Thread: Eucharistic Vestments (Church of England) 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=025854

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
I would be interested to know when the use of Eucharistic Vestments became the norm (or at least acceptable) outside the Anglo-Catholic wing of the CofE.

I had always assumed (but on a hunch rather than any evidence) that it became common from the 1960s. I was, therefore, surprised to discover that my local parish church in North London that had a solid 11am Matins right up to the late 1980s (Parish Communion was not introduced until 1992) began using vestments in the early 1940s.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Well, according to +Colin Buchanan, it 'spread widely'. Not having read the book, nor knowing much about the "rest of the Church of England" in that period, I can only guess but I would assume that the fact that the bill was passed permitting such means that it had become mainstream a good decade or so beforehand.

Thurible
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
In my experience most, but by no means all, of the "open" and "charismatic" evangelical Anglicans went over to some kind of eucharistic vestments between about 1990 and 2010. Many conservative evangelicals do not use them - some prefering to wear normal clothes, others sticking with cassock and surplice.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Around my way most parishes were Central or sunn side of Central. Quite a few of the latter had adopted the chasuble between the Wars. Very often this took the form of a white linen chasuble in smaller parishes, as in poor light at the other end of the chancel it would not look too much different to a long surplice. Full colour vestments tended to be introduced in town parishes where money was less of an object. It should be understood that throughout this period, the usual service pattern was

8am HC
10.30am MP
11.45am HC (1st & festivals only)
6.30am EP

Otherwise, a lot of parishes were still surplice and stole in the 1970s and 80s, and finally bought ugly polyester chasubles c.1990.

The exception to the rule were the few Low/Evangelical parishes which remained surplice and tippet. Their service schedule was a bit different too. They would have 10.30am MP and 6.30p EP as usual, but Communion would be a 'Stay Behind' starting at "Ye that do truly and earnestly..." and the Evangelicals had both morning and evening communions like the Methodists. They would also have an 8am HC service once a month. The Low Church folks - very rare in Lincoln Diocese - would have 8am or 11.45am HC once a month.

Generally speaking the Evangelicals have tended to either move into the centre on vestments or drop them altogether. I know of shacks that used to be solidly surplice and tippet that will now use alb and stole for Communion. The MOTR element tend to wear Euchies where available instead of the old surplice and stole, which change seemed to occur in the 80s.

PD
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Around my way most parishes were Central or sunn side of Central. Quite a few of the latter had adopted the chasuble between the Wars. Very often this took the form of a white linen chasuble in smaller parishes, as in poor light at the other end of the chancel it would not look too much different to a long surplice. Full colour vestments tended to be introduced in town parishes where money was less of an object. It should be understood that throughout this period, the usual service pattern was

8am HC
10.30am MP
11.45am HC (1st & festivals only)
6.30am EP

Otherwise, a lot of parishes were still surplice and stole in the 1970s and 80s, and finally bought ugly polyester chasubles c.1990.


PD

That is interesting - the service pattern at my Parish pre-1980 was

8am HC
11am Matins
12.15 HC
6pm Evensong (which from 1962 onwards was substituted once a month for a Sung HC).

It confirms what I thought that their move to chasubles in the 1940s was ununsual.

[ 28. June 2013, 18:43: Message edited by: Liturgylover ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
The village church where I was confirmed was solidly 11.00 Mattins (though throughout the 19th century it seemed to have had a strong Tractarian influence). The Vicar who arrived in the late 1940s introduced vestments at the 8am Communion. In protestant north-west Yorkshire that was not the norm, but not uncommon either. I can imagine in other parts of the country vestments would be well established and accepted long before that.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

That is interesting - the service pattern at my Parish pre-1980 was

8am HC
11am Matins
12.15 HC
6pm Evensong (which from 1962 onwards was substituted once a month for a Sung HC).

It confirms what I thought that their move to chasubles in the 1940s was ununsual.

You probably had an incumbant who leaned a little bit high and managed to convince the Central Churchmanship PTBs that Eucharistic vestments are not the mark of the beast. My home parish went through that process about 30 years earlier than yours. Many others did it 20-30 years later.

However, if you are in an urban area, full Mass vestments would have become acceptable earlier in a Central Churchmanship parish just simply because town congregations are less conservative than rural ones. I remember there being slight resistence to Mass vestments in some MOTR rural parishes in the 1980s in the form of the 'The vicar's dress p like a Christmas tree again!' However, a chasuble would be acceptable at Easter and Christmas, and then you could gently sneak it in from there.

Personally I can go either way on Mass vestments. I am of the school where I would not introduce them if they were not already used. Much of the time I would prefer surplice and stole.

PD

[ 28. June 2013, 19:02: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I know this is tangential, but this thread does make me wonder when evening prayer started dying out. It seems due for a comeback, since it's by no means a given that people have Sunday morning off any more.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I don't think Evensong will make a general come-back, since evening Eucharists are an option, and indeed quite a few Anglican churches offer a Sunday evening Mass, and indeed an increasing number are offering a Saturday evening Vigil Mass, as has now been done in the RCC for years. Evensong will continue as a venerable but limited Anglican tradition, these days favoured mostly by the artier and more aesthetically inclined sort of Anglicans who will go to a place offering it that has high choral standards.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know this is tangential, but this thread does make me wonder when evening prayer started dying out. It seems due for a comeback, since it's by no means a given that people have Sunday morning off any more.

I was looking at some service patterns in a journal and it seemed that in 1969 almost every church had a 6 or 6.30 evensong, but looking at the same group in 1972 only half of then did, and then by 1975 only a handful were offering it.
Perhaps there is some truth to the urban myth that The Forsyte Saga helped kill it off, but it seems that this period coincided with the fastest decline in electoral rolls and sunday attendance.

Certainly there are more churches that offer it now near me - many of them once a month and some sung rather than choral.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't think Evensong will make a general come-back, since evening Eucharists are an option, and indeed quite a few Anglican churches offer a Sunday evening Mass, and indeed an increasing number are offering a Saturday evening Vigil Mass, as has now been done in the RCC for years. Evensong will continue as a venerable but limited Anglican tradition, these days favoured mostly by the artier and more aesthetically inclined sort of Anglicans who will go to a place offering it that has high choral standards.

As I said a above, I have noticed a few more parishes in London offering it but often once a month with a variety of services (Taize, healing service, devotions, Iona) on the other Sundays. But rarey have I seen a congregation above 50 or so at these evening services.

For the RC Churches it seems the Sunday evening slot is popular with a young crowd who prefer mass with a twist. A few weeks ago I was walking past Our Lady of Victories in Kensington when I heard what sounded like rock music coming from the church. Nervously peeping in, the church was completely packed (in fact people standing at the back) with swaying rock-style music and words projected on the wall.

Though I don't normally like this type of music in worship, there was a moving couterpoint between the formality of the ceremonial the incense and the vestments and the informality of the music. They have obviously got something right: last time I went to St Mary Abbott for Evensong there were only about 20 in the congregation - this Catholic Church could boast at least 200 times that number.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know this is tangential, but this thread does make me wonder when evening prayer started dying out.

Ed Sullivan and the NFL typically get the blame.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Copy/pasted from the kids and adult church thread:

I don't know about Evensong (yes I love it, but I've always been weird) but my former con-evo church's informal evening service was a big hit with teenagers and twentysomethings, and parents were happy to let teenagers lie in of a morning because they'd be going to the evening service later on (and this being con-evo circles, the lack of Eucharist didn't bother anyone).

