Ship of Fools: ordination vesture

Thread: ordination vesture 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=027905

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I've been trying to wean myself off an addiction to Ship of Fools, but it seems there is no other obvious way of scratching this ecclesiastical trivia itch. So I hope someone can quickly answer this question and let me return to normality asap.

A certain diocese in north-west England has just published photographs of its recent diaconal ordination. There were eleven candidates. Five of them were vested in white stoles. Four in plain black scarves. But two of them in black scarves embroidered with crosses in much the same way as stoles, though these were clearly 'preaching scarves' and worn over both shoulders like a priest's stole, rather than deacon-wise over the left shoulder.

What's that all about? I can understand traditional evangelical suspicion of the stole, although I would be surprised if even one or two of these deacons had a conscientious objection to wearing one. To turn a standard part of anglican choir dress into a personalised garment that to the average lay person is indistinguishable from a stole, apart from its colour, seems bizarre. If ordinary punters are puzzled by the symbolism of the crossways stole (which can be easily explained), surely they will be even more puzzled to see some deacons dressed like priests.

I can only think of three explanations. One, that the wearer wants to make the point that the same vesture should be worn for sacramental and non-sacramental services alike. Except that these days, many evangelicals only wear robes for Holy Communion.

Two, that it is vanity and unnecessary expense to wear 'elaborate' vesture like a stole. Except that this doesn't apply to the decorated scarves, some of which have far more elaborate embroidery than a simple stole. The cost of one alone would be more than the price of four simple stoles in the liturgical colours (certainly more than two double-sided ones, red/green and purple/white).

Three, that there is no essential difference between the holy orders of deacon and of priest, so they should not be distinguished by vesture. But that would seem to contradict the whole tenor of the Ordinal.

Is there something I have missed? Many (if not most) Methodist and other protestant ministers seem happy to wear stoles these days. Why are Anglicans so perverse?

Interestingly, the ordaining bishop was wearing a chasuble, unprecedented I think for such an occasion in this particular cathedral.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

In the rise of the Anglo-Catholic movement the stole was promoted as a point of identification with the Roman Catholic church, and of a sacrificial intention in the Mass which was at one with the Roman Catholic church. It still is, in some quarters, seen as a distinctive of Anglo Catholic worship.

Some who are aware of the symbolism and wish not to espouse it resist the stole on those grounds.

As for the decoration, it is rarely more than an attempt to brighten up a rather sombre garment.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Yes, I get your point Br James, about the historical suspicion of stoles on the part of some evangelicals. When I assisted at my sister-in-law's wedding at a very traditional conservative evangelical parish about 30 years ago, I was ordered sternly to wear scarf and hood rather than any 'popish' vestment.

But I don't think such attitudes are strong nowadays. Most bishops, even con-evo ones, are happy to celebrate the eucharist in a chasuble. Most of the clergy who normally wear black scarves are happy for others to wear what they prefer, even if they are assisting or presiding in their church. Canon Law specifies that all traditional forms of vesture may be worn and no theological significance attached to them.

It would be better for all the ordination candidates to wear plain black, rather than allow a free for all. That would signify their unity and that they were all being ordained to the same ministry in the same church. As it would if all wore stoles.

I'm sure most people aren't as bothered as I am either way. But then, if it's not a matter of great importance, why not let the bishop or the cathedral authorities, rather than the individual, decide?

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

The stole is a mark of office, not of priestly sacrifice. AFAIK it is the chasuble that tends to get associated with the sacrificing priesthood. I thought the historical Anglican objection to the stole was more to do with a rather puritanical denigration of the liturgical colour scheme, although a white stole should then hardly be objectionable (red might conversely be a bridge too far).

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

When my brother-in-law was ordained, I could not resist knitting him a stole. It was dark green (wearable during the longest liturgical season) with a design of wheat ears done in gold and copper. The relevant verse of course was John 4:35.

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

The choice of wearing of robes/vestments or not, is a mixture of convention and the outlook of the cleric or minister. Some will make the most of vesting or robing and others will do so seldom to never, preferring to stick to lounge suits (or the equivalent in feminine attire) or casual attire (smart or otherwise).

Some Methodist (and other Free Church) ministers, will have a complete set of vestments, short of the chasuble. (I cannot imagine the maniple being worn for communion by Methodists and other Free Church.) It is perfectly possible for evangelical Anglicans to preside at communion unrobed and I have seen this done.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
It is perfectly possible for evangelical Anglicans to preside at communion unrobed and I have seen this done.

