Ship of Fools: Readers' Robing for Funerals

Thread: Readers' Robing for Funerals 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=027861

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

I am a Reader (Voluntary Lay Minister) in the Church of England. Correct wear for a Reader when officiating is Cassock, Surplice, Reader's Scarf (blue) and Academic Hood (if worn). I am sometimes called upon to take funerals, and assumed that I should dress as prescribed (including Ll.B. hood, which tones nicely with my blue scarf). However, I have recently been informed by my Vicar that I should only wear the hood when in Choir Dress, and that it is not appropriate for funerals. I'm not upset about this, I just wonder why. Can any Shipmate enlighten me? If this has been raised before or elsewhere, I apologise.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

Eirenist, at the heart of the matter is the difference between the two types of services: scarf and hood are for the Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer (OK, I know some people would wear them for other services as well), whilst for the occasional Pastoral Services, sans the hood is right.

Take the lead from your Vicar at the time - if he doesn't, then you don't either, etc.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

Choir dress is the appropriate garb for a Reader conducting a funeral, in my judgement as a retired Warden of Readers!

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

A funeral isn't a sacrament, so IMO choir dress (including hood) is entirely appropriate.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I'd suggest that unless the relatives of the bereaved request something different that would seem entirely appropriate...

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

But aren't readers always in choir dress? IE Isn't a surplice and scarf sans hood also choir dress?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I don't think I have ever worn a hood when taking a funeral.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

The practice varies among clergy I know. Some do and some do not wear hoods at funerals.

Wearing hoods (for those entitled) is 'normal' in canon law in the C of E with surplice and scarf/tippet.

I've never heard why some discourage or disapprove of it at funerals/weddings.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Simple question. Will whether the Reader taking the funeral is wearing or not wearing an academic hood make it easier or harder for the deceased to enter heaven?

Unless one can answer that question with complete confidence that one is right, isn't the better answer to do as one's vicar says?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I don't believe having a funeral makes any difference to the deceased's prospects of entering heaven so why not dispense with the whole lot?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
But aren't readers always in choir dress? IE Isn't a surplice and scarf sans hood also choir dress?

Yes, but it is incorrect to wear a hood at Sacramental services. I'm sure someone more well informed than I am will be able to explain why that is

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
But aren't readers always in choir dress? IE Isn't a surplice and scarf sans hood also choir dress?
Yes, but it is incorrect to wear a hood at Sacramental services. I'm sure someone more well informed than I am will be able to explain why that is

Incorrect or not it is what the Canons of the Church of England prescribed until a few years ago for graduates (except in Cathedrals).

Canons of 1604 See LVIII.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

I'd like to know that as well Spike - makes no sense to me. A scarf is not a stole, but there did used to be a convention of treating it as one at some services - in the Church of Ireland for example - so not wearing the hood with it on these occasions.

In fact I believe there used to be a hybrid monster called a 'Church of Ireland Stole'- from a distance it looked like a black scarf, but from closer the eagle-eyed could see cunningly disguised black embroidered crosses at either end...

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

My distinct recollection is that whenever I have shared the leading of a funeral with a Reader the lady in question wore a hood. But it's not worth dying in a ditch for, either way.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
But aren't readers always in choir dress? IE Isn't a surplice and scarf sans hood also choir dress?
Yes, but it is incorrect to wear a hood at Sacramental services. I'm sure someone more well informed than I am will be able to explain why that is

Not incorrect actually, and in fact required under the 'old' canons - but it is a common practice to omit the hood at Sacramental services as it is felt inappropriate to sport a mark of personal dignity during the Eucharist.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
But aren't readers always in choir dress? IE Isn't a surplice and scarf sans hood also choir dress?
Yes, but it is incorrect to wear a hood at Sacramental services. I'm sure someone more well informed than I am will be able to explain why that is

Absolute rot. The tippet is just a late-mediaeval way of wearing the hood which has been set in aspic by clerical tailors. The more interesting question is whether wearing both amounts to wearing two hoods or to wearing one hood in two forms, or one hood in two 'pieces'. That aside, Anglican choir dress as currently worn is surplice, tippet and hood. It is indeed wrongheaded for sacramental ministers to preside in choir dress, but clerics in quire are, obviously enough, vested in choir dress. You don't see non-celebrating priests wearing chasubles at Mass. Readers are never ministers of the sacrament (unless vested as straw subdeacons, in tunicle) and if they vest for Mass, do so in choir dress.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Readers are never ministers of the sacrament (unless vested as straw subdeacons, in tunicle) and if they vest for Mass, do so in choir dress.

