|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Miscellaneous questions of a liturgical nature
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
No hoods for anybody, except at the Office.
No hoods on any acolyte, unless they only sit in choir, not actually serving.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?
Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!
General rule is that hoods are worn at the Office not at the Eucharist, though I find choirs - and the odd rampant Low Church parson - fudge that one. Never acolytes, servers and what-have-you.
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
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
But, ya see, an acolyte not serving, sitting in choir is...sitting in choir, a mute, but sitting in choir. He gets to dress up just like the choristers, who certainly can wear their hoods.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Why the hell would you have someone robed up who wasn't actually doing something?
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
They can if they don't mind appearing pompous.
They are doing a job and not drawing attention to themselves as individuals. So in any liturgically aware place, they wouldn't. I'm sure it happens in some MOTR places.
(At a right-on church I knew the priest in chasuble and some servers would wear a red ribbon on the Sunday nearest World Aids Day. I sympathized with the sentiment but I thought it a regrettable precedent, for the reasons above.)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Why the hell would you have someone robed up who wasn't actually doing something?
PD
Radical inclusiveness, of course. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
Before I give my two pence worth, more clarification needed, especially given the uncertainty of language.
a) At what sort of service are you asking about?
b) By 'acolyte' are you referring to a candle bearer (Anglican tradition, or someone who takes the elements to those inn hospital, etc (RC tradition); or to yet something else?
In general, my view is that if part of a serving team (whether thurifer, crucifer or acolyte) at a service of the word, then no, academic hoods are not appropriate. If for a Eucharist, then again no.
This response is based on my Anglican usage, and I look forward to hearing the views of others.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Never mind the hood, what on earth is an acolyte doing wearing a surplice?
An acolyte is a member of the serving team, so if they are at a eucharist they should be in alb and amice; if its either Morning or Evening Prayer then they wear cassock and cotta.
If this acolyte is not on duty - in other words, not carrying a candle - then they should sit in the congregation.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I think cassock and surplice is a pretty common form of dress for acolytes, not as common as albs in my experience, but not particularly unusual. I've only rarely seen them wearing amices with their albs, though (at Westminster Cathedral is the one time that comes to mind).
In general, I do agree with the statement that if an acolyte doesn't have anything to do, they should sit with the congregation, but there are other things that one might do except carry a candle.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Never mind the hood, what on earth is an acolyte doing wearing a surplice?
An acolyte is a member of the serving team, so if they are at a eucharist they should be in alb and amice; if its either Morning or Evening Prayer then they wear cassock and cotta.
If (at Morning or Evening Prayer) a cassock and cotta are acceptable, would not cassock and surplice be equally acceptable. Isn't a cotta just a variation on a surplice.
(Having asked the above question for information purposes, I will have to confess that I much prefer surplices to cottas. In my own personal humble aesthetic opinion -- surplices are much more graceful and cottas are just plain ugly. Just my opinion)
[ 18. May 2013, 20:37: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
(Having asked the above question for information purposes, I will have to confess that I much prefer surplices to cottas. In my own personal humble aesthetic opinion -- surplices are much more graceful and cottas are just plain ugly. Just my opinion)
There are surplices and surplices of course. The full Dearmer-style flowing ones are beautiful, but rather impractical, and expensive. The skimpy can't-afford-Wippells-best sort look, IMHO, rather less stylish than a good cotta. Of course, a skimpy cotta is the worst sort of aberration.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
... just as there are albs and albs.
I was thinking of a proper, flowing from a gathered round neck traditional alb - definitely NOT one of those ghastly cassock-albs with the oh-so-punk zip up the centre ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Never mind the hood, what on earth is an acolyte doing wearing a surplice?
An acolyte is a member of the serving team, so if they are at a eucharist they should be in alb and amice; if its either Morning or Evening Prayer then they wear cassock and cotta.
If this acolyte is not on duty - in other words, not carrying a candle - then they should sit in the congregation.
Its a YMMV thing. The cassock and surplice thing came about because servers generally cannot be bother to mess around with amice and alb sufficiently for them to look half decent. For a long while in the Middle Ages albs were worn at the High Mass, and Cassock and Surplice at Low Mass.
OTOH, a cassock-alb is about as elegant potato sack with a zip anyway, but like decent jeans and a clean, hole-free, baggy t-shirt it covers a multitude of sins. It also does not matter how little effort they put in, they are going to look pretty much passable.
PD
[ 19. May 2013, 03:07: 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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
@ Zappa
Yes.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?
Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!