It's done - frequently. It's still in breach of Canon Law, though.... [Biased]

As far as I am concerned, black scarves should be just that - plain black. No poncey frippery or patterns. If you want poncey frippery etc (and why wouldn't you!?), wear a stole.

Whilst I am on the subject of how I would rule the Anglican Communion with an iron fist inside an iron glove, given half the chance, let's consider ordination colours, shall we? White? No no no no. Red should be the colour.

(I was ordained in a red stole in Winchester Cathedral - one of the last to do so. Shortly after I was ordained, a new Bishop of Winchester came along (Michael Scott-Joynt of unblessed memory) and arbitrarily changed the tradition for the diocese. I should have known then that this was a sign of the insane stupidity of the man....) [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
It is perfectly possible for evangelical Anglicans to preside at communion unrobed and I have seen this done.
It's done - frequently. It's still in breach of Canon Law, though....

As far as I am concerned, black scarves should be just that - plain black. No poncey frippery or patterns. If you want poncey frippery etc (and why wouldn't you!?), wear a stole.

Whilst I am on the subject of how I would rule the Anglican Communion with an iron fist inside an iron glove, given half the chance, let's consider ordination colours, shall we? White? No no no no. Red should be the colour.

(I was ordained in a red stole in Winchester Cathedral - one of the last to do so. Shortly after I was ordained, a new Bishop of Winchester came along (Michael Scott-Joynt of unblessed memory) and arbitrarily changed the tradition for the diocese. I should have known then that this was a sign of the insane stupidity of the man....)

As of this year red is back in Winchester.

[ 08. July 2014, 18:38: Message edited by: Poppy ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Absolutely, Oscar--red is the color of the Holy Ghost (and incidentally of martyrdom, and the apostolic ministry can be a kind of martyrdom at times)--hence *the* appropriate color for ordinations.

Also, I realize I am being pedantic, but people! A robe is what I wear when I get out of the shower. Clergy wear vestments. [Big Grin]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
As of this year red is back in Winchester.

Really? Wow. There is hope for the C of E, yet. [Yipee]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

As far as I am concerned, black scarves should be just that - plain black. No poncey frippery or patterns. If you want poncey frippery etc (and why wouldn't you!?), wear a stole.

I agree. But I'm not too keen on poncey frippery of any kind, least of all the highly personal sort of motifs that you often see on these trendy embroidered scarves. Vestments are to mark the office and minimise the personality of the wearer: personalised logos draw attention to the latter.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Re colours for ordination: the other year a certain Bishop held ordinations on Pentecost Sunday and declared the liturgical colour to be white!

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Re colours for ordination: the other year a certain Bishop held ordinations on Pentecost Sunday and declared the liturgical colour to be white!

Well, after all it's Whitsunday, isn't it?! [Devil]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

As far as I am concerned, black scarves should be just that - plain black…
… But I'm not too keen on poncey frippery of any kind, least of all the highly personal sort of motifs that you often see on these trendy embroidered scarves…

The very large majority of embroidered scarves I have come across (and I've not encountered many) tend to be embroidered with symbols relevant to the ministry of preaching. (Except of course cathedral canons and military chaplains who have cathedral arms or military badges.) Mine, for example, is embroidered with the traditional symbols of the four evangelists in gold outline. It is also reversible for occasions where plain black is de rigeur.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Since, as Angloid says,

quote:
Canon Law specifies that all traditional forms of vesture may be worn and no theological significance attached to them.

how material is this and how much should it matter, particularly indeed to those that know better? Can't help thinking of this well known recital .

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

While it may be true that…

quote:
The Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture permitted by this Canon, and the vesture worn by the minister in accordance with the provision of this Canon is not to be understood as implying any doctrines other than those now contained in the formularies of the Church of England. Canon B 8.1

That doesn't stop individuals and groups within the Church of England from attaching significance to different kinds of vesture, whether they are for or against it. And some will say if you are wearing it then you are proclaiming what they or others say it signifies, or alternatively if you don't intend to proclaim what it signifies, you shouldn't wear it.

