Ship of Fools: Crossed stole

Thread: Crossed stole 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=024919

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

Question from a non-Anglican (yet again): Today, on the Sed Angli. website, there is a photo of several Episcopal clergy gathered to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the calling of a colleague. The priest in question is wearing an alb and cope with a crossed red stole and cincture. Why would he cross his stole?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

The crossed stole is actually the traditional way of wearing a stole in Anglican and Catholic circles. A crossed stole symbolizes the priest's commitment to carry his cross in following Our Lord's command.

The more common way of having the stole droop freely only emerged I believe, when priests stopped wearing cintures and there was no way of wearing a crossed stole.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

The more common way of having the stole droop freely only emerged I believe, when priests stopped wearing cintures and there was no way of wearing a crossed stole.

I have to confess to not knowing the reason, but it's not that: the GIRM envisions a cincture to ordinarily be worn (336) but also specifies that "the stole is worn by the Priest around his neck and hanging down in front of his chest" (340).

[ 29. September 2012, 20:35: Message edited by: Hart ]

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

In my confirmation book (mid-80s), there were drawings of clerics, and the priest's stole is crossed, held in place with a cincture tied in the middle and looped to hold each end of the stole; and only the bishop's stole is straight down.

Mind you, the priest was drawn wearing an amice and maniple as well, so that's the tradition we're talking about! I do know some priests who wear their stole crossed but they're certainly in a minority these days.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I suspect some of the old style fiddleback chasubles had a gap below the chin which was filled with the crossing stole.

Sorry not well explained but hope you understand.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

The crossed stole is actually the traditional way of wearing a stole in Anglican and Catholic circles. A crossed stole symbolizes the priest's commitment to carry his cross in following Our Lord's command.

The more common way of having the stole droop freely only emerged I believe, when priests stopped wearing cintures and there was no way of wearing a crossed stole.

Well it's not merely traditional in "Anglican and Catholic circles" to cross the stole when wearing the alb. The custom is documented certainly to early Medieval times and most certainly was common before that. The symbolism you mention related to the cross is but one of the many spiritualized post hoc ergo propter hoc meanings developed over time for many, many items of church regalia and vestments.

Since the ancient form of the stole was quite narrow and very long, I suspect that it was crossed under the breast and affixed under the cincture to position it against movement of the body and the very ample, pronounced chasuble folds of an earlier time. Thus with movement the stole was secured so as not to drop too low in use so as to be tred upon.
*

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

The more common way of having the stole droop freely only emerged I believe, when priests stopped wearing cintures and there was no way of wearing a crossed stole.
I have to confess to not knowing the reason, but it's not that: the GIRM envisions a cincture to ordinarily be worn (336) but also specifies that "the stole is worn by the Priest around his neck and hanging down in front of his chest" (340).

Just to split hairs a bit, the archbishop of my diocese told his priests, as well as his seminarians before their ordinations that a crossed stole fulfills this- a crossed stole indeed does hang down in front of his chest. Ordination photos from the 70's and 80's show newly ordained priests in fiddleback shasuble with crossed stoles.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

I guess if your bishop says it's OK, it's OK. But, the fuller sense of 'hanging' seems to rule out being tied to me.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

The correct position for the stole under a chasable was crossed. The exception was a bishop who wore it uncrossed as it interferred with the pectoral cross.

I suspect that it was sometimes seen crossed with a cope because the cope was worn for processions and then the chasable assumed afterwards.

When not wearing a chasable, a priest would wear the stole as a bishop - uncrossed.

Nowadays it is more common to wear the stole uncrossed even under a chasable. Howeveer when a latin shaped chasable is worn, some priests still corss the stole to avoid the huge gap at the front.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Anglican clerics started emulating their RC Latin counterparts when the GIRM instruction about hanging stoles came in. The RC rationale was explained to me as identifying the bishop's ministry more intimately with that of his priests. Before then, the crossed priest's stole was universal in chasubled Anglicandom. I have only seen a stole crossed once since my very first MW report. I suspect that many curates and seminarians might never have seen it.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I notice that the stole is commonly crossed where the Roman (as opposed to Gothic) chasuble is worn. This is to make it more seemly so that not too much of the white of the alb is showing at the chest.