I haven't been for some years now but it's very popular still. Although it is an Anglican church, the service is not like Evensong in any way.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
In the USA, evening services fell on hard times in the 1920s with the advent of cheap (relatively) motor cars, and the cult of 'the Sunday drive.' However, Sunday evening services often lasted into the 1940s and 50s, though the attendance was sparse.

My home parish in England still has an evening service, and to the probable irritation of the worship committee, it is the more traditional offerings that get the decent attendance. It is around 40 for BCP Evensong, and the monthly evening HC, but only about 25 for 'Sunday Nite Lite' or whatever they are calling their Praise Band service these days.

I think here what I would offer on a Sunday evening would depend on whether r not the Organist was going to be available. If he was it would be EP or an EP-Frankenmass. Without music a said Eucharist makes the most sense.

PD
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
My parish has an evensong about once a month that attracts around 100 people or so, though between me and the ship, it does seem to blur the line between worship service and concert.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
My parish has an evensong about once a month that attracts around 100 people or so, though between me and the ship, it does seem to blur the line between worship service and concert.

I agree which is why I sometimes prefer it sung rather than choral, when it's possible to chant the Office.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
We have 3 Evensongs a month (sung, not choral).
A couple of times a year we scrape together enough of a choir to have an anthem and choral responses. There's a very particular congregation who come to Evensong. They are loyal and determined.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
My parish has an evensong about once a month that attracts around 100 people or so, though between me and the ship, it does seem to blur the line between worship service and concert.

It does seem often the case that the churches with regular Evensong are either cathedrals (or greater churches/college chapels) with choral HR to showcase, or Anglo-Catholic parishes who combine it with Benediction (or "Salutation").

In Toronto, we do have the Church of the Redeemer, which has a sung Evensong according to the BAS most Sunday nights. (It does yield one or two weeks a month for another service, usually Taizé or their Rock Eucharist series - which can blur the lines of concert and worship in rather a different way but is still recognizably a parish communion).

I did attend a parish whose semi-monthly Jazz Vespers numbers dwarfed the morning headcount by a depressing factor.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Sorry, I just remembered this originally had something to do with vestments - when I have time I might spin this off into its own thing.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Heh, my fault. Back to the OP, I don't know when vestments in particular came to my parish in Indiana, but in the 1890's the parish went through a little schism because of a popish rector. The faithful fled to the hills and founded another Episcopal Church. They got over it, though, and the two parishes merged again a few years later in their original building.

The second parish did, while they were at it, build one of the handsomest churches in the city, which is now a Lutheran church.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
I got a kick out of this line in a story about the parish of the Bruce Peninsula, which was where my paternal grandparents lived and is an Anglican-Lutheran benefice:

quote:
“One Sunday, I wore a chasuble in an Anglican service, and the congregation asked, ‘Is that a Lutheran thing?’”
Reminds me of a similar story I read in the collection of essays that came out with the Waterloo Agreement, of a Danish Seamen's Church in Georgian London scandalizing the establishment with its "popish" [!] eucharistic vestments (never abrogated by the Scandinavian Evangelical state churches).
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
The parish I am in now did not adopt Eucharistic vestments until about 1990. It had been surplice and stole before that, which is pretty typical for AZ. The current rule is that of 1549 'white alb, plain, with vestment or cope.' I find a cope fractionally cooler than a chasuble when it is hot in church, as it was this morning.

My home parish in Lincolnshire adopted vestments about 1912. It is actually surprising that it was that late, as the first Tractarian influenced incumbant had been appointed in 1858, and for the first ten years of his ministry he was inclined to push the pace.

My family - refugees from the Church of Ireland - do not like Eucharistic vestments, and make a point of telling me so. They are Matins and Evensong people, and might stay behind for Communion once a month if they are feeling especially devout. They tend to see my more High Church outlook as the road to either Rome or Ruin depending on their mood, even though I have never aspired to being anything more than 'unny side of Central' in my churchmanship.

PD

[ 01. July 2013, 01:12: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know this is tangential, but this thread does make me wonder when evening prayer started dying out. It seems due for a comeback, since it's by no means a given that people have Sunday morning off any more.

(Playing devil's advocate for a moment)

But what about people who work on Sundays? Isn't it important that they get the opportunity to go to the eucharist/mass/holy communion/Lord's Supper/whatever you want to call it on Sunday and other important days? So shouldn't there be a eucharisthingy in the evenings?

I appreciate that because there are not many ordained people there might have to be a lay-lead and thus non-eucharistic service in the evenings, though. I am inclined to think that BCP evening prayer persists mainly because we have lots of nice musical settings for it more than any other reason.


quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
I got a kick out of this line in a story about the parish of the Bruce Peninsula, which was where my paternal grandparents lived and is an Anglican-Lutheran benefice:

quote:
“One Sunday, I wore a chasuble in an Anglican service, and the congregation asked, ‘Is that a Lutheran thing?’”
Reminds me of a similar story I read in the collection of essays that came out with the Waterloo Agreement, of a Danish Seamen's Church in Georgian London scandalizing the establishment with its "popish" [!] eucharistic vestments (never abrogated by the Scandinavian Evangelical state churches).
I remember on a fictional TV programme the Danish priests all wore cassocks and ruffs. But that was on a fictional TV programme and so may not be very accurate. IIRC the Danish are not quite as "high" as the Swedish?

[ 05. July 2013, 20:42: Message edited by: scuffleball ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Cassock and ruff is still Church of Denmark formal wear, and is still used for non-Eucharistic services, and on formal occasions covering both the Cassock and surplice/gown and frock coat and dog collar options for Anglican clergymen. Not sure how much it is worn outside of that formal context these days, but it was commonly seen until about a generation ago. The TV show was possibly old-fashioned, but not in accurate.

Alb, ruff and chasuble seems to be commonest for Communion in Danish Churches. Denark is lower the Sweden but not by much. The dominant influence in the reform was Johannes Bugenhagen, who was based in Hamburg when the ball got rolling in Denmark, rather than the Petri brothers. Denmark lost the apostolic succession in the 1600s, but apart from having a more north German style service, it is not that much lower than Sweden. The odds are lower on getting incense though!

PD

[ 05. July 2013, 20:59: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The Bergman flick Winter Light has a 50's country parish priest in the Church of Sweden wearing a cassock and bands for the Eucharist. Since Bergman's father was the royal chaplain, one imagines his portrayal was typical.

The priest also kneels before the altar for the whole service of table up to the Agnus Dei, which is interesting.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
PD, my understanding was closer to scuffleball's: that Pietism was a much Bigger Deal in Denmark (and also led to a greater suspicion of episcopal authority and tardiness in signing onto Porvoo). In any case, this text may be instructive.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Interesting to see the many pics in today's Church Times of recent ordinations. Nearly all the bishops wore chasubles: I think that would have been the exception only a few years ago. The newly ordained priests were in surplice and stole however (I only spotted a couple of black scarves) except for the Welsh ones who wore chasubles.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
5/26 Oxford deacons wore scarves. The Bishop wore a chasuble.

Thurible
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Interesting to see the many pics in today's Church Times of recent ordinations. Nearly all the bishops wore chasubles: I think that would have been the exception only a few years ago. The newly ordained priests were in surplice and stole however (I only spotted a couple of black scarves) except for the Welsh ones who wore chasubles.

Not in our little corner of Wales where the newly ordained wore alb and stole only (other Priests in attendance wore stole and surplice), the pictures you saw may have been from Llandaff which is where it would be more likely to find Priests being Ordained and presented with Chasuble...
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
True. I meant to specify Llandaff but I think it was one of the few Welsh dioceses pictured. But alb and stole is fine.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
I seem to recall that Monmouth priests are vested in chasubles too.