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :

There does seem to be a fashion for ever more ornate stoles which have symbols and maybe fabrics in the specially commissioned ones that are very personal to the wearer. This seems to have transferred over to preaching stoles. Now I'm not adverse to a nice bit of embroidery. I make my own stoles and enjoy a bit of theological reflection in needlework and fabric but I very rarely wear them as the church I'm part of has its own set of vestments and I wear those. Mine are nicer, but it isn't all about me.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And that's it, isn't it- 'it isn't all about me'. Would that more clergy understood this.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The stole is a mark of office, not of priestly sacrifice. AFAIK it is the chasuble that tends to get associated with the sacrificing priesthood. I thought the historical Anglican objection to the stole was more to do with a rather puritanical denigration of the liturgical colour scheme, although a white stole should then hardly be objectionable (red might conversely be a bridge too far).

The church I attended a couple of years ago accommodated a retired navy chaplain who muttered disparagingly about "rags of rome" (not to mention advocating hanging the Pope) when the young evangelical curate worse cassock-alb and stole to celebrate communion. Whether the gentleman in question was representative of a conservative strain of protestant anglicanism or just a crazy old man I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

But note that he was objecting to a cassock-alb. And if my enemy's enemy is my friend...

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Whilst I am on the subject of how I would rule the Anglican Communion with an iron fist inside an iron glove, given half the chance, let's consider ordination colours, shall we? White? No no no no. Red should be the colour.

(I was ordained in a red stole in Winchester Cathedral - one of the last to do so. Shortly after I was ordained, a new Bishop of Winchester came along (Michael Scott-Joynt of unblessed memory) and arbitrarily changed the tradition for the diocese. I should have known then that this was a sign of the insane stupidity of the man....)

I disagree with this: white is the correct colour for ordinations.

White is the colour for sacraments as such. The liturgical colour for baptisms, confirmations, weddings and the Eucharist (e.g. Corpus Christi) is white; only the sacraments with a penitential character (anointing and reconciliation) are purple.

The ordination service is not the liturgy of the day. Properly speaking it is a votive mass. Votive masses come with their own liturgical colour (along with the propers). For ordinations that is white.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I think that I have seen red almost as frequently as white for ordinations, presumably on the grounds that these masses are votive of the Holy Spirit. It's really a matter of emphasis and would be up to the bishop as the chief minister of the sacrament and (would that they knew this) the guardian of liturgical tradition in their diocese.

I had heard of a TEC bishop in the 1980s who had a vestment with all of the liturgical colours for ordinations on the grounds that ordination was the enabling sacrament for the celebration of all seasons, but I have been unable to find verification for this and wonder if it be an urban legend.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Just to add to the confusion, it has become a fashion for ordinands to wear stoles BEFORE the act of ordination.

i.e. those about to be deacon enter the church with their stoles worn diagonally.

Those to be priested enter with their stoles round their neck

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

The ordination service is not the liturgy of the day. Properly speaking it is a votive mass. Votive masses come with their own liturgical colour (along with the propers). For ordinations that is white.

Is that an Anglican custom? It's not ours (RC; OF). I was ordained deacon on an Ordinary Time Sunday, so we were in Green and certainly used the readings of the day. I honestly can't remember which proper prayers were used. I was ordained priest on Saturday of the Easter octave, so again we used the color and propers of the day, adding an epistolary second reading from the Ordinal as the day only had an Acts reading and a Gospel.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

The ordination service is not the liturgy of the day. Properly speaking it is a votive mass. Votive masses come with their own liturgical colour (along with the propers). For ordinations that is white.
Is that an Anglican custom? It's not ours (RC; OF). I was ordained deacon on an Ordinary Time Sunday, so we were in Green and certainly used the readings of the day. I honestly can't remember which proper prayers were used. I was ordained priest on Saturday of the Easter octave, so again we used the color and propers of the day, adding an epistolary second reading from the Ordinal as the day only had an Acts reading and a Gospel.

Both those days are privileged days (all Sundays, solemnities, weekdays in Holy Week or Easter Week, some others that don't spring to mind) and no votive masses may be celebrated on those days according to RC rules.

Anglicans are much less particular about this, so it's not unknown to have things like a requiem on a Sunday (e.g. Remembrance Day), which is forbidden in the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Just to add to the confusion, it has become a fashion for ordinands to wear stoles BEFORE the act of ordination.

i.e. those about to be deacon enter the church with their stoles worn diagonally.