Tangent alert

I was at a service recently (in a cathedral no less) where a Reader was acting as deacon and wearing a tunicle (or was it a dalmatic?). Anyway, nothing unusual there. However, under her vestment she was not only wearing her blue scarf, she had it over her left shoulder like a deacon's stole [Eek!]

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Readers are never ministers of the sacrament (unless vested as straw subdeacons, in tunicle) and if they vest for Mass, do so in choir dress.
Tangent alert

I was at a service recently (in a cathedral no less) where a Reader was acting as deacon and wearing a tunicle (or was it a dalmatic?). Anyway, nothing unusual there. However, under her vestment she was not only wearing her blue scarf, she had it over her left shoulder like a deacon's stole

That plaintive wail you hear? That's the baby Jesus crying... Wrong on so many levels.

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Simple question. Will whether the Reader taking the funeral is wearing or not wearing an academic hood make it easier or harder for the deceased to enter heaven?

Surely, as this is the Church of England, all present (including the deceased) are blessed by the officiant wearing all the appropriate garb? [Razz]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Surely the starting place for this discussion has to be "what do the canons of the C of E say?"

What's that? They don't say anything?? Then, the reader can feel free to wear hood or not as they wish. The opinion of the vicar is to be heard but not necessarily obeyed. (the opinion of the vicar in this case seems a little precious to me. So do what you want.)

Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :

I was under the impression that the hood, being festal, was omitted at funerals. Again, I concede that local custom will vary.

That said, I think Bachelors of Divinity from Oxford can skirt the issue as their hood is black.

Then again, I have not seen a Reader-led funeral in this corner of Anglicanism where the cassocks are in white drill due to the tropics.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

I've never heard of the hood being a festal garment.

ETA: I think the black BD hood is from Dublin, not Oxford.

[ 16. February 2014, 07:24: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

Mine was only Festal once - at my Graduation!

Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I've never heard of the hood being a festal garment.

ETA: I think the black BD hood is from Dublin, not Oxford.

Here's something from Walter's of Oxford as regards the all-black BDiv hood.

Also found this from Oxford regarding what form of academic dress is worn according to occasion. Most church services, including memorial services, require only the gown for bachelors, masters, and doctors. Whilst it is silent on the subject of whether officiants at such services will don their hoods, university congregants will generally be in their black gowns only, since they're in the pews. It was only from there that I inferred that hoods are probably not for funerals, with the same caveats about not having seen a reader-led funeral in Anglican circles here.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

Hoods are not festal. There is an historic, and now obsolete, distinction between various ways of wearing the hood, for festal or non festal occasions (i.e squared, folded, or flourished) but the hood itself is neither festal nor ferial. The idea that the BD hood is "allowed" because black is fallacious and wrong-headed, as is the ridiculous made-up Anglican practice one (thankfully only very-) occasionally finds of wearing less "showy" hoods during Lent.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Defer to the Warden of Readers ISTM

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

I always encouraged that when I was that Warden! My own Readers were especially fortunate, in that their Vicar and Warden were of one mind on the matter [Big Grin]

[ 20. February 2014, 09:27: Message edited by: Oferyas ]

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Simple question. Will whether the Reader taking the funeral is wearing or not wearing an academic hood make it easier or harder for the deceased to enter heaven?

Surely funerals are for them as what is left, rather than them who has already gone??

[fixed code]

[ 23. February 2014, 08:37: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Simple question. Will whether the Reader taking the funeral is wearing or not wearing an academic hood make it easier or harder for the deceased to enter heaven?
Surely funerals are for them as what is left, rather than them who has already gone??

Precisely the conversation that is going on on another thread on this board. For a Catholic, the main purpose of the funeral is to pray for the departed, and the purpose of comforting the bereaved is secondary.

[fixed code]

[ 23. February 2014, 08:39: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Simple question. Will whether the Reader taking the funeral is wearing or not wearing an academic hood make it easier or harder for the deceased to enter heaven?
Surely funerals are for them as what is left, rather than them who has already gone??
Precisely the conversation that is going on on another thread on this board. For a Catholic, the main purpose of the funeral is to pray for the departed, and the purpose of comforting the bereaved is secondary.