Thurible
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In my experience most, but by no means all, of the "open" and "charismatic" evangelical Anglicans went over to some kind of eucharistic vestments between about 1990 and 2010. Many conservative evangelicals do not use them - some prefering to wear normal clothes, others sticking with cassock and surplice.

How common is the chasuble in Open Evangelical circles? When I was last trip over myself in those circles they tended to be alb and stole, with some of the older guys still surplice and stole.

PD
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I think Ken would define alb and stole as 'some kind' of eucharistic vestment. With the increasing number of evangelical ordinands, many of them are going to end up in chasuble-wearing parishes and nobody these days seems to have a principled objection to wearing them.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, surely alb and stole are Eucharistic vestments, albeit without a chasuble they always look to me like a shirt and tie without a jacket - but what else would you (properly) use them for?

[ 07. July 2013, 09:51: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Alb and stole always looks to me as though one was interrupted whilst vesting, and then forgot to go back and finish. If I have to go stole only I will usually go for cassock and surplice rather than an alb, as that somehow looks finished whilst the other does not.

I do not have any problem with Eucharistic vestments even though I tend to be rather Protestant. I suspect my High Church streak gets the better of my Evangelicalism on this one - except when it is 83F indoors with the A/C on as it was here the other Sunday!

PD
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I think the alb/stole combo makes it look like the priest has forgotten his wedding garment. [Snore]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
Ah, you luckyduck Anglicans have all the fun. My church has a vestry full of chasubles, and I've had a series of five pastors in the past three years turn up their noses at them. They look at me as if I'm Johann Tetzel when I give them the grand tour. It's alb-stole all the way here. Sigh.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Ah, you luckyduck Anglicans have all the fun. My church has a vestry full of chasubles, and I've had a series of five pastors in the past three years turn up their noses at them. They look at me as if I'm Johann Tetzel when I give them the grand tour. It's alb-stole all the way here. Sigh.

I can assure you that with "a vestry full of chasubles" you are the lucky one, even if your Priests do not use them... what I would give to have a vestry full of them... or the funds to make such so, but alas in the hills there is no money, and non-conformity reigned supreme for too long!
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Ah, you luckyduck Anglicans have all the fun. My church has a vestry full of chasubles, and I've had a series of five pastors in the past three years turn up their noses at them. They look at me as if I'm Johann Tetzel when I give them the grand tour. It's alb-stole all the way here. Sigh.

I do wish that Lutherans were a bit more mindful of their liturgical heritage in the USA. The alb and stole routine has become almost as opporessive as the Prussian insistence that folks use the talar, the talar, and nothing but the talar -oh, and of course, beffchen.

PD
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Ah, you luckyduck Anglicans have all the fun. My church has a vestry full of chasubles, and I've had a series of five pastors in the past three years turn up their noses at them. They look at me as if I'm Johann Tetzel when I give them the grand tour. It's alb-stole all the way here. Sigh.

I do wish that Lutherans were a bit more mindful of their liturgical heritage in the USA. The alb and stole routine has become almost as opporessive as the Prussian insistence that folks use the talar, the talar, and nothing but the talar -oh, and of course, beffchen.

PD

You and me both. As a whole, the tide is always moving us away from, rather than toward, our liturgical heritage. I'm afraid Olaf is growing a bit weary of fighting it, and has his river-swimming floaties ready and waiting, just in case.
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
I saw the strangest thing on Sunday - the minister put on her chasuble at the offertory!

ETA in Taizé priests, bishops and deacons all just wear alb + stole (no chasuble/dalmatic) unless they're orthodox in which case they also wear a funny hat thing.

[ 10. July 2013, 21:27: Message edited by: scuffleball ]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
I saw the strangest thing on Sunday - the minister put on her chasuble at the offertory!

We call that 'dressing for dinner' around here. It happens in TEC often, especially when the celebrant wears a cope during the Liturgy of the Word.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
I saw the strangest thing on Sunday - the minister put on her chasuble at the offertory!

ETA in Taizé priests, bishops and deacons all just wear alb + stole (no chasuble/dalmatic) unless they're orthodox in which case they also wear a funny hat thing.

aka 'Dressing for Dinner. It is quite common around here when it is hot. I prefer to remove my chasuble for the sermon so I can cool down a bit rather than not wear the chasuble for the liturgy of the word.

PD
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
It does seem a weird practice. If wearing a chasuble is consider too hot/ too high church/ too much fuss, then it is all these things during the 'liturgy of the Sacrament' as well as during the 'liturgy of the Word.' If the chasuble is worn to emphasise the importance of the eucharistic celebration then why do something which suggests that one part of it is more important than another? Word and Sacrament, in Anglican tradition especially, are two equally important elements of worship.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
I've certainly seen it in the past. St.Michael's Aberystwyth used to do it at the Sung Eucharist - normally Harris in F with the Gloria and the Creed to Merbecke, but this was in its B.E days - Before Evangelical - I've no idea what they'd do now

I have a feeling it may have been quite common at one time although less so now. Perhaps it was to reinforce its connection with the Eucharist so they used it at the Liturgy of the Eucharist , after the synaxis part of the service? But I'm just guessing

Of course it could be a way of 'sneaking in' vestments in case someone in the congregation might object?

It'd be interesting to find out why, though.....
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
I saw the strangest thing on Sunday - the minister put on her chasuble at the offertory!

We call that 'dressing for dinner' around here. It happens in TEC often, especially when the celebrant wears a cope during the Liturgy of the Word.
hmmm - don't see much of copes these days. Back in the 1970s I knew of a vicar who used his cope as though it were a chasuble........
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Like this, you mean (albeit with extenuating circumstances here)?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Yes, chasubles are still banned here and the situation is unlikely to change no matter who is elected the new archbishop.

Normal practice at our 10 am Eucharist (alternately sung or choral) is for whoever is presiding to wear a cope over alb and stole. The 7 am and 8 am Eucharists are said, and the cope is not worn. At a festival service, copes will be worn by the deacon and sub-deacon as well. That is a common practice amongst similar parishes in Sydney.

The ban is only on chasubles. Fr Steven, at St John the Evangelist, Dee Why sometimes wears a biretta with his cope. See for example:

http://www.stjohnsdeewhy.org.au

I can't recall seeing that elsewhere in Sydney.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
Gee D - cope and biretta are fairly common vestures at Christ Church St Laurence. Also, it is not uncommon during High Mass for the celebrant to be in a cope and the deacon/sub-deacon in dalmatic/tunicle.

Fortunately for us, being 'free' of the ties that bind others to Diocesan rules, our celebrants vest in chasuble each Sunday. Come along to our Feast of Title on 18/8 and see it all - with a woman as celebrant and preacher, to boot!
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I thought that CCSL may have used them, but have yet to see them - admittedly, it is some time since we were last there. Thank you for your invitation, but 10.30 on 18 August sees us at another service elsewhere.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
....Fortunately for us, being 'free' of the ties that bind others to Diocesan rules,...

Interesting- why so?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Perhaps they are a peculiar - does Australia have them? Or perhaps they are just peculiar.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
It is a Sydney thing. There is a diocesan Canon forbidding the use of the Chasuble. I imagine what we have is an extra-diocesan parish, which is thus for either historical, or Dead Horse reasons.

PD
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Fortunately for us, being 'free' of the ties that bind others to Diocesan rules, our celebrants vest in chasuble each Sunday. Come along to our Feast of Title on 18/8 and see it all - with a woman as celebrant and preacher, to boot!