As for bishops tradionally (as well contemporally) wearing the stole straight down; it was considered the the wearing of a pectoral cross stood for it and there was no need effectively to wear a second cross by crossing the stole.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Always crossed when wearing chasuble; not crossed when not wearing chasuble.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Back in 2000 I worshipped at St Matthew's Cathedral, Dallas, while I was out there on business. All the clergy wore crossed stoles. Interestingly, the celebrant only wore the chasuble from the offertory onwards. It was interesting to see that, as both these were how it was done in the South London church of my youth.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Interesting. I've heard of and seen this quite a bit amongst American Anglicans, but I never came across it in England.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Back in 2000 I worshipped at St Matthew's Cathedral, Dallas, while I was out there on business. All the clergy wore crossed stoles. Interestingly, the celebrant only wore the chasuble from the offertory onwards. It was interesting to see that, as both these were how it was done in the South London church of my youth.

This likely conveys the liturgical conservatism of the Diocese of Dallas and other places in the South. Obviously the crossed stole is the old custom and the one I grew up with, whilst "dressing for dinner" (only wearing the chazzie from the Offertory) is an American usage of certain old-fashion high churchmen. I believe the thinking was that the cope should be worn prior to the Offertory, which at the time was at an earlier point prior to the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church, hence after the Oblata were placed on the altar/readied for the Sacrifice, but before the Canon. Liturgies for Trial Use/1976 BCP Proposed/1979 BCP put paid to all that.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

I've seen crossed stole in the UK as recently as the early 1990s, as well as "dressing for dinner"; the latter more recent and sometimes related to practicalities such as the priest preferring to have arms free for a baptism.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I've only ever worn a crossed stole on the rare occasions when I've used a Latin chasuble. I'm intrigued to know the history of it. Was the priest's stole "always" crossed (i.e. from when we first started wearing them)? I'd have thought that the design of the Orthodox epitrachelion suggested not.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The crossed stole is actually the traditional way of wearing a stole in Anglican and Catholic circles. A crossed stole symbolizes the priest's commitment to carry his cross in following Our Lord's command.

That seems a bit arcane to me.

Without wishing to be facetious, i was always taught not to cross my legs when robed and up front. May as well break the habit of a lifetime and cross them.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The priest wears an epitrachelion. The deacon and subdeacon wear an orarion, which is like a stole except it doesn't hang around the neck. The deacon mostly wears it draped across one shoulder, except during certain times (as when receiving communion), when he wears it crossed. The subdeacon always wears it crossed.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Without wishing to be facetious, i was always taught not to cross my legs when robed and up front. May as well break the habit of a lifetime and cross them.

This seems an extreme case of non sequitur. Why should crossing a stole indicate that crossing one's legs is okay? Why should they have anything to do with one another?

The Orthodox faithful and clergy (as a point of possible interest) are all enjoined not to cross their legs when in the worship space.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

In general, I think the crossed stole goes with the traditional Western vestments of cassock-amice-alb-cincture-stole-chasuble-maniple. Those using cassock-alb instead are less likely to cross the stole.

Yesterday I saw all of this worn, and stole crossed but not put through the cincture loops. I think usually the stole ends do go through the loops. This one was just put under the cincture as a whole. Not a big difference.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Can I be really nerdy and point out that you don't wear a cincture with an alb, you wear a girdle.
A cincture is the broad, stiffened cloth belt worn on a cassock.

Crossed stoles: traditionally worn by PRIESTS if they were in the sanctuary for ante-communion. DEACONS wear stoles that pass over one shoulder only.

Stoles, either crossed or uncrossed, are belted in with the girdle if one is wearing an alb.

The stole should only hang free if one is in Choir dress (cassock, surplice, hood) or, in the case of a bishop, with rochet and cope.

SUM UP: free-hanging for non-eucharistic liturgy, belted in for eucharistic; crossed if nothing else worn on top.

