|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eucharistic Vestments (Church of England)
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
My understanding of Apostolic ecclesiology is that the church is a kingdom of priests led by Christ the high priest, not a group of laity led by earthly priests.
Of course it is. Unfortunately, Christ has a tendency to be late for services, so somebody has to stand in for him.
Yep. He's called the Holy Spirit and he indwells his temple, the church.
He struggles to pick up the elements and elevate and fracture them though, so still needs help.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
My understanding of Apostolic ecclesiology is that the church is a kingdom of priests led by Christ the high priest, not a group of laity led by earthly priests.
Of course it is. Unfortunately, Christ has a tendency to be late for services, so somebody has to stand in for him.
Yep. He's called the Holy Spirit and he indwells his temple, the church.
So now the Holy Ghost stands in Personam Christi in the liturgy? LOL.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christ is the priest, yes. The "priests" merely act in his person. When the "priest" baptises it is Christ who baptised and so on. What is sometimes referred to as the "priesthood of all believers" (though such a phrase is not mentioned in the scriptures) means that through baptism we are able to participate in the Mysteries of the Church, such as receiving holy communion.
When I was in training, it was the custom to send out "ordination cards", which said something like "Please pray for N., to be ordained by M., Bishop of Barchester".
One year, an Orthodox friend mischievously suggested they should really say, "Please pray for N., to be ordained by the Holy Spirit, at the intercession of M., Bishop of Barchester."
(Also, as is occasionally pointed out 'round here, "the priesthood of all believers" does not necessarily imply "the priesthood of each believer".)
Furthermore, every believer is indeed a priest, but not every believer is a presbyter.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
My understanding of Apostolic ecclesiology is that the church is a kingdom of priests led by Christ the high priest, not a group of laity led by earthly priests.
Of course it is. Unfortunately, Christ has a tendency to be late for services, so somebody has to stand in for him.
Yep. He's called the Holy Spirit and he indwells his temple, the church.
So now the Holy Ghost stands in Personam Christi in the liturgy? LOL.
He's the best and only one that Jesus ever promised.
[ 19. July 2013, 16:17: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christ is the priest, yes. The "priests" merely act in his person. When the "priest" baptises it is Christ who baptised and so on. What is sometimes referred to as the "priesthood of all believers" (though such a phrase is not mentioned in the scriptures) means that through baptism we are able to participate in the Mysteries of the Church, such as receiving holy communion.
When I was in training, it was the custom to send out "ordination cards", which said something like "Please pray for N., to be ordained by M., Bishop of Barchester".
One year, an Orthodox friend mischievously suggested they should really say, "Please pray for N., to be ordained by the Holy Spirit, at the intercession of M., Bishop of Barchester."
(Also, as is occasionally pointed out 'round here, "the priesthood of all believers" does not necessarily imply "the priesthood of each believer".)
Furthermore, every believer is indeed a priest, but not every believer is a presbyter.
True. But the bible speaks of the presbyter as the preacher of the word, not as the stander behind magic tables.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Well I have tried asking the Holy Spirit to break bread, but it just sat there on the communion table. Unbroken. So again, I felt I had to stand in as any good understudy would.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Anglican Priests: Doing the Holy Spirit's job since 1549.
[ 19. July 2013, 16:22: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Anglican Priests: Doing the Holy Spirit's job since 1549.
In bona fide: Are you contrasting Pneumatic/"Christic" notions of the priesthood? But then, the Spirit which acts through the Presbyter is also the Spirit of Christ? What do you make of Christ's discourse before the Passion in John, and the whole of the Epistle of the Hebrews?
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I dunno, but I have a 'happy time' getting frustrated with both extremes. It seems to me that it is a simple matter of discipline. The Canons allow a variety of vesture for Holy Communion, which officially have no doctrinal significance. If you choose to attach doctrinal significance to the vesture used that's a personal problem, not what the Canons of the C of E say. The major factors in choosing what to wear have to be
1. local custom
2. the preference of the cleric involved.
In my own parish:
Local custom is Mass vestments.
My preference is surplice and stole.
It became pretty clear to me that the 'we are not bothered' when it comes to wearing Mass vestments for the Eucharist I received when I came to the parish was not that grounded in reality. As a result - local custom wins most of time. If it is stinking hot and the A-C is having a nervous breakdown it is O.E. surplice and stole, which no-one minds as they understand it is (a) hot up there and (b) I have an alarming tendancy to fall over and go boom when too hot.