Emendator, are you at CCSL, or somewhere else? This chronology would seem to place the last airing of the chasuble at CCSL in 1911.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Bergman flick Winter Light has a 50's country parish priest in the Church of Sweden wearing a cassock and bands for the Eucharist. Since Bergman's father was the royal chaplain, one imagines his portrayal was typical.

The priest also kneels before the altar for the whole service of table up to the Agnus Dei, which is interesting.

Bergman may have known, but Winter Light
does have its share of film goofs, and those may be some of them. Actually, Swedish Church Law makes no provision for the celebration of the Eucharist without the proper eucharistic vestments, so in Sweden vestments are always worn by the priest celebrant at Mass.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
....Fortunately for us, being 'free' of the ties that bind others to Diocesan rules,...

Interesting- why so?
Emli is attached to an organisation called Communities of Our
Lady - or it could be Community. It is not an official part of the Anglican Church of Australia, but he and others are ordained Anglican priests. AFAIK, none is licensed in Sydney. It is not a splinter group like those associated with the St Paul grouping in the US, or the Traditional Anglican Church here, either. I would not call it a peculiar, as it is not a part of the Anglican Church. AIUI, a peculiar is a recognised part of teh church, not subject to any diocesan authority.

Services used be held in an Anglican church, but I'm not sure if that continues. If they're not, there would certainly be no prohibition on wearing chasubles.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Oh yes, I've heard about that outfit. That makes more sense.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Bergman flick Winter Light has a 50's country parish priest in the Church of Sweden wearing a cassock and bands for the Eucharist. Since Bergman's father was the royal chaplain, one imagines his portrayal was typical.

The priest also kneels before the altar for the whole service of table up to the Agnus Dei, which is interesting.

Bergman may have known, but Winter Light
does have its share of film goofs, and those may be some of them. Actually, Swedish Church Law makes no provision for the celebration of the Eucharist without the proper eucharistic vestments, so in Sweden vestments are always worn by the priest celebrant at Mass.

I have a little book on the Church of Sweden published about 1948 by SPCK which states that although Church Law makes no provsion for anything other than alb and chasuble to be used for the Mass, some rural parishes used the black garb. It was regarded as an irregularity, and I dare say one that has been remedied by now.

PD

[ 12. July 2013, 05:47: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Emli is attached to an organisation called Communities of Our Lady - or it could be Community ...AFAIK, none is licensed in Sydney.

Actually, GeeD, I am still licensed in the Diocese of Sydney.. with the state of Christ's Church militant here in Sydney - how long that will continue for is anyone's guess.

We are definitely Communities: The Anglican Communities of Our Lady - there are currently three communities, two of which are in Sydney and one which is in the Diocese of Newcastle. The latter will be applying to the next Bishop of Newcastle.

We are working towards becoming a peculiar within the framework of the Anglican Church of Australia: how that will develop is an ongoing discernment.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Oh yes, I've heard about that outfit. That makes more sense.

Heard about us in a nice way, we hope! [Smile]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Emli , I did a very quick Google search before my post in an effort to find the correct title. I could not find it under either, hence the form of my post. Surely there would have to be some ground to withdraw your Sydney licence, and it's not at the whim of the archbishop?
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
Gee D - unfortunately my licence is due to be renewed in August - I want to stay licensed but given what is happening around the place - one never knows.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Oh yes, I've heard about that outfit. That makes more sense.

Heard about us in a nice way, we hope! [Smile]
I have a pdf of a back issue of your Clarion which I was heartened to read.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It does seem a weird practice. If wearing a chasuble is consider too hot/ too high church/ too much fuss, then it is all these things during the 'liturgy of the Sacrament' as well as during the 'liturgy of the Word.' If the chasuble is worn to emphasise the importance of the eucharistic celebration then why do something which suggests that one part of it is more important than another? Word and Sacrament, in Anglican tradition especially, are two equally important elements of worship.

Exactly. Putting on the chasable at the offertory is very 1970s; Series 3; 'Yours Lord is the Greatness' instead of 'Blessed are you Lord. God of all creation..'; blue rubric; celebrating with no manual acts during the eucharistic prayer 'Look! No hands!'.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
*chasuble
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I always knew you would agree with me one day, Sebby. [Biased]
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It does seem a weird practice. If wearing a chasuble is consider too hot/ too high church/ too much fuss, then it is all these things during the 'liturgy of the Sacrament' as well as during the 'liturgy of the Word.' If the chasuble is worn to emphasise the importance of the eucharistic celebration then why do something which suggests that one part of it is more important than another? Word and Sacrament, in Anglican tradition especially, are two equally important elements of worship.

Exactly. Putting on the chasable at the offertory is very 1970s; Series 3; 'Yours Lord is the Greatness' instead of 'Blessed are you Lord. God of all creation..'; blue rubric; celebrating with no manual acts during the eucharistic prayer 'Look! No hands!'.
The only reason to put on a chasuble during Mass is if one has just removed the cope. Which is done long before the Offertory. Utterly without justification.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The only reason to put on a chasuble during Mass is if one has just removed the cope. Which is done long before the Offertory. Utterly without justification.

In our shack, the cope is on until it comes off for the sermon (if the celebrant is preaching). It goes back on after the sermon and then is changed for the chasuble just before the celebrant ascends to the altar to offer the gifts and cense.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Have you changed shacks? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Have you changed shacks? [Ultra confused]

Not since 2002.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
... We are working towards becoming a peculiar within the framework of the Anglican Church of Australia: how that will develop is an ongoing discernment.

So you are seeking to add the 'a'?
[Snigger]
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The only reason to put on a chasuble during Mass is if one has just removed the cope. Which is done long before the Offertory. Utterly without justification.

In our shack, the cope is on until it comes off for the sermon (if the celebrant is preaching). It goes back on after the sermon and then is changed for the chasuble just before the celebrant ascends to the altar to offer the gifts and cense.
But why? Why remove it for the sermon?

And Fortescue clearly directs the cope to be taken off before the altar is censed for the first time. Isn't the adoption before the Offertory just creating a strange sort of division within the Mass which has no basis in the liturgy itself? You can't celebrate Mass without the Lessons, so they're just as integral a part of the sacrifice.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Quite apart from any liturgical or theological correctness, you need broad shoulders to wear a cope. They keep falling off me.

[ 13. July 2013, 07:42: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Quite apart from any liturgical or theological correctness, you need broad shoulders to wear a cope. They keep falling off me.

Perhaps you need to shorten the morse?
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
In fairness, I hasten to add that what Oblatus describes was the practice under our previous (and now departed) interim, but then we aren't nearly as venerable a shack! (We also don't have the Asperges anymore, so there's really no need to begin in cope at all: part of me wondered whether the "dressing for dinner" was just to give them an airing!)
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Our late Honorary Assistant Priest used to wear a cope until the Offertory which used to bug me no end. It is one of those things that shrieks 'High Church' rather than 'Anglo-Catholic' to me, yet it is surprising how many A-C parishes in the USA do it!

Unless I am in a 1549-ish state of mind, in which case I wear alb and cope all the way through, I stick with the notion that one is only meant to wear a cope for aliturgical function before the Mass. That would cover the Asperges, the Palm Liturgy, etc..

PD
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
But why? Why remove it for the sermon?

And Fortescue clearly directs the cope to be taken off before the altar is censed for the first time. Isn't the adoption before the Offertory just creating a strange sort of division within the Mass which has no basis in the liturgy itself? You can't celebrate Mass without the Lessons, so they're just as integral a part of the sacrifice.