SIMPLES! [Angel]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Can I be really nerdy and point out that you don't wear a cincture with an alb, you wear a girdle.
A cincture is the broad, stiffened cloth belt worn on a cassock.

I do wear a rope cincture with an alb, and the term cincture is correct for that as well as the other kind.

Within the covers of Ritual Notes you are correct, but wider (later?) usage allows the rope girdle to be called a cincture.

[ 02. October 2012, 01:10: Message edited by: Oblatus ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The stole should only hang free if one is in Choir dress (cassock, surplice, hood)

Nope. A stole isn't part of choir dress. Stoles are sometimes seen being worn over a cassock & surplice, but should never be worn with a hood. Choir dress is scarf (tippet), hood and preaching bands.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I rather suspect that the Anglican trend for hanging stoles has less to do with Roman Catholic reforms or symbolism of any kind, and more to do with the fact that stoles look quite like tippets so clergy who wouldn't have encountered them until fairly recently assumed that they were worn in a similar style.

Given this, I've no doubt that the stole/hood combination has been inflicted on people from time to time with results varying from innocuous to stunningly ghastly, depending on the combination of colours! A PhD Cantab (black and red) would work well enouch but consider, say, my brother's MA (salmon pink, doubled navy) combined with a green stole. Enough to put one off one's lunch, no?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Given this, I've no doubt that the stole/hood combination has been inflicted on people from time to time with results varying from innocuous to stunningly ghastly, depending on the combination of colours!

In which case, they should be taken behind the chemical sheds (or whatEver the ecclesiastical equivalent is) and shot!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
consider, say, my brother's MA (salmon pink, doubled navy) combined with a green stole. Enough to put one off one's lunch, no?

Unless lunch was salmon salad.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Without wishing to be facetious, i was always taught not to cross my legs when robed and up front. May as well break the habit of a lifetime and cross them.
This seems an extreme case of non sequitur. Why should crossing a stole indicate that crossing one's legs is okay? Why should they have anything to do with one another?

Because the symbolism re- stoles is obscure. In all the years of altar serving before the crossed stole went out of fashion, nobody ever told me that there was a reason for them.

And if the crossed stole symbolises carring Christ's cross, why don't deacons wear them crossed?

Indeed, don't the laity have to carry Christ's cross too or is this some sort of clericalism?

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Time really does fly. On my ordination to the priesthood when they were adjusting my deacon stole a senior priest asked "crossed or straight?" I said "crossed" and have worn it that way until today with an alb and girdle. I've never worn a cassocl-alb (knock wood).

Priest who wear cassock-albs, even with girdles, invariably wear them bishop style. In fact, it has been so long and is so common in lower-church areas, many people, both lay and ordained, have never seen crossed stoles.

But I now a retired bishop who insisted when he was diocesan that bishops in his diocese wore the stole straight down, priests crossed the stole (as Percy said, the left crossed first, the right over the left) and deacons wore it over the shoulder. On huge days when there were dozens of clergy, it was easy to tell who was who.

It makes a lot of sense.

But just a week or so ago, I was flitting about getting ready for Mass and an older gentleman stopped me and asked "why the crossed stole?" he'd never seen it before. I gave him a few of the general answers already given and a couple more.

I do tend to see the crossed stole on younger clergy though, thank God for that!

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I was trained to do things the old way, so when I was a priest I crossed any stole that I could persuade to do it, but some of the really broad ones would not play ball! As a result I tended to use my own vestments rather the parish vestments which means the parish is now used to the sight of a fiddleback!

Nowadays I have to keep my stole straight and as a result I have had to get used to the 'keyhole effect' at the front of my chasubles.

PD

[ 03. October 2012, 03:21: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :

I am a presbyter, not a bishop.

It has never occurred to me to wear my stole uncrossed when I am wearing an alb.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
consider, say, my brother's MA (salmon pink, doubled navy) combined with a green stole. Enough to put one off one's lunch, no?
Unless lunch was salmon salad.

Or you were Chaplain to the Garrick Club

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
I am a presbyter, not a bishop.

It has never occurred to me to wear my stole uncrossed when I am wearing an alb.

I'll bet you were born just before or after 1980.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0