It seems to me that the whole matter can be resolved with a little reasonableness. In Daron's parish it would seem that using Euchies was not strongly embedded local custom, so they are OK with him reverting to cassock, surplice and tippet. Customs can and do change, but I have never found there to be any great virtue in making a fight out of a matter indifferent.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
If it is stinking hot and the A-C is having a nervous breakdown it is O.E. surplice and stole,
Presumably you mean if the air-conditioning is having a nervous breakdown. If it was the anglo-catholic it probably wouldn't be surplice and stole.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
One can never go wrong with "a decent and comely surplice," and in some ways it's the Anglican vestment par excellence. Likewise, for sacrament(al rite)s, a stole is an appropriate addition. It's certainly hard to see how it could offend anyone of any churchpersonality now (the tyrannical Victoria Imperatrix notwithstanding).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
If it is stinking hot and the A-C is having a nervous breakdown it is O.E. surplice and stole,
Presumably you mean if the air-conditioning is having a nervous breakdown. If it was the anglo-catholic it probably wouldn't be surplice and stole.
That would be correct. I meant to type A/C not A-C - if you see what I mean!
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
If it is stinking hot and the A-C is having a nervous breakdown it is O.E. surplice and stole,
Presumably you mean if the air-conditioning is having a nervous breakdown. If it was the anglo-catholic it probably wouldn't be surplice and stole.
Quite possibly being in surplice & stole would be evidence of the Anglo-Catholic's breaking down.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Pretty much the thought that crossed my mind Fr W.
Actually, I have reverted to regarding the chasuble as the default for the Eucharist these days. You could say I got back into the habit. When I first moved up here I was going through a bit of a phase having had to put up with enough Anglo-Papalist twattishness to last half a lifetime where I lived before. At that point I was decidedly devoted to the MOTR-Low approach in an attempt to retain what was left of my sanity, and chasubles were associated with twattishness.
I think most of us have a tendancy to revert to the churchmanship of where we were happiest. In my case I still have a strong tendancy to revert to my student churchmanship which was mod. Catholic. The trouble is the Anglican Continuum is not really a mod. Catholic sort of a place, though it helps that I prefer traditional language.
PD
[ 20. July 2013, 15:08: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
A follow up question to my original one that has been prompted by the interesting responses, is to ask when did those few Anglican parishes that now wear suits rather than the minimum required by Canon Law begin doing so.
I recently visited St Augustine's Queen's Gate (now under HTB). I imagined that the Thurs lunchtime Eucharist would be similar to the preserved Anglo-Catholic Sunday service but no vestments at all (in fact a rather hideous purple shirt!) and perhaps what annoyed me more was the order that the sacrament had to receive by intinction.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
no vestments at all (in fact a rather hideous purple shirt!)
A bishop, or someone masquerading as one?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
A follow up question to my original one that has been prompted by the interesting responses, is to ask when did those few Anglican parishes that now wear suits rather than the minimum required by Canon Law begin doing so.
I recently visited St Augustine's Queen's Gate (now under HTB). I imagined that the Thurs lunchtime Eucharist would be similar to the preserved Anglo-Catholic Sunday service but no vestments at all (in fact a rather hideous purple shirt!) and perhaps what annoyed me more was the order that the sacrament had to receive by intinction.
All I can say is that it has been going on a lot longer in urban areas than rural. We had some severely Calvinistic Evangelical types my way, but they always wore the legal minimum. However, that was in a rural context. A friend of mine tells me that his old shack in the East End of London was a bit hit and miss on 'robes' in the early 60s, so I would think that that would be about the earliest. It became a bit ore prevailent around 1970, but it did not get out among the 'tatey rows' until Charismatcs were allowed outside of urban areas around 1990.
PD
[ 21. July 2013, 22:57: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I tend to associate presiding in street clothes with the 1970s or 1980s in my experience. Back thn no serious Anglican evangelical wore Eucharistic robes. Now they nearly all seem to, at least sometimes. Last bloke I remember who tried to hold out against them was a curate who was ordained In about the late 1990s but the bishop persuaded him otherwise.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's not the case around here, Ken. I wish they would wear vestments and so on at times. The evangelical clergy up in this neck of the woods very self-consciously eschew robes and often even dog-collars and so on.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Rather the opposite of what my ConEvo training incumbant impressed on me almost 20 years ago.
(1) never be seen in public without a cellulose halo. Exceptions for day off, gardening and rambling allowed.