I think there is no "why"; it's the Parish Use, devised by the rector for the 1979 BCP liturgies. [Overused]

Ever shall it be until a new BCP is authorized, I think. Ritual Notes has the preacher, if one of the sacred ministers, remove chasuble, dalmatic, or tunicle as appropriate, and put it back on after the sermon. That might be where our practice (although dealing with cope, not chasuble) came from, or not.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
But why? Why remove it for the sermon?

And Fortescue clearly directs the cope to be taken off before the altar is censed for the first time. Isn't the adoption before the Offertory just creating a strange sort of division within the Mass which has no basis in the liturgy itself? You can't celebrate Mass without the Lessons, so they're just as integral a part of the sacrifice.

I think there is no "why"; it's the Parish Use, devised by the rector for the 1979 BCP liturgies. [Overused]
In those days there was no liturgical authority in the Church of England: every incumbent did that which was right in his own eyes...
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Ritual Notes has the preacher, if one of the sacred ministers, remove chasuble, dalmatic, or tunicle as appropriate, and put it back on after the sermon. That might be where our practice (although dealing with cope, not chasuble) came from, or not.
Which presumably comes from the old, unenlightened, idea that the sermon is not part of the liturgy.

[Edit: I think that's sorted (UBB)]

[ 15. July 2013, 00:54: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Unless I am in a 1549-ish state of mind

Unless? [Confused] Do you have another? [Biased]

IIRC, the mid-conciliar reforms of the Roman Rite suppressed (or optionalised?) the cope during the Asperges before the Sunday High Mass.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Unless I am in a 1549-ish state of mind

Unless? [Confused] Do you have another? [Biased]

IIRC, the mid-conciliar reforms of the Roman Rite suppressed (or optionalised?) the cope during the Asperges before the Sunday High Mass.

I've always suspect that, if one peeks over the top of PD's Prayer Book, one will find that he has concealed therein the Westminster Directory.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Westminster Hymnal is far more likely.

PD
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
.....the mid-conciliar reforms of the Roman Rite suppressed (or optionalised?) the cope during the Asperges before the Sunday High Mass.

Which had the practical effect of optionalising (and therefore virtually suppressing) the Asperges altogether in all but a tiny number of places.
[Frown] [Disappointed] [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The only reason to put on a chasuble during Mass is if one has just removed the cope. Which is done long before the Offertory. Utterly without justification.

In our shack, the cope is on until it comes off for the sermon (if the celebrant is preaching). It goes back on after the sermon and then is changed for the chasuble just before the celebrant ascends to the altar to offer the gifts and cense.
But why? Why remove it for the sermon?
In most places wherein I have worked in recent decades it would be a good medical, if not liturgical idea, because they're so bloody hot.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
In most places wherein I have worked in recent decades it would be a good medical, if not liturgical idea, because they're so bloody hot.

What lax, degenerate days we live in, when even the clergy expect to be comfortable.

[Biased]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I have a sizable personal grudge in summer against the flipping idiot who revived Eucharistic vestments in the Anglican tradition. The only thing larger is the puddle of sweat I am stood in!

PD
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
PD - is your issue about another layer of clothing, or the weight of that extra layer?

The chasubles and dalmatics that we use in summer are very light weight, unlined, vestments made of dupioni silk - they weigh so much less than an alb and with the fans on (or, as in the case of our present shack, the air conditioning)Sunday morning services in summer are no different to those in winter. Maybe you could look at some for those hot climes and times?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
In most places wherein I have worked in recent decades it would be a good medical, if not liturgical idea, because they're so bloody hot.

What lax, degenerate days we live in, when even the clergy expect to be comfortable.

[Biased]

It might help to cut down sermons to a bearable length.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
One Ash Wednesday, quite a few years ago now, I was doing some work in a court west of the Dividing Range. A stinking hot day, still around 40 C in the evening. Madame and I went to the 7 pm Eucharist, and before the start, the priest came out in alb and stole. He apologised that he would not be wearing a chasuble as they were all heavy and hot, especially the Lenten purple. We noticed that he was not wearing trousers as his bare legs protruded from under the alb, and he was wearing simple leather sandals.

All this was perfectly understandable, and gave the service a timeless quality, a service which could have been happening 1500 years ago in the Middle East or southern Italy, just as much as in a modern day city on the edge of the Outback.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In my experience most, but by no means all, of the "open" and "charismatic" evangelical Anglicans went over to some kind of eucharistic vestments between about 1990 and 2010. Many conservative evangelicals do not use them - some prefering to wear normal clothes, others sticking with cassock and surplice.

It's cassock and surplice for me for the "traditional" Holy Communion service. Normal clothes (usually clericals) for the informal service which follows.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Wouldn't an alb be cooler in this weather? Point of information: when you say you robe for 'traditional' holy communion do you have other 'non-traditional' communion services for which you do not? (Though why wear clerical collar in that case?)
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In my experience most, but by no means all, of the "open" and "charismatic" evangelical Anglicans went over to some kind of eucharistic vestments between about 1990 and 2010. Many conservative evangelicals do not use them - some prefering to wear normal clothes, others sticking with cassock and surplice.

It's cassock and surplice for me for the "traditional" Holy Communion service. Normal clothes (usually clericals) for the informal service which follows.
Dressing down as the service goes to informal sounds like the opposite of what many TEC clerics do when they "dress for dinner," and put on a chasuble for the post-Word part of the service. Mind you, I am having trouble processing how clericals constitute normal clothes, but that may be due to our local heat wave (32°C+ and climbing) and how it is affecting the clarity of my thinking.

If I might be permitted a minor tangent, I am reliably informed that a lightweight cassock is cooler to wear than street clothes. For some years, a local cleric who had spent time in Morocco wore a galabeah (transliteration of the Arabic is variable) as an alb in summer. He used to refer to the embroidery at the neck as a "Casablanca apparel."
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Wouldn't an alb be cooler in this weather? Point of information: when you say you robe for 'traditional' holy communion do you have other 'non-traditional' communion services for which you do not? (Though why wear clerical collar in that case?)

Not usually, as cassock-albs are usually polyester heat islands. My cassocks are generallysome sort of rayon blend that breaths, and the surplice is usually poly-cotton these days - again breathable. It is counter intuitive, but choir habit is usually more comfortable than a poly cassock-alb especially if your problem is humidity as well as heat as the sweat has somewhere to go and evaporate.

PD
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
PD - is your issue about another layer of clothing, or the weight of that extra layer?

The chasubles and dalmatics that we use in summer are very light weight, unlined, vestments made of dupioni silk - they weigh so much less than an alb and with the fans on (or, as in the case of our present shack, the air conditioning)Sunday morning services in summer are no different to those in winter. Maybe you could look at some for those hot climes and times?

Basically, it is the extra layer, but it is a bit subtler than that. I usually wear a linen alb and fiddleback chasuble with a 'keyhole' neck line in summer, which is very comfortable, as there isn't a load of stuff tight around the neck, so the steam can get out. However, if we have a white or red day I have to wear the gothic sets which are best described as being 'winter North Atlantic' weight. With the extra weight and no ventilation at the neck I find the two Masses leave me totally exhausted, and borderline for heat stroke no matter what degree I hydrate.

BTW, if anyone expresses the opinion that celebrating with the English Use ceremonial in a fiddleback is odd, I point to the termometer on the nave wall, which is usually stuck around 25-28C inside with the A/C on at the start of Mass at this time of year. I know a lot of people can take that level of heat and even enjoy it, but I grew up by the North Sea and anything over 23C is a heatwave to me.