Those to be priested enter with their stoles round their neck

Out of all the wrong things talked about on this thread, this struck me as the wrongest of the wrong. The stole should only be conferred (on a deacon) or adjusted (on a priest) after the laying on of hands.

In my day there was a dress code - surplice and stole - and we did as we were dam' well told. Although it was only shortly after that I noticed some beginning to insist on wearing scarves. And then came the decorated ones. (Personally, I've always enjoyed seeing the gay flag - sorry, I mean a rainbow - adorning the scarf of a conservative evangelical.)

As Poppy and Albertus have said, overdecorated scarves and stoles are all part of the "this is my big day" culture. And I don't think I'd like to be a member of a congregation of a deacon or priest who starts their ministry that way.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Whilst I am on the subject of how I would rule the Anglican Communion with an iron fist inside an iron glove, given half the chance, let's consider ordination colours, shall we? White? No no no no. Red should be the colour.

I vote that it should be the colour of the day. So yes, there could be ordinations in green. So be it.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
it has become a fashion for ordinands to wear stoles BEFORE the act of ordination

If I read the Latin correctly, the Pontificale Romanum directs that the deacon-to-be present himself carrying the stole in his left hand, and that the priest-to-be present himself vested as a deacon.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

In my day there was a dress code - surplice and stole - and we did as we were dam' well told.

In my day too. And that was in a diocese at least as evangelical as my present one. I remember one ordinand from a scarf-wearing parish being lent a stole by the bishop. Then the next year there was a particularly conservative one who refused to wear a stole, but he was ordained in cassock and surplice alone, provoking comments of sympathy from the congregation who thought he was too poor to afford one.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Whilst I am on the subject of how I would rule the Anglican Communion with an iron fist inside an iron glove, given half the chance, let's consider ordination colours, shall we? White? No no no no. Red should be the colour.

(I was ordained in a red stole in Winchester Cathedral - one of the last to do so. Shortly after I was ordained, a new Bishop of Winchester came along (Michael Scott-Joynt of unblessed memory) and arbitrarily changed the tradition for the diocese. I should have known then that this was a sign of the insane stupidity of the man....)
I disagree with this: white is the correct colour for ordinations.

White is the colour for sacraments as such. The liturgical colour for baptisms, confirmations, weddings and the Eucharist (e.g. Corpus Christi) is white; only the sacraments with a penitential character (anointing and reconciliation) are purple.

The ordination service is not the liturgy of the day. Properly speaking it is a votive mass. Votive masses come with their own liturgical colour (along with the propers). For ordinations that is white.

In the Roman Communion, that's true. In other jurisdictions, red is used for confirmations and ordinations.

I agree, however, that an ordination (like a requiem or nuptial Mass) is a votive Mass and should not use the day's color.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Whilst I am on the subject of how I would rule the Anglican Communion with an iron fist inside an iron glove, given half the chance, let's consider ordination colours, shall we? White? No no no no. Red should be the colour.
I vote that it should be the colour of the day. So yes, there could be ordinations in green. So be it.

Vote? Vote?

Who said you were getting a vote? Did you not read my comment about the iron fist in the iron glove? Did you think I was joking??
[Big Grin]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Just to add to the confusion, it has become a fashion for ordinands to wear stoles BEFORE the act of ordination.

i.e. those about to be deacon enter the church with their stoles worn diagonally.

Those to be priested enter with their stoles round their neck
Out of all the wrong things talked about on this thread, this struck me as the wrongest of the wrong. The stole should only be conferred (on a deacon) or adjusted (on a priest) after the laying on of hands.

Yes yes yes. (OMG! I think I've just turned into the worst possible kind of liturgical nazi-geek)

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(Personally, I've always enjoyed seeing the gay flag - sorry, I mean a rainbow - adorning the scarf of a conservative evangelical.)

Ha ha. You've noticed that, too? Do they ever realise what they are doing?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Whilst I am on the subject of how I would rule the Anglican Communion with an iron fist inside an iron glove, given half the chance, let's consider ordination colours, shall we? White? No no no no. Red should be the colour.
I vote that it should be the colour of the day. So yes, there could be ordinations in green. So be it.
Vote? Vote?

Who said you were getting a vote? Did you not read my comment about the iron fist in the iron glove? Did you think I was joking??

