Ship of Fools: Anglican bishops in black cassocks

Thread: Anglican bishops in black cassocks 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=025771

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I'm not sure if this should be a 'new topic' but here goes.

Today on his prayer pilgrimage to Norwich, I noted that Archbishop Justin Welby wore a simple black double breasted cassock with black cincture. Interestingly, the bishop of Norwich accompanying him wore a Latin style purple cassock.

Rowan Williams used to wear a black Latin cassock with purple cincture (like the RCs) but without piping. On ceremonial occasions he would wear the purple cassock.

There is a trend amongst some Anglican bishops now to wear the black shirt and not the purple one. This has tended to be adopted by the 'Higher' variety, although ++Justin is not one of those.

Is there a precedent for the wearing of black cassocks by the Anglican episcopate? What might this mean? Will it spread? What are shipmates opinions on this?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Strikingly paralleled by Pope Francis's refusal to don the mozzetta or an elaborate pectoral cross. I imagine the new simplicity is on its way (not before time).

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Weren't purple cassocks a 20th fashion anyway?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Strikingly paralleled by Pope Francis's refusal to don the mozzetta or an elaborate pectoral cross. I imagine the new simplicity is on its way (not before time).

Come to think of it, they have similar faces, don't you agree?

Pope - Archbishop of Canterbury

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Come to think of it, they have similar faces, don't you agree?

Pope - Archbishop of Canterbury

Could there be the makings of a TV reality show here? "Bishop Swap" or "Undercover Prelate" perhaps?

[ 15. March 2013, 03:31: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Ears. You can tell them apart by the ears. I will have to think long and hard about their different ears and what they might hear differently.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

They're the George and Nicholas of our time!

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Bishops in black cassocks,
Never reaching an end,
Letters I've written,
Never meaning to send.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Strikingly paralleled by Pope Francis's refusal to don the mozzetta or an elaborate pectoral cross. I imagine the new simplicity is on its way (not before time).

Polyester horse-blankets uber alles. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

The use of black certainly looks very dignified -rather more so than purple, I think.

I do wish that someone would put ++Juston's white plastic bit in for him as it always loolks as if it is hanging out. With DB cassocks a full collar looks better.

Pope Francis looks just a little like Pope Pius XI (Achille Ratti) on the front of some newpapers yeaterday.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Strikingly paralleled by Pope Francis's refusal to don the mozzetta or an elaborate pectoral cross. I imagine the new simplicity is on its way (not before time).
Polyester horse-blankets uber alles.

How about this for a joint declaration from the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury? - "We don't care what your vestments are made of, as long as they or the fabric weren't made in a sweatshop."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Purple comes from the Roman Empire and is a reminder of the C of E being established.

Rowan wasn't keen on establishment so wore black - as do many catholically-minded C of E bishops.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

But when did purple come into fashion? I'm guessing about the time that bright red chimeres came in. The gleam of purple, white, red and black is indeed striking. I COULD research it on Google, but surely some Eccles denizen knows exactly where these Episcopal fashions came from.

The purple or blue shirt worn by certain kinds of bishops, the semiprecious ring and all that. Someone knows where all that came from and now the fashion is changing to something simpler.

I've seen priests wear purple cassocks that same as bishop because at one time or other they were a "canon" or "dean" of something or other, or they received a doctorate in something before being ordained (or after).

I've seen old saintly queenly types squirming in glee about having their cassocks and birettas piped because they were getting an honorary something or other.

Sounds like I'm knocking it. Surely all this is better than people who proudly care nothing at all about any of this?

An old Jewish friend once admitted that he thinks everyone one else at the shul prays too fast or too slow--and everyone else agrees with him too.

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

And I wish more Anglican bishops would content themselves with black chimeres.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

This thread may be of interest.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I thought vestments were supposed to be made of natural fibres ?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

(I have a hankering for the pope to modernise, and wear a white linen suit and a panama hat with a white band. Don't think it will happen.)

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

A certain Bishop of New Westminster was heard sorrowfully observing that people treated him differently because he wore a purple shirt than a black one. His martyrdom turned into irkdom when an academic at the table suggested that he return to wearing a black shirt.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
And I wish more Anglican bishops would content themselves with black chimeres.

Wish they wouldn't wear chimeres, or rochets, at all. Signs of political power and hot protestantism.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

[Confused]

Don't quite follow. But I do hate those frilly sleeves.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

If a bishop doesn't want to wear a chasuble, I'd far rather he wore a rochet and chimere than cope and mitre.

I don't see how they are a sign of hot protestantism. I believe Bishop Hooper of Gloucester refused to wear them as a rag of popery.

They are the English form of a bishop's choir dress, which has its Roman equivalent.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
If a bishop doesn't want to wear a chasuble, I'd far rather he wore a rochet and chimere than cope and mitre.

I don't see how they are a sign of hot protestantism. I believe Bishop Hooper of Gloucester refused to wear them as a rag of popery.

They are the English form of a bishop's choir dress, which has its Roman equivalent.

The advantage of cope and mitre is that it is the form of episcopal dress that is likely to wind up the fewest people at diocesan events. Plenty of people would get wound up by a bishop celebrating the Eucharist in choir dress.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I met a bishop today who wears bare feet and dreadies. He was however wearing a purple shirt. And black jeans. No flamboyant - or any - ring.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I met a bishop today who wears bare feet and dreadies. He was however wearing a purple shirt. And black jeans. No flamboyant - or any - ring.

Not that you could see, anyway.

[ 18. March 2013, 16:41: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

At least, not until he offers it to you to kiss.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
If a bishop doesn't want to wear a chasuble, I'd far rather he wore a rochet and chimere than cope and mitre.

I don't see how they are a sign of hot protestantism. I believe Bishop Hooper of Gloucester refused to wear them as a rag of popery.