General rule is that hoods are worn at the Office not at the Eucharist, though I find choirs - and the odd rampant Low Church parson - fudge that one. Never acolytes, servers and what-have-you.
PD
Surely this wasn't always the case? There is that famous print of the eucharist at the Margaret Street Chapel when all three clergy are in surplices and hoods.
Historically (say 18thC), clergy would have worn surplices with hoods for things liturgical (although there is evidence that sometimes the gown was worn even for things liturgical - like burial when the service was at the graveside). The hoods would not have been removed for the sacrament on those rare occasions when it was celebrated.
There were those parishes that rarely saw gowns; those that rarely saw surplices. And the length varied greatly with surplices (not gowns). The 'parish surplice' might hang on a rusty nail and be used by successive incumbents, or those doing duty, of varying heights.
A comment from the Burgon Society (which specialises in researching acadademic dress) pointed to the removal of the hood for saramental services as an affectaion with no historical Anglican precedence.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?
Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!
General rule is that hoods are worn at the Office not at the Eucharist, though I find choirs - and the odd rampant Low Church parson - fudge that one. Never acolytes, servers and what-have-you.
PD
Surely this wasn't always the case? There is that famous print of the eucharist at the Margaret Street Chapel when all three clergy are in surplices and hoods.
Historically (say 18thC), clergy would have worn surplices with hoods for things liturgical (although there is evidence that sometimes the gown was worn even for things liturgical - like burial when the service was at the graveside). The hoods would not have been removed for the sacrament on those rare occasions when it was celebrated.
There were those parishes that rarely saw gowns; those that rarely saw surplices. And the length varied greatly with surplices (not gowns). The 'parish surplice' might hang on a rusty nail and be used by successive incumbents, or those doing duty, of varying heights.
A comment from the Burgon Society (which specialises in researching acadademic dress) pointed to the removal of the hood for saramental services as an affectation with no historical Anglican precedence.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Isn't it more that you would not wear a hood along with a stole? So when stoles came in for the clergy at sacramental services, they would leave off the hood. No reason why someone in choir dress (priest not officiating, lay member of the choir, etc) should do the same. But no reason IMHO why they should wear them either.
--------------------
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
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I have seen any number of photographs of early 20thC clergy wearing the stole with hood (although it would upset Dearmer); one such person was a priest to whom Dearmer had been tutor.
I suspect that when the stole was being sneaked in, it started as a scarf with a cross on either end, became coloured etc., so early 20thC Tractarians wore it with hood.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
OTOH, a cassock-alb is about as elegant potato sack with a zip anyway, but like decent jeans and a clean, hole-free, baggy t-shirt it covers a multitude of sins. It also does not matter how little effort they put in, they are going to look pretty much passable.
PD
Except when they are eight inches too short and therefore failing to cover the frayed hem of the jeans and the dirty white trainers underneath. I've come across this often in moderate-ish sorts of CoE parishes, and it is far worse than just wearing street clothes.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I'm trying hard to remember where it was that I saw acolytes with surplices at Evening Prayer-- although this was in the 1990s... I do not know why they could not wear academic hoods when serving at vespers or matins and wearing cassock and surplice. I suppose there is a theoretical discussion to be had on whether or not acolytes could wear academic birettas to which they might be entitled, but there aren't a lot of Anglican acolytes who are graduates of Salamanca or Coimbra to make this a practical issue.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlav12
Apprentice
# 17148
|
Posted
I suppose the question was vague. An acolyte in cassock and surplice at Holy Communion - I'm not familiar with servers wearing albs, it seems to have always been cassock and surplice/cotta. In a service of Morning or Evening Prayer with a lay officiant - probably equivalent to a C of E Lay Reader but PECUSA doesn't seem to have those.
Posts: 34 | From: Albany, New York | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ArachnidinElmet
Shipmate
# 17346
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Except when they are eight inches too short and therefore failing to cover the frayed hem of the jeans and the dirty white trainers underneath. I've come across this often in moderate-ish sorts of CoE parishes, and it is far worse than just wearing street clothes.
There's nothing quite like the effects of low ceiling lights to emphasize blinking red lights on trainers. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I'm still waiting for a server in those shoes with the wheels.
--------------------
'If a pleasant, straight-forward life is not possible then one must try to wriggle through by subtle manoeuvres' - Kafka
Posts: 1887 | From: the rhubarb triangle | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I am tempted to bribe our youngest server to wear just such a pair of trainers, merely For The Hell Of It (and to see our churchwarden's face......).
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
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
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I have seen any number of photographs of early 20thC clergy wearing the stole with hood (although it would upset Dearmer); one such person was a priest to whom Dearmer had been tutor.