PD

[ 15. July 2013, 17:38: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Wouldn't an alb be cooler in this weather? Point of information: when you say you robe for 'traditional' holy communion do you have other 'non-traditional' communion services for which you do not? (Though why wear clerical collar in that case?)

First, the words "alb" and "cooler" should never appear in the same sentence. Second, yes, the informal service is Eucharistic once a month. I don't robe for it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
We left off the chasuble yesterday - the hottest day in England since 2006.

The visiting, retired priest asked me if the vicar would approve. I reminded him that Fr. Tooth went to jail for wearing a maniple, with a twinkle in my eye, and then said that it would be better to pray the eucharist in holiness than to go through the motions preoccupied with brow-mopping.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
@Angloid

I wear a clerical shirt under my cassock and surplice because cassocks look rubbish without a dog collar, IMO. The informal service follows straight after the trad HC service so I just disrobe and start the next service. Personally I'd prefer to wear "normal" clothing.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
BTW, we get a lot of power outages in a summer due to thunderstorm activity. So my no electricity stand-by is an old English surplice and a long stole thrown over street dress. At that point we throw the windows open and pray for a breeze, fans come out of purses, and the men use their bulletins as fans!

PD
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Wouldn't an alb be cooler in this weather? Point of information: when you say you robe for 'traditional' holy communion do you have other 'non-traditional' communion services for which you do not? (Though why wear clerical collar in that case?)

First, the words "alb" and "cooler" should never appear in the same sentence. Second, yes, the informal service is Eucharistic once a month. I don't robe for it.
In my albed years, I found it a comfortable garment during warmer days (which in Ottawa and eastern Ontario hits the mid-30s with a humidex more reminiscent of Rangoon than Richmond). It might be that you are using a poly-cotton blend, which is notoriously unbreathable. There is a reason why the Egyptians prefer cotton.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Seriously. I'd rather minister in a onesie than lead God's people in worship dressed like a doughy, middle aged Obi-Wan Kenobi impersonator. Not cool.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Seriously. I'd rather minister in a onesie than lead God's people in worship dressed like a doughy, middle aged Obi-Wan Kenobi impersonator. Not cool.

A combination of [Overused] and [Killing me]

I like that very much indeed.

Thurible
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Seriously. I'd rather minister in a onesie than lead God's people in worship dressed like a doughy, middle aged Obi-Wan Kenobi impersonator. Not cool.

I had to look up onesie, such are the limitations of my cultural development, and I think it would likely be warmer than a cotton alb. As far as being a middle-aged Obi Wan Kenobi impersonator goes, perhaps one should better frame it as being an impersonator of an apostolic-age servant of the people. Doubtless coolness, temperature-wise, and image-wise, will surely increase.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
I was assuming that daronmedway was just rejecting the "cassockalb and stole" look. I'm sure he'd be very happy to stand at God's Board wearing a chasuble.

Thurible
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Seriously. I'd rather minister in a onesie than lead God's people in worship dressed like a doughy, middle aged Obi-Wan Kenobi impersonator. Not cool.

[Killing me] [Overused]

Could not have put it better myself!

PD
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I was assuming that daronmedway was just rejecting the "cassockalb and stole" look. I'm sure he'd be very happy to stand at God's Board wearing a chasuble.

Thurible

I've never worn a chasuble and I honestly doubt I ever will. Choir dress seems perfectly adequate to me. I'd only make a prat of myself if I tried to understand the complexities and nuances of such things. There's a vestry cupboard full of the things in my current church so it's not unheard of in the parish, but I just wouldn't know where to start. And I don't really much want to either. Sorry to disappoint. [Frown]

[ 16. July 2013, 11:15: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Just out of interest, daron- cassock, surplice and coloured stole, cassock surplice and scarf, or just cassock and surplice?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Cassock, surplice, preaching scarf (black), academic hood for non-Eucharistic services.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Thanks, that's pretty much the picture I had of you.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I was assuming that daronmedway was just rejecting the "cassockalb and stole" look. I'm sure he'd be very happy to stand at God's Board wearing a chasuble.

Thurible

I've never worn a chasuble and I honestly doubt I ever will. Choir dress seems perfectly adequate to me. I'd only make a prat of myself if I tried to understand the complexities and nuances of such things. There's a vestry cupboard full of the things in my current church so it's not unheard of in the parish, but I just wouldn't know where to start. And I don't really much want to either. Sorry to disappoint. [Frown]
I trust you have the PCC's permission for not using their customary vesture.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
In my experience only the clergy and Anglo-Catholics give a monkey's toss about what t'Vicar wears. The rest of the congregation seem to take the attitude of does he robe or not, and generally that's about as far as it gets.

When I was filling in various places when I was first priested I would pack cassock, surplice and stole when celebrating HC. If they wanted Eucharistic vestments, they would lay them out for me, if they were content to let me do my own thing they's point vaguely at a cupboard and say 'they're in there.' With the exception of one Anglo-Catholic parish I found no-one seemed to mind the 1980s TV Vicar approach to vesture.

PD

[ 16. July 2013, 16:01: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
I do have that permission granted to me in line with Canon B 8.2.

However, my current vesture for the early Holy Communion is perfectly in keeping with Canon B 8.3, 4, and 5 although I might ask the PCC if I can start omitting the cassock considering that there seems to be no mention of it. [Razz]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Seriously. I'd rather minister in a onesie than lead God's people in worship dressed like a doughy, middle aged Obi-Wan Kenobi impersonator. Not cool.

I had to look up onesie, such are the limitations of my cultural development, and I think it would likely be warmer than a cotton alb. As far as being a middle-aged Obi Wan Kenobi impersonator goes, perhaps one should better frame it as being an impersonator of an apostolic-age servant of the people. Doubtless coolness, temperature-wise, and image-wise, will surely increase.
Why would I impersonate an apostolic-age servant of the people when I can be a real 21st Century one? [Confused]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Seriously. I'd rather minister in a onesie than lead God's people in worship dressed like a doughy, middle aged Obi-Wan Kenobi impersonator. Not cool.

I had to look up onesie, such are the limitations of my cultural development, and I think it would likely be warmer than a cotton alb. As far as being a middle-aged Obi Wan Kenobi impersonator goes, perhaps one should better frame it as being an impersonator of an apostolic-age servant of the people. Doubtless coolness, temperature-wise, and image-wise, will surely increase.
Why would I impersonate an apostolic-age servant of the people when I can be a real 21st Century one? [Confused]
Perhaps it is intended to put the wearer into the frame of mind.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
I suppose so. But for me ministerial servanthood is first of all an act of the will not a frame of the mind. In fact, the frame of mind has almost nothing to do with it!
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
Whatever you do, make sure you are well-dressed. I'll never forget the "ugly tie" sermons of 2008. Our pastor tried doing a suit-and-tie thing for a couple weeks, and it turns out his fashion sense is atrocious. None of us said a thing, choosing instead to let it play out. When he finally remarked that he thought we would have said something, we told him that we were thankful he had provided us with a diversion: we made it a game to guess what ugly color he would wear, and texted back and forth during his sermons, which we hadn't heard for weeks. Next week, he was in a chasuble.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Are you really saying that you colluded in the mockery of your pastor - the man given to you by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ himself - during the Liturgy of the Word merely for his choice of tie?