(2) if comes out of the BCP and it is done in church you []will[/i] be wearing cassock, surplice, tippet, and hood.
No further discussion needed at that time.
PD
[ 23. July 2013, 00:44: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I should perhaps point out that my training incumbant was the sort of ConEvo dismissed the ASB as 'sorry rubbish' and would avoid it.
I actually did not mind it too much, though some of what got slipped in as making church friendlier was enough to make my toes curl.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's not the case around here, Ken. I wish they would wear vestments and so on at times. The evangelical clergy up in this neck of the woods very self-consciously eschew robes and often even dog-collars and so on.
Around here we call that 'the Sydney-disease'!
Mind you, I had a discussion with Catholic friends in a liturgical society who were so against 'uniforms' (like dog-collars and habits) that I thought they had been got at as well!
[ 23. July 2013, 05:52: Message edited by: Emendator Liturgia ]
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
busyknitter
Shipmate
# 2501
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I tend to associate presiding in street clothes with the 1970s or 1980s in my experience. Back thn no serious Anglican evangelical wore Eucharistic robes. Now they nearly all seem to, at least sometimes. Last bloke I remember who tried to hold out against them was a curate who was ordained In about the late 1990s but the bishop persuaded him otherwise.
Oh come on, Ken. You know for a fact that robes are never worn in our Con-Evo neck of the woods..
Our vicar usually wears a dog collar for services and dresses in street clothes at other times.
Posts: 903 | From: The Wool Basket | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I tend to associate presiding in street clothes with the 1970s or 1980s in my experience. Back thn no serious Anglican evangelical wore Eucharistic robes. Now they nearly all seem to, at least sometimes. Last bloke I remember who tried to hold out against them was a curate who was ordained In about the late 1990s but the bishop persuaded him otherwise.
Oh come on, Ken. You know for a fact that robes are never worn in our Con-Evo neck of the woods..
Our vicar usually wears a dog collar for services and dresses in street clothes at other times.
But he's older than the curate I'm thinking of... And that was I think quite common 20 or 30 years ago and is much rarer now.
Would he have refused to wear a stole at his ordination? Would he refuse to wear one now, on doctrinal grounds, if invited to someone else's ordination?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Shortly before the Petertide Ordinations of 2004 I asked + Kenneth of Portsmouth if I could wear choir dress and scarf (tippet) for my ordination instead of Alb and Stole.
His response?
"Fuck off".
I kid you not.
[ 23. July 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Great Bishop! Loved that man!
Now you'd have got a Bishop's PA and bureaucratese--probably saying the same thing though.
[ 23. July 2013, 15:59: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Indeed. "Oh, but, daron, I think in the interests of uniformity, it would be far better, if you wouldn't mind terribly, if you would wear alb and stole." means exactly the same thing.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
What you Anglicans might not realise is that I am considered a very strange creature by my fellow-Baptists because I wear a clerical collar, preaching gown and simple stole. "Normality" in the denomination today is a lounge suit or - more probably - an open-necked shirt with no jacket.
(Mind you, you must remember that our churches are usually warmer than yours ...).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What you Anglicans might not realise is that I am considered a very strange creature by my fellow-Baptists because I wear a clerical collar, preaching gown and simple stole. "Normality" in the denomination today is a lounge suit or - more probably - an open-necked shirt with no jacket.
(Mind you, you must remember that our churches are usually warmer than yours ...).
Gown with a stole? That would be strange indeed.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Would he have refused to wear a stole at his ordination? Would he refuse to wear one now, on doctrinal grounds, if invited to someone else's ordination?
This is something that puzzles me. In a certain diocese in the NW of England, at every ordination there is a large proportion of candidates who wear black scarves and not stoles. The proportion of hardline Reform type evangelicals is, AFAIK, much lower. So they can't really have theological objections and in any case the Cof E specifically and officially states that vesture does not have doctrinal implications.
So why are they doing it? Only ISTM because the diocese does not insist on uniformity. Now uniformity in many areas is not a good thing, but at an ordination it seems sensible to insist on it just because many people will not understand why some are in one kind of vesture and others in another, and therefore might conclude that they are not all being ordained to the same office. If the argument is that some ordinands might not normally wear stoles in their future ministry, and therefore don't wish to fork out the cost of buying one, every cathedral and many parish churches have spares to lend. As happened to one evangelical candidate who was ordained alongside me, many years ago in a different diocese: the bishop just handed him one from his private chapel.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What you Anglicans might not realise is that I am considered a very strange creature by my fellow-Baptists because I wear a clerical collar, preaching gown and simple stole. "Normality" in the denomination today is a lounge suit or - more probably - an open-necked shirt with no jacket.