[fixed code]

- and for this Anglican that is true as well!

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Simple question. Will whether the Reader taking the funeral is wearing or not wearing an academic hood make it easier or harder for the deceased to enter heaven?
Surely funerals are for them as what is left, rather than them who has already gone??
Precisely the conversation that is going on on another thread on this board. For a Catholic, the main purpose of the funeral is to pray for the departed, and the purpose of comforting the bereaved is secondary.

[fixed code]
- and for this Anglican that is true as well!

And for this one! By "Catholic" I did mean Catholic-but-not-only-Roman-Catholic.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

This is what the opening prayer in the CofE service says.

We have come here today
to remember before God our brother/sister N ;
to give thanks for his/her life;
to commend him/her to God our merciful redeemer and judge;
to commit his/her body to be buried/cremated,
and to comfort one another in our grief.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Scarfs - I'm entitled to wear a MA hood and I wish there were any occasions when I could do so.

However if I was leading a religious service other than in a university town with a similar congregation I would feel I was saying "Look I'm better educated and socially connected than you".

Obviously ministers should be educated but academic scarfs are better left off in most parishes I'd suggest.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

My Kings College London scarf wore out years ago, sadly, but I was asking about academic hoods. Have no fear, shipmates, I will defer to my Vicar's views.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I said "academic scarfs". I meant "academic hoods". I'm no great advertisement for higher education.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I said "academic scarfs". I meant "academic hoods". I'm no great advertisement for higher education.

Though of course, the tippet (erroneously called 'preaching scarf' by some) is a form of hood. So logically, were one to leave off wearing the hood, one should leave off wearing the tippet also. The only reason they're all made of black silk is that that happens to be what most MA hoods were made of when the liturgical-music stopped in the 16thC...

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I am not entirely sure that the tippet (scarf) and hood are the same.

Until the mid to late 19thC, the clergy dressed in surplice and hood for liturgical services. It was customary to remove the surplice and wear the gown to preach. This might be either the MA gown (higher church - Wesley used it) or Geneva gown (lower church).

The hood was certainly worn with the surplice for sacramental services. The print in Pusey House of the Margaret Street Chapel (later, All Saints) shows all three ministers at the altar in surplice and hood. The removal of the hood for all sorts of pious and humble reasons, was a later affectation and has no basis in canon.

The scarf was rarely worn. It was a sign of dignity conferred on dignitaries such as cathedral canons, chaplains to noblemen, royal chaplains. In more protestant circles, the Countess of Huntingdon awarded scarves to 'her' clergy who trained at Trevecca by right of her being a noblewoman. They were, at a slight stretch of the rules, her chaplains.

The use of the scarf by Readers is a development of the universal use of the black scarf by the clergy in all three Holy Orders from the middle of the 19thC, when I understand it was granted to all the clergy of the diocese of London. Other dioceses followed quite quickly. It is now part of choir dress, together with the surplice and hood.

Until the liturgical revival generated by the Oxford Movement began to be felt, the use of the cassock had largely died out - apart from DDs and bishops, deans and archdeacons, who wore a shortened form like an apron. The surplice was put on over the day dress of the clergy. It was correctly a long garment and came almost to the ground.

It is entirely appropriate for all Readers officiating at services to wear choir dress, and this includes the hood. It is entirely appropriate for clergy who wish to do so, to wear choir dress at any service; this would include the hood.

Pragmatism and good manners might lead a Reader to omit the hood if his/her vicar did so or preferred it that way. Technically (for all that's worth) it is incorrect to do so. Local custom prevails, rightly or wrongly. Again, I would advise good manners and sensitivity to what the incumbent might wish.

Funerals are in any case non sacramental services (unless a requiem mass). The appropriate dress would be...choir dress.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Our previous curate had two PhDs but never wore her hood so I left off my BA hood when co-conducting a service with her.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Am I alone in thinking that there's something wrong in wearing academic dress in the context of a church service?

I mean, foolishness to the Greeks and all that...?

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Yes.

Learning has its place.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

'Wrong' isn't a word I would use.

In outlining what constitutes choir dress, I am referring to the canons - as devised in 1603, and based on earlier models, revised by Archbishop Fisher and subsequently.