Shame on you. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
My eldest son, when he first saw my uncle in full priestly vestments, exclaimed "Uncle J- looks like a Jedi Master - cool!"
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I do have that permission granted to me in line with Canon B 8.2.

However, my current vesture for the early Holy Communion is perfectly in keeping with Canon B 8.3, 4, and 5 although I might ask the PCC if I can start omitting the cassock considering that there seems to be no mention of it. [Razz]

Sorry if my comment came across as snarky when it was just meant to be gentle teasing!

While I am sure PD is right that no-one but anglo-catholic anoraks bats an eyelid at the details of vesture, I'm sure people notice if the worship is slap-happy. Not that I am accusing you of that, daron: it is just as possible to lead worship reverently dressed in T-shirt and jeans as alb and chasuble, and in some contexts more so. But as others have said (on another thread? I can't keep track) liturgy isnt just words on a page but a unity, and what we say, how we stand and move, what we wear, must be consistent.

I attended a Prayer Book holy communion the other day in a church where the present default vesture is alb/surplice and stole, but chasubles hang in the vestry cupboard. The president on this occasion (very suitably for the rite concerned) wore surplice and black scarf. Horses for courses.

But daron, if you are seriously considering abandoning the cassock , please wear an ankle-length surplice! (The reason the cassock isn't mentioned in the rubrics is presumably because it is not a liturgical vestment but street clothes, in theory.)
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
There you go. That's my theory blown of the water. Right there.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I suppose so. But for me ministerial servanthood is first of all an act of the will not a frame of the mind. In fact, the frame of mind has almost nothing to do with it!

I had thought that they were closely intertwined and linked, but this is an interesting idea, and I will think about it (no snark here).
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I do have that permission granted to me in line with Canon B 8.2.

However, my current vesture for the early Holy Communion is perfectly in keeping with Canon B 8.3, 4, and 5 although I might ask the PCC if I can start omitting the cassock considering that there seems to be no mention of it. [Razz]

But daron, if you are seriously considering abandoning the cassock , please wear an ankle-length surplice! (The reason the cassock isn't mentioned in the rubrics is presumably because it is not a liturgical vestment but street clothes, in theory.)
I remember buying my cassock from Taylor's of Oxford in the summer of 2004. The man measuring me for said garment said the following words in a tone which can only described as withering.

"I presume you'll be wanting a sarum cassock, sir. You look rather prone to weight gain."

Git.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Got the same routine from the tosser who measured me for my cassock in 1992. In fairness I would point out I have always been decidedly 'four square' or more colourfully 'built like a brick shithouse.'

I doubt if I have worn a cassock regularly since 2002. Long surplice - Old English from a certain well known firm in Exeter - over street clerics has been the rule in summer due to the heat. I tend to wear cloth jampot collars from MDS, and the plastic ones are (a) uncomfortable (b) especially in hot weather, and (c) tend to dig in giving me what for all the world look like hickies!

PD
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
...or at least, that's what you tell Mrs PD...
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

I've never worn a chasuble and I honestly doubt I ever will. Choir dress seems perfectly adequate to me. I'd only make a prat of myself if I tried to understand the complexities and nuances of such things. There's a vestry cupboard full of the things in my current church so it's not unheard of in the parish, but I just wouldn't know where to start. And I don't really much want to either. Sorry to disappoint. [Frown]

Oh yes, Eucharistic vestments are sooo complicated that you'd best stay away from them. We understand your fears. Only the brighter lads should be allowed near such things..
[Disappointed]
*
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I had to laugh when an evangelical colleague, dressed in cassock, surplice, hood and scarf - possibly also bands - said he preferred this vesture as it was 'simpler'. Simpler than alb, stole and chasuble?
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I had to laugh when an evangelical colleague, dressed in cassock, surplice, hood and scarf - possibly also bands - said he preferred this vesture as it was 'simpler'. Simpler than alb, stole and chasuble?

It's a similar story with a church I've been to recently, where their informal "family" Eucharist sees them leave off the chasuble and simply wear alb and stole. This apparently is an informal way of dressing. I find this slightly hard to comprehend.
 
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
I find the reasons expressed by Evangelicals for not wearing the chasuble,rather odd and not convincing.
I suppose that it is their puritanical, calvinistic approach to liturgical matters.
In the scandinavian Lutheran churches,all presiders wear the alb with chasuble,even if they are Evangelical or Low-church,
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I had to laugh when an evangelical colleague, dressed in cassock, surplice, hood and scarf - possibly also bands - said he preferred this vesture as it was 'simpler'. Simpler than alb, stole and chasuble?

It's a similar story with a church I've been to recently, where their informal "family" Eucharist sees them leave off the chasuble and simply wear alb and stole. This apparently is an informal way of dressing. I find this slightly hard to comprehend.
I was once told by a priest that he wasn't going to put on an amice because "what does wandering round with a cloth tied round my neck say to twenty-first century people?" He was, at that point, wearing an alb, stole, and chasuble.

Thurible
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Thurible posts:
quote:
I was once told by a priest that he wasn't going to put on an amice because "what does wandering round with a cloth tied round my neck say to twenty-first century people?" He was, at that point, wearing an alb, stole, and chasuble.
I had a similar experience, with a cleric going on about how a chasuble inhibits a missional strategy towards the world outside, where authority is diminished by out-of-context ritual garb. He was wearing a cassock-alb with stole.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
In reality, I doubt whether most of the folk in the pews, and definitely pretty much all the ones outside, really care much what frock you wear.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I find the reasons expressed by Evangelicals for not wearing the chasuble,rather odd and not convincing.

What about this reason - the concept of 'special clothes' for those with particular roles / functions in the church gathering is utterly absent from the New Testament. Correct me if I'm wrong...
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I find the reasons expressed by Evangelicals for not wearing the chasuble,rather odd and not convincing.

What about this reason - the concept of 'special clothes' for those with particular roles / functions in the church gathering is utterly absent from the New Testament. Correct me if I'm wrong...
In the Apocalypse when St. John sees Christ with the clouds. Christ is dressed in priestly garb.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In the Apocalypse when St. John sees Christ with the clouds. Christ is dressed in priestly garb.

Maybe so, but what does that have to do with any special clothes that should be worn by people with specific roles / functions in our church services?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In reality, I doubt whether most of the folk in the pews, and definitely pretty much all the ones outside, really care much what frock you wear.

True, but they probably wouldn't care whether the liturgy was in accordance with scriptural orthodoxy either. Not a particularly relevant comment if I may say so, Karl.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In the Apocalypse when St. John sees Christ with the clouds. Christ is dressed in priestly garb.

Maybe so, but what does that have to do with any special clothes that should be worn by people with specific roles / functions in our church services?
Because the priest serves the liturgy in the person of Christ.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Should the priest also get tattood and have a sword coming out his mouth then? Or do you take some of the imagery literally and some metaphorically?

In any case, I thought the New Testament describes all Christians as priests... What is the biblical basis for this special 'priest' role you talk about? [Razz]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Should the priest also get tattood and have a sword coming out his mouth then? Or do you take some of the imagery literally and some metaphorically?

All one need do is use commonsense.



quote:
In any case, I thought the New Testament describes all Christians as priests... What is the biblical basis for this special 'priest' role you talk about? [Razz]
The Apostles.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I believe that distinctive vesture is paradoxically a good safeguard against clericalism. Inevitably, whether you believe in the 'priesthood of all believers' or not, in practice one person (or maybe two or three, but rarely more) is going to be the focus of attention during an act of worship. If that person wears clothes and adopts a style which minimises his/her personality, s/he will be seen in role rather than as 'Father So-and-so' or 'Pastor x'. Hence less likely to be hero-worshipped or treated as special outside the liturgy.