I suspect that when the stole was being sneaked in, it started as a scarf with a cross on either end, became coloured etc., so early 20thC Tractarians wore it with hood.
The Church of Ireland Canons of yesteryear are usually a pretty good guide to the process of sneaking stuff in. The old Canon was 'the accustomed black scarf' which was usually read as including a black stole, which shows that even in the relatively cautious C of I, the clergy of the 1860s were making their 'scarves' narrower, adding a fringe to the ends, and maybe crosses on the ends and one at the neck... making them black stoles in fact.
One thing I do remember is that in the Simpson Case (1923-27) it was ruled that coloured stoles were inadmissible. The same happened with standing facing SSE at the north part of the west side of the altar to say the Prayer of Consecration. I know they did not succeed on the latter point as that is precisely what the rector did just under 20 years ago when I was across to Ireland on a regular basis.
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
|
|
Codepoet
Best Bear On Board
# 5964
|
Posted
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
--------------------
It's more important to be kind than to be right.
Posts: 1156 | From: Southampton | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Codepoet:
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
I'm not a lawyer but...
It depends whether the work falls within the de minimis limits set by your diocese, but it probably won't as these tend to cover minor repairs and changes to things in vestries and church halls, rather than moving furniture about in the church itself.
The best course of action may be to ask the Registrar/DAC for your diocese, but I suspect that a faculty would be required. In the place where I live, this guidance (fifth paragraph) says that permanently moving the altar would require a faculty, but the seventh paragraph suggests that a temporary move might be possible by way of a licence, rather than a full faculty. The sixth paragraph may also be relevant.
[ 20. May 2013, 07:38: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
The Church lawyers love money-making decisions - I am sure that their 19th century counterparts found wealth in arguing that the holy table because of the BCP rubric MUST be moveable.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Codepoet:
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
Almost certainly if it is a permanent fixture. Like certainly certainly.
I suppose if anyone objected you could say its a movable table that just happens not to have been moved for a few years. But this is exactly the sort of thing that people you have never met or herd of suddenly turn up and complain about, so its worth doing it by the book.
I suspect that there are archdeacons in your future.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Codepoet:
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
Yes.
+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 otyetsfoma:
The Church lawyers love money-making decisions - I am sure that their 19th century counterparts found wealth in arguing that the holy table because of the BCP rubric MUST be moveable.
Yes, surely the anti-ritualists were firmly opposed to stone altars (or indeed altars of any kind). By definition a communion table is a table which is capable of being moved. So it would seem a bit perverse of the lawyers to argue that it should not be.
--------------------
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
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
It seems suitably ecclesiastical to require a moveable table which must not, under any circumstances, be moved.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Codepoet:
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
I suspect that there are archdeacons in your future.
That sounds like a curse....
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
That sounds like a curse....
May you live in archdiaconal times?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
In a service of Morning or Evening Prayer with a lay officiant - probably equivalent to a C of E Lay Reader but PECUSA doesn't seem to have those.
Oh, they do exist!
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Yowza!
Forget the fussing over surplices, cottas, amices, and albs.
Do I see white gloves?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Laxton's Superba
Shipmate
# 228
|
Posted
As a member of the laity, what - if anything - should I wear, in addition to my normal clothes, when I am preaching and acting as deacon at a Eucharist?
Posts: 187 | From: I wish I knew | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:
As a member of the laity, what - if anything - should I wear, in addition to my normal clothes, when I am preaching and acting as deacon at a Eucharist?
Depends a little on your precise candle-notch, and what exactly you mean by 'acting as deacon', but I should think cassock, amice + alb, & dalmatic, sans stole or maniple.
If your church is of a more Reformed bent, then perhaps cassock and surplice.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Laxton's Superba
Shipmate
# 228
|
Posted
Thanks. I am "doing the deacon's bit" according to PP which at our shack means leading into the Confession, introducing hymns, inviting people to share the Peace, etc. Think it will be alb and cincture then, nary an amice or dalmatic to be seen in our place, more's the pity.
Posts: 187 | From: I wish I knew | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:
Thanks. I am "doing the deacon's bit" according to PP which at our shack means leading into the Confession, introducing hymns, inviting people to share the Peace, etc. Think it will be alb and cincture then, nary an amice or dalmatic to be seen in our place, more's the pity.
Well if that is what you'll be doing, and given that you are a layman, and in the absence of an High Mass, &c &c it does make sense to be albed rather than dalmaticked [sic]. Not wearing amices makes the baby Jesus and whoever does the laundry cry though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:
As a member of the laity, what - if anything - should I wear, in addition to my normal clothes, when I am preaching and acting as deacon at a Eucharist?