(Mind you, you must remember that our churches are usually warmer than yours ...).
Gown with a stole? That would be strange indeed.
Well, one of these together with one of these.
[ 23. July 2013, 17:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What you Anglicans might not realise is that I am considered a very strange creature by my fellow-Baptists because I wear a clerical collar, preaching gown and simple stole. "Normality" in the denomination today is a lounge suit or - more probably - an open-necked shirt with no jacket.
(Mind you, you must remember that our churches are usually warmer than yours ...).
Gown with a stole? That would be strange indeed.
Well, one of these together with one of these.
As I say, strange indeed. Can I ask why these particular garments, both
a) at all, and
b) in combination?
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Would he have refused to wear a stole at his ordination? Would he refuse to wear one now, on doctrinal grounds, if invited to someone else's ordination?
This is something that puzzles me. In a certain diocese in the NW of England, at every ordination there is a large proportion of candidates who wear black scarves and not stoles. The proportion of hardline Reform type evangelicals is, AFAIK, much lower. So they can't really have theological objections and in any case the Cof E specifically and officially states that vesture does not have doctrinal implications.
Therein lies the tension between the official pronouncement of Canon and the unofficial convictions of churchmanship. In reality these differences very much do convey doctrinal differences, as this thread so clearly proves.
quote:
So why are they doing it? Only ISTM because the diocese does not insist on uniformity. Now uniformity in many areas is not a good thing, but at an ordination it seems sensible to insist on it just because many people will not understand why some are in one kind of vesture and others in another, and therefore might conclude that they are not all being ordained to the same office.
If the truth be told, they're not being ordained to the same office in minds of those taking part.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
busyknitter
Shipmate
# 2501
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I tend to associate presiding in street clothes with the 1970s or 1980s in my experience. Back thn no serious Anglican evangelical wore Eucharistic robes. Now they nearly all seem to, at least sometimes. Last bloke I remember who tried to hold out against them was a curate who was ordained In about the late 1990s but the bishop persuaded him otherwise.
Oh come on, Ken. You know for a fact that robes are never worn in our Con-Evo neck of the woods..
Our vicar usually wears a dog collar for services and dresses in street clothes at other times.
But he's older than the curate I'm thinking of... And that was I think quite common 20 or 30 years ago and is much rarer now.
Would he have refused to wear a stole at his ordination? Would he refuse to wear one now, on doctrinal grounds, if invited to someone else's ordination?
Dunno about his ordination, but he did wear something long and black with a white thing on top for his licensing service. I suspect he has no strong doctrinal issue with robes; rather he has no interest in that side of things (or any kind of tat) and will only wear them if it's absolutely required by convention, Which at our place, it generally isn't.
Posts: 903 | From: The Wool Basket | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes, that seems fair enough. I was thinking more about the kind of thing Angloid was talking about (not so long ago in a diocese not so very far away). I used to know some Anglican clergy who would have thought wearing robes a sort of betrayal. A point of principle worth making a public fuss about. My feeling is that that is much rarer now. The current crop of evangelicals, even if they don't wear them, don't seem to have any huge objection to those that do.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
I am wondering,do those extreme Evangelicals who refuse to robe,really believe in ordination and the sacraments of the church ?
I have my serious doubts about them.
The bishop of London sent about a year or two a letter to his clergy, telling them strongly to use C.W. and not the Roman rite.
He could also address a similar letter to the Evangelicals and telling them to use the liturgical vestiture when celebrating the Eucharist "Alb with stole or the Chasuble.
It is my experience that most protestant clergy ]
in Europe wear nowadays the stole, either with black preaching gown or with white alb.
Furthermore, in the USA many Methodists and even some Presbyterians use the chasuble.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The bishop of London sent about a year or two a letter to his clergy, telling them strongly to use C.W. and not the Roman rite.
He could also address a similar letter to the Evangelicals and telling them to use the liturgical vestiture when celebrating the Eucharist "Alb with stole or the Chasuble.
Telling them to use authorised rites is simply telling them to obey the Canons. Telling them to wear alb and stole would not be.
Canon B8.3 :
quote:
At the Holy Communion the presiding minister shall wear either a surplice or alb with scarf or stole. When a stole is worn other customary vestments may be added. The epistoler and gospeller (if any) may wear surplice or alb to which other customary vestments may be added.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The bishop of London sent about a year or two a letter to his clergy, telling them strongly to use C.W. and not the Roman rite.