Well, if people can put up signs advertising "Our Burger's Voted Best in Chicago!!!" then I can cast a vote for something more worthwhile like ordination vestment colours. [Smile]

Sorry...colour's.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Just to add to the confusion, it has become a fashion for ordinands to wear stoles BEFORE the act of ordination.

i.e. those about to be deacon enter the church with their stoles worn diagonally.

Those to be priested enter with their stoles round their neck
Out of all the wrong things talked about on this thread, this struck me as the wrongest of the wrong. The stole should only be conferred (on a deacon) or adjusted (on a priest) after the laying on of hands.

Indeed - which is why I object to this new fad, which is, I am told, in the rubrics of the latest C of E ordinal.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
it has become a fashion for ordinands to wear stoles BEFORE the act of ordination
If I read the Latin correctly, the Pontificale Romanum directs that the deacon-to-be present himself carrying the stole in his left hand, and that the priest-to-be present himself vested as a deacon.

Indeed - but the Anglican rubric says The ordinands may enter in the vesture of the order to which they are to be ordained.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Yet more proof, if proof were needed, that the Church of England Liturgical Commission could be packed into a large sack with a suitably hefty weight of chain around their ankles and dumped into a deep body of water with no appreciable loss to the work of the Kingdom of God.

Ordinands to the Diaconate should enter carrying their stoles. Ordinands to the Priesthood should be vested as Deacons. Which part of "it's an ordination, not a fancy dress party" exactly is difficult here?

Personally, I have no quarrel with conservative evangelicals wanting to get ordained in plain scarf. They worship God in their way, we worship him in His and all that jazz. But if they want to wear multi coloured ethnic stole, surplice and hood they could at least do the decent thing and join the Modern Churchperson's Union.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
the Anglican rubric says The ordinands may enter in the vesture of the order to which they are to be ordained.

Well, at least it doesn't say shall. [Frown]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Yet more proof, if proof were needed, that the Church of England Liturgical Commission could be packed into a large sack with a suitably hefty weight of chain around their ankles and dumped into a deep body of water with no appreciable loss to the work of the Kingdom of God.

General Synod should go with them. After all, they voted this through, didn't they?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

Ordinands to the Diaconate should enter carrying their stoles. Ordinands to the Priesthood should be vested as Deacons. Which part of "it's an ordination, not a fancy dress party" exactly is difficult here?

Would you like to count the universities that have graduands enter their graduation ceremonies wearing the academic dress of the degree to which they have not yet graduated? It's the same thought process.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

Ordinands to the Diaconate should enter carrying their stoles. Ordinands to the Priesthood should be vested as Deacons. Which part of "it's an ordination, not a fancy dress party" exactly is difficult here?
Would you like to count the universities that have graduands enter their graduation ceremonies wearing the academic dress of the degree to which they have not yet graduated? It's the same thought process.

I suppose the difference is that the graduands have already earned the degree, and the ceremony is just a formality. That's not my understanding of what happens in an ordination, though that's of course not true for all churchmanships.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

Ordinands to the Diaconate should enter carrying their stoles. Ordinands to the Priesthood should be vested as Deacons. Which part of "it's an ordination, not a fancy dress party" exactly is difficult here?
Would you like to count the universities that have graduands enter their graduation ceremonies wearing the academic dress of the degree to which they have not yet graduated? It's the same thought process.

In my (admittedly narrow) experience that is generally when they have not already got a degree. Those who do have a degree wear whatever they were already entitled to.

In that sense, ordinands should wear what they are already entitled to by virtue of their baptism: the surplice.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Exactly. The first such ceremony I attended so bored me rigid that I have never attended a subsequent one but that is no bar to my claiming to have attained the qualifications. On the other hand an ordinand who fails to attend his or her ordination remains a layperson.

Oscar the Grouch - Business before pleasure, if you please.

[ETA - x-post]

[ 09. July 2014, 19:53: Message edited by: Gildas ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I suppose the difference is that the graduands have already earned the degree, and the ceremony is just a formality. That's not my understanding of what happens in an ordination, though that's of course not true for all churchmanships.

That's not my understanding of graduation either. Certainly a graduand has earned his degree, by showing up for sufficiently long, obtaining passing marks in some exams and so on, but he doesn't have a degree until the body with the authority to grant degrees actually awards his degree, and that happens in the middle of the graduation ceremony.