I know there are probably equally strong arguments the other way, but I am just defending the value of 'uniform'. Which does not depend on an exalted or exaggerated theology of priesthood.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I believe that distinctive vesture is paradoxically a good safeguard against clericalism. Inevitably, whether you believe in the 'priesthood of all believers' or not, in practice one person (or maybe two or three, but rarely more) is going to be the focus of attention during an act of worship. If that person wears clothes and adopts a style which minimises his/her personality, s/he will be seen in role rather than as 'Father So-and-so' or 'Pastor x'. Hence less likely to be hero-worshipped or treated as special outside the liturgy.

I know there are probably equally strong arguments the other way, but I am just defending the value of 'uniform'. Which does not depend on an exalted or exaggerated theology of priesthood.

Agreed. This is why I find highly personalised vestments to be very distasteful. It's not what they're for!
 
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
Mr.South Coast Kevin,
The Church does not only believe in the Bible,but also in the Tradition.
Both the Western and the Eastern Church have been using liturgical vestiture for ages.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In reality, I doubt whether most of the folk in the pews, and definitely pretty much all the ones outside, really care much what frock you wear.

True, but they probably wouldn't care whether the liturgy was in accordance with scriptural orthodoxy either. Not a particularly relevant comment if I may say so, Karl.
Not directly relevant perhaps.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In the Apocalypse when St. John sees Christ with the clouds. Christ is dressed in priestly garb.

Maybe so, but what does that have to do with any special clothes that should be worn by people with specific roles / functions in our church services?
On observation made to me some time ago seemed fairly accurate. Whatever clothes the worship leaders was wearing had become special clothes by reason of their role. They always signify something. Do they signify an attempt to link us with the formal clothing of the early church? Do they signify an attempt to link us to Renaissance princelings? Do they attempt to link us to Hanoverian academics? Do they demonstrate an admiration for those who got their suits off the rack at Harry Rosen's in 1994 (a comment I heard of the preacher at Holy Trinity in Toronto)? Or do they show us our bonds with golfers of the turn of the millennium? They never mean nothing, even when the wearer does not think that there is any meaning attached.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
They never mean nothing, even when the wearer does not think that there is any meaning attached.

Indeed. There is no "neutral".
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I find the reasons expressed by Evangelicals for not wearing the chasuble,rather odd and not convincing.

What about this reason - the concept of 'special clothes' for those with particular roles / functions in the church gathering is utterly absent from the New Testament. Correct me if I'm wrong...
Given that most of the NT was written by people who were Christian to other Christians, it should not be surprising that it is not an encyclopedia of how the 1st century church conducted its liturgy.

Some people assume that because St Paul never mentions the Virgin Birth that he either didn't know about it, or didn't believe in it. That seems to me a similar method of bad reasoning.

The only thing we can conclude is that vestments are not mentioned in the NT (apart from St John's Revelation, in the scenes depicting the heavenly liturgy). The question might arise, though, whether we should pattern our liturgy after that which was revealed to John. I know what my answer to that would be. [Smile]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Should the priest also get tattood and have a sword coming out his mouth then? Or do you take some of the imagery literally and some metaphorically?

All one need do is use commonsense.



quote:
In any case, I thought the New Testament describes all Christians as priests... What is the biblical basis for this special 'priest' role you talk about? [Razz]
The Apostles.

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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.

A priestly kingdom or a kingdom of priests? There is a difference.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Should the priest also get tattood and have a sword coming out his mouth then? Or do you take some of the imagery literally and some metaphorically?

All one need do is use commonsense.



quote:
In any case, I thought the New Testament describes all Christians as priests... What is the biblical basis for this special 'priest' role you talk about? [Razz]
The Apostles.

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.
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.

[ 19. July 2013, 09:46: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
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".)
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Anglican Priests: Doing the Holy Spirit's job since 1549.

[ 19. July 2013, 16:22: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
What's this to do with vestments then? Y'all have gone all Purgatorial.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
no vestments at all (in fact a rather hideous purple shirt!)

A bishop, or someone masquerading as one?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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 ...).
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
They're allowed in the Diocese of Gloucester.

Thurible
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Is a Diocesan actually allowed to, in effect, dispense his clergy from obeying the Canons?
 
Posted by Crotalus (# 4959) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
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!]

Never mind - I don't expect the Baby Jesus cries all that much....

Ian J.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
@Bishop's Fingers

Lol. [Big Grin]

Do priests who wear the stole over the chasuble adduce any reason/authority therefor?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Even when I wear a proper alb, rather than a cassock-alb, the alb and stole look does not work for me. I have to do either thr whole thing or cassock and rochet (being a pointy head) not to look a prat, though some would, etc....

PD
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
No Eucharistic vestments in Milton Keynes, which is ecumenical - only evensong robes. They have weekly eucharists as their main and only service.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Even when I wear a proper alb, rather than a cassock-alb, the alb and stole look does not work for me. I have to do either thr whole thing or cassock and rochet (being a pointy head) not to look a prat, though some would, etc....

PD

I am reliably informed that apparalled amices reduce pratness quite considerably.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
But I think that alb and stole, even with apparelled amice, looks best on those of a leaner and more ascetic appearance. PD has, if photos of him are to be believed, a more substantial and imposing presence, which lends itself better to something flowing- chasuble, choir robes or gown.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But I think that alb and stole, even with apparelled amice, looks best on those of a leaner and more ascetic appearance. PD has, if photos of him are to be believed, a more substantial and imposing presence, which lends itself better to something flowing- chasuble, choir robes or gown.

Besides, it would be ridiculous to use one mediaeval vestment (the apparelled amice) and not the rest(i.e. the chasuble).

Quite incidentally, I wonder if anyone wears alb, stole and maniple [Two face]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But I think that alb and stole, even with apparelled amice, looks best on those of a leaner and more ascetic appearance. PD has, if photos of him are to be believed, a more substantial and imposing presence, which lends itself better to something flowing- chasuble, choir robes or gown.

I take your point. Piped black cassock rather than the full purple, which would be slimming, and a fuller Victorian surplice to cover the prelatical paunch. However, if he must be albed (and one must be from time to time) apparels and a some chaste but elegant embroidery on the stole would distract the eye from the unfortunate visuals of theological substance.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Shipmates will forgive the double post, as it provides me with the opportunity to assure Vade Mecum that there are clergy who honour the diaconal saints and affirm their ministry of service by using the maniple when in alb & stole.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Please note, PD, that it was not I who started talking about paunches.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Shipmates will forgive the double post, as it provides me with the opportunity to assure Vade Mecum that there are clergy who honour the diaconal saints and affirm their ministry of service by using the maniple when in alb & stole.

In Montréal, it's required.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But I think that alb and stole, even with apparelled amice, looks best on those of a leaner and more ascetic appearance. PD has, if photos of him are to be believed, a more substantial and imposing presence, which lends itself better to something flowing- chasuble, choir robes or gown.

Besides, it would be ridiculous to use one mediaeval vestment (the apparelled amice) and not the rest(i.e. the chasuble).

Quite incidentally, I wonder if anyone wears alb, stole and maniple [Two face]

Most of our sets are only stole and chasuble, sadly. Our violet set does have a maniple, and when I wear that set I wear the maniple too (in addition to the amice and the alb, of course).
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Sarum cassocks are a lot kinder to those of us who are a bit broad in the beam. Especially if, like me, your weight varies with the seasons.

PD
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0