One might say that the use of the gown is 'wrong' in a church service as it descends from (amongst other things) the philosophers' cloak; also 'bands' as these denote learning and are shared by the legal profession; perhaps 'scarf' as this is a badge of dignity; maybe the 'stole' as this has sacerdotal significance; maybe the alb and surplice as these might be seen to set apart the officiant from the congregation.

Perhaps shirts made in Jermyn Street and worn by those presiding in Holy Trinity, Brompton, because these might denote weath (and like learing 'has its place'?); Nicky Gumbel's cashmere sweaters as they are hardly a sign of the poverty that is really felt in inner cities and the countryside.

That leaves us perhaps with the 'right' dress for worship: a fiherman's smock and carrying a bloater.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Our previous curate had two PhDs but never wore her hood so I left off my BA hood when co-conducting a service with her.

Really? I've a BA and an MA and wear them all the time.

BA = Born Again; MA = Marvellously Altered

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

haha very good.

And 'leaving off' can be as much of an academic statement as putting it all on. Especially if the designation 'Dr' is known - and maybe appears on a church notice board.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

come to think of it, why would someone submit two PhDs? Even if in different disciplines it's a little like qualifying as a GP twice.

Wouldn't it be better after having achieved this recognition of equality by the academic community to write a few books?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
come to think of it, why would someone submit two PhDs? Even if in different disciplines it's a little like qualifying as a GP twice. ...

I met a German who had two doctorates and was customarily known as Herr Doktor Doktor.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Yes, they do it. Very strange.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
haha very good.

And 'leaving off' can be as much of an academic statement as putting it all on. Especially if the designation 'Dr' is known - and maybe appears on a church notice board.

Well it was - at the time, we had 3 PhD clergy - but then again, we are the university chaplaincy church so there are lots of doctors flying around.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I have worn a hood (BA, 3rd class) on occasions, but I find it hard to justify it as part of clerical vesture. The same applies to lay ministers. The point of liturgical vesture ('choir dress' as much as eucharistic vestments) is surely to indicate that the minister is in a representative role and not drawing attention to his/her personality, qualifications, or any other distinctive features. I suppose in an academic context hoods serve as a kind of uniform, but in an ordinary parish church they do the opposite. Even when, as in the last two parishes I have served, at least half of the congregation are graduates, including several PhDs.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
haha very good.

And 'leaving off' can be as much of an academic statement as putting it all on. Especially if the designation 'Dr' is known - and maybe appears on a church notice board.
Well it was - at the time, we had 3 PhD clergy - but then again, we are the university chaplaincy church so there are lots of doctors flying around.

They might be better off landing and keeping their feet on the ground.

Having any degree or wearing special clothes doesn't make you into the person you claim to be.

I've a number of academic/practical qualifications. Most people in my church have no idea: I don't tell because I don't need to. A PhD doesn't cut it where I am - and may be a barrier.

[ 04. March 2014, 07:23: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
come to think of it, why would someone submit two PhDs? Even if in different disciplines it's a little like qualifying as a GP twice.

Wouldn't it be better after having achieved this recognition of equality by the academic community to write a few books?

I have two friends who are double-doctors. In one case, she was broadening her work into a different area and felt that the second doctorate increased chances of: a) being listened to, and b) employment. In the other, his first doctorate was in Slovak and, while he felt that Bratislava was as good as (say) Lethbridge, hiring committees were... provincial, and it gave him a chance to update his work with recent western research. In neither case are they likely to be found in choir dress although the latter is a perpetual deacon of the local RCs.

In my CoI student days, I often saw choristers and readers in academic hoods-- well, often enough that nobody was surprised.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Perhaps then my query should be why hoods are officially part of Choir Dress? Just to keep the pot boiling, I could add that when assisting or preaching at the Eucharist, I wear a cassock-alb with Reader's scarf. I wait for the shocked intakes of breath.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

A tortured logic permits the alb & scarf approach, but I think it is problematic. My understanding about hoods is that they be vestigial remnants of the daily dress of clerics with degrees-- cassocks with a practical (remember mediaeval indoor heating, such as can still be found in the British Isles) hood to keep the bat droppings/rain off the cleric, and then a surplice over their indoor garb. The surplice is, of course, a fuller and ungathered version of the alb which can fit over a cassock and (also necessary in those uncentrally heated times) a coat or fur garment.