I don't claim, of course, that graduation makes an indelible mark on the soul, but I do claim that there is an identifiable moment when the degree is awarded, and that happens in the middle of the graduation ceremony. Similarly, we can identify the moment at which an ordinand is ordained.

There's no requirement to be present to graduate - you may certainly graduate in absentia (and if my mother would have let me get away with it, I probably would have done [Smile]

), but your degree is still awarded at an identifiable time (probably in the same ceremony that your coaevals are present at, although that's not necessary).
However, if you are elsewhere at the time that you graduate, the chance that you are wearing academic dress and should, technically, change at the time is vanishingly small.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Small tangent: IIRC (both my graduations there were over 20 years ago) at Cambridge you wear the robes of the degree that you have (so, BA when graduating MA) except that for your BA you wear your undergraduate gown with a BA hood, which seems to me a little odd. Or do I remember incorrectly?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The only degree ceremony I have attended in person (St Andrews), irc the process was you wore the gown but carried your hood until you knelt before the Chancellor who awarded your degree and a porter put on your hood. In order to check the details I had to get out photos of my graduation! Nobody else seems to have been photo-ed at that moment.

Jengie

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Small tangent: IIRC (both my graduations there were over 20 years ago) at Cambridge you wear the robes of the degree that you have (so, BA when graduating MA) except that for your BA you wear your undergraduate gown with a BA hood, which seems to me a little odd. Or do I remember incorrectly?

That's right - you wear what you have unless you don't currently have a Cambridge degree, in which case you wear the gown of your current status and the hood of the degree to which you are going to be admitted.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
While it may be true that…

quote:
The Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture permitted by this Canon, and the vesture worn by the minister in accordance with the provision of this Canon is not to be understood as implying any doctrines other than those now contained in the formularies of the Church of England. Canon B 8.1
That doesn't stop individuals and groups within the Church of England from attaching significance to different kinds of vesture, whether they are for or against it. And some will say if you are wearing it then you are proclaiming what they or others say it signifies, or alternatively if you don't intend to proclaim what it signifies, you shouldn't wear it.

So are they saying they, and those who share their view, know better than the collective wisdom of the church? What a very Protestant habit of thinking.

And on this particular issue, are we saying that those that were ordained wearing what we think they ought to wear, are more ordained, than those who at the moment of ordination were wearing what we, with our special gnosis, think were the wrong clothes? Are the sacraments they subsequently celebrate more or less valid according to what coloured stole they were ordained in?

That would have disturbing implications for apostolic succession. I don't know what clergy wore to be ordained in during the C17, C18 and C19. I doubt anyone else does. But I think we can be fairly certain they did not wear stoles in the correct seasonal or other colours.

Or are we just smirking and feeling superior to those who do not have, or do not care about, the precise knowledge we have?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

And on this particular issue, are we saying that those that were ordained wearing what we think they ought to wear, are more ordained, than those who at the moment of ordination were wearing what we, with our special gnosis, think were the wrong clothes? Are the sacraments they subsequently celebrate more or less valid according to what coloured stole they were ordained in?

Of course not. But what signal is given by a motley collection of new deacons or priests each arrayed in the vesture he/she thinks most appropriate? That they have not been ordained to the same order in the universal church, but given a personal mandate?

Adeodatus is right to suggest that bishops who decree a universal 'house style' are on the right lines. I don't care if it's stoles or black scarves or lace albs and dalmatics, as long as all wear the same.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Whilst I am on the subject of how I would rule the Anglican Communion with an iron fist inside an iron glove, given half the chance, let's consider ordination colours, shall we? White? No no no no. Red should be the colour.

Well, this part of the Anglican Communion is already compliant. Ordinations in red here.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

I've seen photos of preaching scarves (tippets) worn deacon-wise & sniggered. Strictly, of course, the black tippet is the dress of a graduate in order(s) - should never be worn without hood of degree & shouldn't be worn at all by non-graduates.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Are you sure about that? I'm sure that e.g. the Blessed Percy speaks of non-graduates wearing the tippet, albeit of stuff rather than of silk.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I regret that I heard a vicar describing his or her deacon's priesting and saying that the stole was adjusted to the new position because "a deacon is only half a priest".

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Angloid

quote:
But what signal is given by a motley collection of new deacons or priests each arrayed in the vesture he/she thinks most appropriate? That they have not been ordained to the same order in the universal church, but given a personal mandate?