He could also address a similar letter to the Evangelicals and telling them to use the liturgical vestiture when celebrating the Eucharist "Alb with stole or the Chasuble.
Telling them to use authorised rites is simply telling them to obey the Canons. Telling them to wear alb and stole would not be.
Canon B8.3 :
quote:
At the Holy Communion the presiding minister shall wear either a surplice or alb with scarf or stole. When a stole is worn other customary vestments may be added. The epistoler and gospeller (if any) may wear surplice or alb to which other customary vestments may be added.
Thurible
But they should not be presiding at Holy Communion in suits, street clothes or hideous purple shirts.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Is a Diocesan actually allowed to, in effect, dispense his clergy from obeying the Canons?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crotalus
Shipmate
# 4959
|
Posted
You can tell it's Gloucester:
quote:
they can expect me to defend them if I receives complaints
Oi receives loads of complaints. Oo Arr.
Posts: 713 | From: near the knacker's yard | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What you Anglicans might not realise is that I am considered a very strange creature by my fellow-Baptists because I wear a clerical collar, preaching gown and simple stole. "Normality" in the denomination today is a lounge suit or - more probably - an open-necked shirt with no jacket.
(Mind you, you must remember that our churches are usually warmer than yours ...).
Gown with a stole? That would be strange indeed.
Not that strange. The 'plain Prots' do it all the time over here. The analogy I would draw is that it is like an Anglican wearing a stole over a surplice, which used to be pretty common even at the Offices, unfortunately.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
Unfortunately, the UMC is quite enthralled with this look. I can't quite figure out whether we're there for graduation exercises or worship.
Alb and stole is much nicer, I think.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Indeed. When all else fails, a plain linen alb and correctly-coloured stole are both seemly and edifying.
We have in our little congregation a retired priest of charismatic-evo background. Now and then, he assists us by celebrating Mass when Father is away, and (bless him) has no problem with alb, stole, and chasuble....though he does prefer to wear the stole over the chasuble.... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Never mind - I don't expect the Baby Jesus cries all that much....
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Is a Diocesan actually allowed to, in effect, dispense his clergy from obeying the Canons?
I once heard a very long discussion on this. One of those at the table, who had the advantage of being a rare Anglican with a degree in canon law, held that this was not so in the Church of England, as the Archbishop of Canterbury had still retained/had inherited that see's rights as legatus natus (powers of a papal legate permanently attached to Canterbury, courtesy of Cardinal de la Pole), so only that prelate could dispense from canons. Diocesan officials could issue licences with respect to a number of issues, and this was laid out in both canon and civil law. Diocesans were out of the picture on this question.
CoI bishops could not dispense, owing to the specifics of that church's constitution. Canadian bishops possibly couldn't, but it wasn't certain-- he thought that if a bishop did issue a dispensation, then it would almost impossible for a church court to discipline that cleric. If a bishop's own dispensation was brought up in a case where he was the judge, he should recuse himself and refer to the metropolitan to assign another diocesan from that province to determine the matter.
Around that time in the conversation, another bottle was opened and discourse went off on another tangent.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
@Bishop's Fingers
Lol. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Do priests who wear the stole over the chasuble adduce any reason/authority therefor?
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Do priests who wear the stole over the chasuble adduce any reason/authority therefor?
I don't know that there is any reason apart from aesthetics. I used to possess a plain chasuble (no decoration whatsoever) that looked fine with a white or coloured stole over it. Some vestments sets are (or more likely were, the fashion seems to have passed) designed with this in mind. Wearing a stole over a traditional chasuble looks most odd and although I'm sure baby Jesus has many more things to cry about they can't but add to his woes.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Max. was wont to tell me (I believe I am doing this justice) that as the stole was the primary symbol of the authority of the priest, the logic of the symbol was best served if it could be seen.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Max. was wont to tell me (I believe I am doing this justice) that as the stole was the primary symbol of the authority of the priest, the logic of the symbol was best served if it could be seen.
More accurately, the stole is the symbol of the cleric-- and in the Dearmerite and pre-Vatican II manner, each order distinguished itself by the way in which it was worn (I might add that the priest at the 8.30 am crossed his as S. Percy and centuries of sacristans would direct).
I have seen the stole worn over the chasuble on several occasions, but usually as part of a vestment set in which it was designed to do so. I don't know if it has any particular significance.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