So the wearing of an alb at the offices has a logic; however, the reader's scarf over it is liable to misinterpretation as a stole. Far better that you wear a tunicle over the alb, as you are in essence filling the subdeacon's role at a Eucharist and in that way prevent any confusion. Should local practices (or the absence of the vestment) preclude a tunicle, then a simple alb while assisting.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Perhaps then my query should be why hoods are officially part of Choir Dress? Just to keep the pot boiling, I could add that when assisting or preaching at the Eucharist, I wear a cassock-alb with Reader's scarf. I wait for the shocked intakes of breath.

So do I. I move between 3 churches and a casssock alb is easier to keep decent whereas my 'full English' surplice creases easily and I am not good at ironing.

Plus a surplice looks odd in a sanctuary where everyone else is in albes.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Just to keep the pot boiling, I could add that when assisting or preaching at the Eucharist, I wear a cassock-alb with Reader's scarf. I wait for the shocked intakes of breath.

Interesting: is it for the reasons leo gives? Because I can't see why you would come up with this otherwise: if you're in the sanctuary, are you being a straw-subdeacon? Then alb and tunicle (or just alb). If not, then you are in choir, and should wear choir dress. If not fulfilling the ministry of a reader at all (i.e. serving) then why an identifier at all? Is it local peculiarity, indifference to vesture, or something else entirely which leads to the mix-and-match?

Hypothetical: since Common Worship puts the Pax in the Ambrosian place, does that mean those who use it can follow the Ambrosian custom of vesting lectors in copes for Mass?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Before I sign off for Lent, just to point out that a cassock-alb was designed as a combination of cassock, alb and surplice. I know the very idea causes the vapours among many denizens of Ecclesiantics, but aesthetics apart, there is no reason to object to the cassock alb being used as a substitute for a surplice in any context. That's not to say that they wouldn't look odd worn with a hood.

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Cassock-alb and scarf for Eucharistic services; cassock, surplice and scarf for all other services.

Wearing cassock and surplice at the Eucharist, when everyone else is wearing a cassock-alb or an alb, really makes the Reader stand out - not at all desirable.

Left to my own devices I'd wear the cassock-alb at all services (it's practical and comfortable) - but rules is rules!!

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Aesthetically, I like to see a long full English surplice with gathered pleats. It seems smarter than an alb, and most certainly a cassock alb. If made long enough, and with a smaller neck, it can be put on straight over street clothes like the clergy did in the 18thC.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

In answer to vade mecum: Our vicar at the time I was licensed liked all those robing for the Eucharist to match. I would not have thought a Reader's blue scarf could be mistaken for a stole. If in the sanctuary for the Eucharist, I would be preaching, reading one of the lessons (not, currently, the Gospel), preaching, or leading the intercessions,or some or all of these, but not deaconing, since I am not a deacon.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
In answer to vade mecum: Our vicar at the time I was licensed liked all those robing for the Eucharist to match. I would not have thought a Reader's blue scarf could be mistaken for a stole. *snip*

Over the years, having heard the reader's blue scarf being mistaken for a stole by: a) the reader, b) the rector, c) a choirmaster, and d) servers, I think it safe to say that it will inevitably be mistaken as a stole by lots of people.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

But does God mind?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Aesthetically, I like to see a long full English surplice with gathered pleats. It seems smarter than an alb, and most certainly a cassock alb.

So do I and i wear one for evensongs (and rare mattins). But unless the mass is celebrated in surplice rather than proper vestments, a cassock alb is more appropriate.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But does God mind?

I am sure he doesn't. I don't think he is very interested. He looks on the heart rather than the appearance (1 Sam 17:7). I also don't think he minds if you read the gospel, as you are permitted to do in England but not Wales.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
In answer to vade mecum: Our vicar at the time I was licensed liked all those robing for the Eucharist to match. I would not have thought a Reader's blue scarf could be mistaken for a stole. *snip*
Over the years, having heard the reader's blue scarf being mistaken for a stole by: a) the reader, b) the rector, c) a choirmaster, and d) servers, I think it safe to say that it will inevitably be mistaken as a stole by lots of people.

A scarf gets mistaken for a stole whether it is worn over a surplice or an cassock-alb.

A sacristan once offered me a green stole because, he said, 'you always wear that blue one'.

This morning, at an anglo-catholic care-home chapel, a man asked me which diocese i was bishop of!!!

Those who know the difference between certain robes and vestments will know that I am lay.

