REC, as it had been in PEUSA whenthey lef in 1873. However, some ministers took to celebrating over the Table quite early on in the Reformed manner.

PD
(ex-FCE aka RECGB&I)
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Oblatus , many thanks for that link. What PD describes was very common throughout Sydney when I was growing up, and for quite some time after that as well.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
I know the REC through personal contacts, but I'm not an Episcopalian, so I don't know the term "north-ending". Fill me in.
North ending is standing at the north end of the Altar Table to celebrate Communion. It came about under the Laudian regime (1633-45) when the Tables were moved back against the wall and railed off so they could not be moved into the nave for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

In most parishes they ended up 'altarwise' with the short ends north and south, so in order to obey the rubric to stand at the North side for the Communion service, a lot of priests took to standing at the north end. Previously the Table had been put down the length of the chancel for the Communion with the ends east and west.

The 1662 BCP, but not the 1559 BCP, contains a further rubric just before the consecration that orders the priest to stand before the Table. This suggests to me that following the Savoy Conference of 1661, there was some sort of determination that they would leave the door open for the Eastward facing position for the Prayer of Consecration. This seems to have been dome on a small scale in the reigns of Charles II, James II, and William and Mary, but seems to have died out in the early 18th century.

Wth the exception noted above, North ending was the norm from the 1660s to the early 1900s in the Church of England, and was still pretty common in the 1960s in Low Church and Evangelical parishes. However, it died out more quickly in PECUSA, so by 1928, the revisers decided it was safe to omit all mentions of sides and ends and simply state that the minister shall stand "before" the Altar.

There were still places doing North end when I was a teenager and indeed I did a fair bit of north ending when I was an Assistant Curate in the late 1990s. I still north end from time to time, but mainly when doing historical liturgies such as the 1662 and the 1789 PECUSA BCP. Indeed the last time was July 4th when we did a 1789 celebration for Independence Day.

PD

[ 02. August 2012, 15:44: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
Until the "back to the niddle ages" movement in the 19th century ( Cambridge Camden Society etc.)most holy tables were almost square as can be seen in some city of London churches, so that north end really was north side, The introduction of mediaeval altar style into low church parishes gave us the aesthetically displeasing manual acts we dislike in low-chuch churches.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
North ending is standing at the north end of the Altar Table to celebrate Communion. It came about under the Laudian regime (1633-45) when the Tables were moved back against the wall and railed off so they could not be moved into the nave for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
What did Laud himself envisage about the position of the priest? Did he intend to restore the eastward position?

The debates about 'north end' vs 'eastward' were particularly vicious in the late 19th century. Thomas Hardy, in Jude the Obscure describes the contrast between the agony of Jude and his partner at the death of their children, with two Oxford dons arguing in the next room:
quote:
They are two clergymen of different views, arguing about the eastward position. Good God--the eastward position, and all creation groaning!
Somehow puts it (and Ecclesiantics) into perspective.

For what its worth, the north-end position is still the custom in my local parish church.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
One suspects that Laud was moving towards restoring the Eastward position, but maybe not right off. Move the altars first, then altar the ceremonial custom may have been his methodology.

PD
 
Posted by mettabhavana (# 16217) on :
 
quote:
the aesthetically displeasing manual acts we dislike in low-chuch churches
D'you mean hand-wringing? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
Since the altar-like holy table is narrow, the priest moves the book-stand or cushion to make room, gooes to the middle ande removes the chalice and paten to the north end, causing a long pause and the appearance of having the elements in danger of falling off the congested end. With a squarer holy table all of this is avoided. There is nothing wrong with north side celebration on an altar table that fits it properly.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I've never understood why north-end churches set out the chalice and paten (usually with burse and veil!) in the centre of the altar. Then move them when they need to use them.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I have been to Holy Communion at evangelical churches from time to time over the last thirty years, and I can't remember ever seeing the president (sic) standing at the North End. Recently, they've been Westward facing.

I seem to remember reading some High Church clergyman suggesting "the North End" meant on the north end of of the East face, rather than the north side.

I know Wren churches quite well and I have an eye for liturgical detail. Any original Holy Tables are small, but I can't recall any actually square.

The original Holy Table at St Stephen's Walbrook is D shaped, with the straight side against the East wall.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I've never understood why north-end churches set out the chalice and paten (usually with burse and veil!) in the centre of the altar. Then move them when they need to use them.
I think it has a lot to do with the human liking for balance. Even in the FCE we tended to put the chalice and paten containing the elements to be consecrated in the middle of the Table. However, the altars in FCE churches tended to be short and wide - 5' by 3' - so the whole operation of uncovering the vessels and moving them a little towards one end went pretty smoothly.

The church I grew up in had an old altar that was set up for north end when it was restored in 1883 and again the 1883 high altar Table was relatively short and wide - 6' by 3' - so there was room to do lion and unicorn without the celebrant and his assistant being absurdly far off to the sides. The newer high altar was much longer and relatively narrow - about 9' by 2'8" - so it occupied about five-twelfths of the length of the east wall of the chancel and only really adapted to the eastward position.

PD
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I have been to Holy Communion at evangelical churches from time to time over the last thirty years, and I can't remember ever seeing the president (sic) standing at the North End. Recently, they've been Westward facing....
My impression from memory is that once it occurred to someone, about 40 years ago, that you could move the altar/table forward from the wall and celebrate from behind it, most of those who had been resolutely north end until then adopted the new practice almost immediately.

Before then, there was a very strong aversion in many quarters to the 'turn your back on everyone and mumble' position that had become widespread in high church circles by the 1950s/60s. I find it very odd that anyone, even on a vessel of lost causes, should advocate going back to that.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
A friend, who came back to Christianity late in life, told me she liked Eastward facing, as it meant priest and people were all facing the same way.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

My impression from memory is that once it occurred to someone, about 40 years ago, that you could move the altar/table forward from the wall and celebrate from behind it, most of those who had been resolutely north end until then adopted the new practice almost immediately.
The church I mentioned where this practice still exists, was MOTR until 30 or so years ago; visually it remains so, with decently furnished altar, cross and candles. Evidently a new-broom evangelical vicar rescued it for the True Faith and began to use the north-end position. His successors, though not AFAIK Reform in theology, have maintained that tradition.

The only reason I can think of is that there is no room to move the Table forward within the narrow sanctuary, so it would have to stand in the chancel and therefore restrict the 'performing space' for the 'all-age' services.

[ 04. August 2012, 12:27: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I occasionally run into the opinion that westward facing is the 'bow down and worship the priest' position, so a few of the really crusty sorts stay north end for that reason. Personally I usually celebrate "eastward" facing, but I prefer north end to versus pop.

PD
 
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :
 
I am broadly with PD, although I (marginally) prefer north end, particularly on BCP/Order Two occasions.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0