They are the English form of a bishop's choir dress, which has its Roman equivalent.

Of course it is. I have now idea why TEC bishops wear them at Masses for episcopal consecrations. Tippetless, but frequently with decorated stoles.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
At least, not until he offers it to you to kiss.

Ew! Stop it!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

[Snigger]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I wouldn't mind purple if it didn't look so pink. Not that men shouldn't wear pink, of course, but when you see the sight of all the bishops together it is rather overwhelming.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

And ironic.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And ironic.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I'm sure I've said this before, but it was + Bob Hardy of Lincoln who was once asked, seriously, by a waitress whether the pinkish shirt he was wearing meant he was 'one of those gay vicars you read about in the papers'.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
If a bishop doesn't want to wear a chasuble, I'd far rather he wore a rochet and chimere than cope and mitre.

I don't see how they are a sign of hot protestantism. I believe Bishop Hooper of Gloucester refused to wear them as a rag of popery.

They are the English form of a bishop's choir dress, which has its Roman equivalent.
The advantage of cope and mitre is that it is the form of episcopal dress that is likely to wind up the fewest people at diocesan events. Plenty of people would get wound up by a bishop celebrating the Eucharist in choir dress.

Hmm. I think choir dress should be resurrected for Communion services.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I'm sure I've said this before, but it was + Bob Hardy of Lincoln who was once asked, seriously, by a waitress whether the pinkish shirt he was wearing meant he was 'one of those gay vicars you read about in the papers'.

There used to be two shades of purple for bishops' shirts, known as 'episcopal red-violet' and 'episcopal blue-violet.' The second one was, or so I was told, preferred by low-church bishops. It was a manly shade: a sort of D.H. Lawrence Bavarian Gentian-colour. Perhaps we'll be seeing more of it now.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I met a bishop today who wears bare feet and dreadies. He was however wearing a purple shirt. And black jeans. No flamboyant - or any - ring.

As affected as a vast bejewelled mitre, episcopal gloves, with pectoral cross containing a relic, in its way.

I also wish bishops would wear the black chimere rather than the red (isn't the red properly reserved to DDs or othwer doctors or something?). I noted that ++Justin wore the rochet with black bands at sleeve for his enthronement.

Black looks so much nicer than purple IMHO.

When did all this purple sart to come in for Anglican bishops anyway? Was it nineteenth century?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

If the Bishop is who I think it is, then the answer to that is that the only difference to his dress that becoming a Bishop made was the purple shirt. So not affected, he is not your normal Bishop and there was surprise at his appointment for this very reason.

Jengie

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I also wish bishops would wear the black chimere rather than the red (isn't the red properly reserved to DDs or othwer doctors or something?). I noted that ++Justin wore the rochet with black bands at sleeve for his enthronement.

I think all bishops are allowed to wear the red, but I think its supposed to be only in the presence of the Sovereign, unless they have a DD.

And I believe any DD is entitled to wear red chimere, but I'm not sure.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

..PhDs?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
..PhDs?

I think not. They are an innovation.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Good question. Nasty upstart German invention (I have one myself, so tongue in cheek here) which we didn't have in England until I think c1919, so perhaps not ever properly considered. AIUI until ++ Michael Ramsey's time diocesans (at least) who didn't have doctorate were given Lambeth DDs more or less as a matter of course, so again it wouldn't have arisen until the 1960s. (I still think that Rowan should have awarded one to Justin Welby, for all that it is a substantive degree rather than nan honorary one: it seems very odd not to hear him referred to as Dr WelbY.)

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Perhaps it's a colonial distinction, but I was under the impression that the bishop's alma mater typically bestowed the degree upon his (time was) election.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

LQ, Good to see you're back--but do you know what happened to Anglo Catholic Socialism website ?

Thanks

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Purple shirts - or more correctly, purple stocks - came in during the 1920s but did not get any traction outside of the Biretta Belt and other rarified atmospheres until the late 1940s, but by the mid-50 Henry Knox Sherrill, the then Presiding Bishop of PECUSA was considered old-fashioned for wearing black with not ring or cross.

In the UK purple stock and dark coloured suit became the norm in the mid-60s. Fisher regarded apron and gaiters as the fortieth article; Michael Ramsey's indifferent motor skills meant that he had problems with them. However, some bishops continued to wear them occasionally down to the 1980s. I remember Simon Phipps, Bishop of Lincoln 1974-86, would break his out occasionally.

Purple cassocks are c.1900, and caught on very quickly mainly because they reflected the already existing Episcopal evening dress of purple apron, and blue-purple cutaway coat.

Red chimeres are academic in origin being part of the dress academicals for a DD, whilst black one are for "everyday" use. Until the mid-1960s Bishop in the UK automatically got Lambeth DDs, but Ramsey did not really approve and considerably reduced the number issued. However, by then the red chimere things was entrenched.

In the USA, the black chimere brigade was in the majority until the 1960s, then red has been steadily taking over ever since.

My personal preferences are a black shirt with a modest cross and ring, and a black suit. I occasionally do wear purple - usually a quiet version of the usual red-purple variety, but occasionally the blue - generally when I am around other bishops.

I do tend to go the two ends with vestments. Offices, and when presiding (in the old sense) at Mass I prefer rochet and black chimere. For the Mass, and any rite incorporated into it I prefer Mass vestments with pastoral staff and mitre. Unlike a lot of "High-ish" bishops in the US I do not use a cope for the Liturgy of the Word then swap to the chasuble for the Eucharistic Prayer, etc.. The Episcopal variant of "dressing for dinner" has little appeal for me. I think I am a little unusual in that I usually wear the Episcopal Dalmatic under the chasuble at ordinations and the chrism Mass.

PD

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0