Those who don't - probably the vast majority, wee, it would make no difference which robes we wear and one could make a case for Readers coming out from the congregation in ordinary clothes to preach.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
In answer to vade mecum: Our vicar at the time I was licensed liked all those robing for the Eucharist to match. I would not have thought a Reader's blue scarf could be mistaken for a stole. If in the sanctuary for the Eucharist, I would be preaching, reading one of the lessons (not, currently, the Gospel), preaching, or leading the intercessions,or some or all of these, but not deaconing, since I am not a deacon.

But if one were preaching, reading and intercessing, why would one be in the sanctuary? Surely one would be in choir, and thus in choir dress?

Wanting everyone to match is absurd.

And Angloid: do you have any proof that the cassock-alb is meant as a replacement for a surplice, beyond the fact that the alb and surplice are the same garment if one goes back far enough?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Those who know the difference between certain robes and vestments will know that I am lay.

Those who don't - probably the vast majority, wee, it would make no difference which robes we wear and one could make a case for Readers coming out from the congregation in ordinary clothes to preach.

Quite. When I've been officiating at a funeral, people often shake my hand and say "thank you Father" as they leave.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
In answer to vade mecum: Our vicar at the time I was licensed liked all those robing for the Eucharist to match. I would not have thought a Reader's blue scarf could be mistaken for a stole. If in the sanctuary for the Eucharist, I would be preaching, reading one of the lessons (not, currently, the Gospel), preaching, or leading the intercessions,or some or all of these, but not deaconing, since I am not a deacon.
But if one were preaching, reading and intercessing, why would one be in the sanctuary? Surely one would be in choir, and thus in choir dress?

Wanting everyone to match is absurd.

And Angloid: do you have any proof that the cassock-alb is meant as a replacement for a surplice, beyond the fact that the alb and surplice are the same garment if one goes back far enough?

We ripped out our choir stalls decades ago.

Plus I act as deacon so am at the altar. In our other church I'd be in a tunicle or dalmatic but our main church doesn't have them.

[ 10. March 2014, 07:25: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

In answer to Vade Mecum, it is true that at Parish Eucharist I would normally be in the Deacon's stall in the Choir, as we use the Nave Altar for that celebration, but for the Early Service, at which we have a sermon, we celebrate at the High Altar and sit in the hideously uncomfortable sedilia, which are in the sanctuary. All very irregular, I'm sure.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A scarf gets mistaken for a stole whether it is worn over a surplice or an cassock-alb.

In my parish of curacy there was an entire vestment set (maniple included) in blue. Made because a previous vicar supported a[n AFL] football team who sported that colour.

I wore it for Marian feasts.

Posted by Mr Beamish (# 17991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A scarf gets mistaken for a stole whether it is worn over a surplice or an cassock-alb.

In my parish of curacy there was an entire vestment set (maniple included) in blue. Made because a previous vicar supported a[n AFL] football team who sported that colour.

I wore it for Marian feasts.

Shurely shome mishtake? Blue is a recommended option in Advent, after all.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The sort of blue worn for Advent (and the gesimas) in Percy Dearmer churches (I remember it well - silvery blue - my home churches used it back in my teens) is a very different shade from that of readers' scarves.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A scarf gets mistaken for a stole whether it is worn over a surplice or an cassock-alb.

In my parish of curacy there was an entire vestment set (maniple included) in blue. Made because a previous vicar supported a[n AFL] football team who sported that colour.

I wore it for Marian feasts.

Navy? Or the blue-and-white of North?

I've seen clergy replace their stole with a team scarf for at least some of the service the day after the grand final.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
I've seen clergy replace their stole with a team scarf for at least some of the service the day after the grand final. [/QB]

Because the Holy Sacrifice is definitely the place to show off your personal team-based sports affiliation...

[Mad]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Hoods don't have to be 'of the degree', but do look aesthetically good as a part of choir dress.

I knew of one priest who wore a hood (both in the more usual shape and also the cowl Warham Guild shape) with choir dress. He wore his theological college hood as it was the only one that reminded him of his priestly training (he was also a PhD).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
... I've seen clergy replace their stole with a team scarf for at least some of the service the day after the grand final.

Doesn't that unchurch those who support a different team? It's not that different from proclaiming from the pulpit that all true Christians must vote Labour, Conservative or whatever.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0