Two messages:
(1) That the theological colleges have amongst their staff people who are liturgically (at the very least) illiterate, which is worrying.

(2) The the DDO / Bishop's Chaplain (or whoever is responsible for organising the Ordination) hasn't got a grip and needs to lay down the law about vesture before the next occasion.

Posted by Cenobite (# 14853) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I regret that I heard a vicar describing his or her deacon's priesting and saying that the stole was adjusted to the new position because "a deacon is only half a priest".

Words fail me. Thank God (and I mean that literally) that my training incumbent had a far better understanding of what ordination to both the diaconate and the priesthood means.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

What angloid describes (decorated scarfs) are naff, silly and unnecessary.

However, in 1800 no doubt all ordination candidates wore scarfs and certainly no stoles. At some point before angloid's ordination the dress changed (for the better) but someone had to innovate. It may have been by bishop's decree or it might have been individual candidates.

I'm highly critical of a clericalist view of the role of the clergy, but it is probably one that is worse among catholics rather than evangelcials with no dress sense.

And ordination is indeed a special day, not just for the candidates (although it is and is rightly celebrated) but for the whole church as her/its fullness is expressed in the whole ministry.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

I wonder how long we'll have to wait for the awful day when the dreadful Cassock Alb becomes standard dress at ordinations.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

It may be my eyesight not picking out a white stole against a white surplice, but there were an awful lot of Oak Hill ordinands in just cassock and surplice with no stole or tippet....

Edited to add that I know that many will never robe for (likely monthly) Communion - choir dress is as far as they will go, and IME that is for 8am BCP services and never main services.

[ 12. July 2014, 18:37: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I wonder how long we'll have to wait for the awful day when the dreadful Cassock Alb becomes standard dress at ordinations.

It was stoles and surplices for the priestly ordination I attended recently with two evangelicals our of four.

I don't see what's so awful about the cassock alb. If all the candidates are wearing it, that's better than some in stoles and some in scarfs.

I can remember the late Graham Lennard ordaining in which (some of ) the deacons were vested in chasuble after the ordination (which they carried on entrance over their arms) and they were then presented with a chalice. One chalice for the lot which was brought round to them and then touched by them.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
....I don't see what's so awful about the cassock alb...

Well, it's a sort of ecclesiastical onesie, isn't it?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I like onsies (despite the caption)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
... I don't see what's so awful about the cassock alb. ....

It gives the self appointed cognoscenti something to sneer at and feel superior about.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I like onsies (despite the caption)

What liturgical season is pink, or is that a peculiarly NZ tradition?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Gaudete and Laudate/Laetare Sundays are pink, aren't they? (Third Sunday in Advent and fourth Sunday in Lent).

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

More of a mauve pink than Zappa's choice, I'd say. There were several crèpe myrtles around her last year that had very suitable colours - but you'd be unlikely to see any of them on a fluffy bunny suit.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
More of a mauve pink than Zappa's choice, I'd say.

I think properly speaking, the color for Gaudete and Laetere Sundays is rose, not pink.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
... I don't see what's so awful about the cassock alb. ....
It gives the self appointed cognoscenti something to sneer at and feel superior about.

All the attendant priests at the ordination I attended including the bishop's chaplain were in cassock alb and stole excepted for one in surplice and stole. If nearly everyone wears one, they can't be feeling very superior.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Given the proclivities of the NZ ecclesia I think you could just make it up as you go along

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Given the proclivities of the NZ ecclesia I think you could just make it up as you go along

Given the proclivities of NZ, probably the dirty off-grey of unshorn sheep.

Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Given the proclivities of the NZ ecclesia I think you could just make it up as you go along
Given the proclivities of NZ, probably the dirty off-grey of unshorn sheep.

What proclivities are you refering too, Gee D?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Those which Zappa had in mind.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
All the attendant priests at the ordination I attended including the bishop's chaplain were in cassock alb and stole excepted for one in surplice and stole. If nearly everyone wears one, they can't be feeling very superior.

It's not the wearing of them. It's the going on about other people for doing so.

Posted by Episcoterian (# 13185) on :

Well, I'll (hopefully) be ordained next year in Geneva gown, bands and red stole, and will be outdressing every single member of my Presbytery (which is still a strictly suit-and-necktie place). [Yipee]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0