Depends a little on your precise candle-notch, and what exactly you mean by 'acting as deacon', but I should think cassock, amice + alb, & dalmatic, sans stole or maniple.
If your church is of a more Reformed bent, then perhaps cassock and surplice.
This talk of a layman "acting as a deacon" is foreign to me--including the notion of wearing a dalmatic. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
This talk of a layman "acting as a deacon" is foreign to me--including the notion of wearing a dalmatic.
Well, from what Laxton's Superba says, it isn't so much a diaconal role as server-with-knobs on (stop tittering at the back; and no offence meant), so in principle it isn't much different from a tunicled crucifer.
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Ah, you Londoners! The last time I wore an amice was when I was a server in 1983.
We like to keep things nice. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Can someone explain the old Roman practice of a bishop vesting in something like a tunicle, Dalmatic, and chasuble, one on top of the other, to reflect all the orders he had been ordained to (I will set aside the question of whether institution to the subdiaconate constitutes ordination)? Did it have to be done at all Masses he celebrated or just Pontifical High Masses (I know bishops rarely celebrated Masses back then and often pontificated in cope from his throne, but that is a different matter)? Did they wear a deacon's stole under the Dalmatic and a priest's stole above the Dalmatic and under the chasuble, just a priest's stole above the Dalmatic but under the chasuble (how would you cross and tie it with a cincture then?), or just a pries's stole above the alb and under the Dalmatic. Is there a layer of "torso" clothing in traditional Roman pontifical Eucharistic vestments that I am missing? (Cassock too, of course. That is to say, he would not be naked under his Eucharistic vestments.)
[ 21. May 2013, 20:59: Message edited by: stonespring ]
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Can someone explain the old Roman practice of a bishop vesting in something like a tunicle, Dalmatic, and chasuble, one on top of the other, to reflect all the orders he had been ordained to (I will set aside the question of whether institution to the subdiaconate constitutes ordination)? Did it have to be done at all Masses he celebrated or just Pontifical High Masses (I know bishops rarely celebrated Masses back then and often pontificated in cope from his throne, but that is a different matter)? Did they wear a deacon's stole under the Dalmatic and a priest's stole above the Dalmatic and under the chasuble, just a priest's stole above the Dalmatic but under the chasuble (how would you cross and tie it with a cincture then?), or just a pries's stole above the alb and under the Dalmatic. Is there a layer of "torso" clothing in traditional Roman pontifical Eucharistic vestments that I am missing? (Cassock too, of course. That is to say, he would not be naked under his Eucharistic vestments.)
This practice is still followed in the Extraordinary Form, and it is/was only for Solemn Pontifical Masses, not other Masses. There is no deacon's stole worn, and the priest's stole is worn over the alb and under the tunicle. The dalmatic and tunicle are special vestments designed to be worn under a chasuble; they are quite thin, almost tissue-like. Otherwise you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the practice.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The late +Mervyn Stockwood of Southwark was often to be seen thus attired.
--------------------
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
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
So too a former Bishop of Ballarat!
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?
Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!
General rule is that hoods are worn at the Office not at the Eucharist, though I find choirs - and the odd rampant Low Church parson - fudge that one. Never acolytes, servers and what-have-you.
PD
Surely this wasn't always the case? There is that famous print of the eucharist at the Margaret Street Chapel when all three clergy are in surplices and hoods.
Historically (say 18thC), clergy would have worn surplices with hoods for things liturgical (although there is evidence that sometimes the gown was worn even for things liturgical - like burial when the service was at the graveside). The hoods would not have been removed for the sacrament on those rare occasions when it was celebrated.
There were those parishes that rarely saw gowns; those that rarely saw surplices. And the length varied greatly with surplices (not gowns). The 'parish surplice' might hang on a rusty nail and be used by successive incumbents, or those doing duty, of varying heights.
A comment from the Burgon Society (which specialises in researching acadademic dress) pointed to the removal of the hood for saramental services as an affectaion with no historical Anglican precedence.
No, you are perfectly correct. Hoods were worn for everthing - if they were worn at all - in the 18th century, and up to about 1860. At that point some folks got a bit skittish about wearing academic dress for the sacraments, forgetting that there is a bit overlap between clerical dress and academic dress. I have certainly celebrated Communion more than once in rochet, chimere, tippet and hood, and many times in surplice, tippet and hood.
PD
[ 22. May 2013, 03:17: 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
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
