(no subject)

[tree_and_leaf]

izhilzha asked:

Is there a particular meaning to the pattern on the robes that the priest and his deacon/sub-deacons wear during Mass? One looks (sensibly) like a cross, but the other like an "H" (seen from the back).

Alas, this is one that doesn't have a particularly meaningful answer (at least as far as the sub-deacon and the deacon's vestments go).

On terminology: Izhilzha is talking about a High Mass*, which is a Mass celebrated by the priest with the assistance of a deacon and a subdeacon, and several servers, who carry candles, or swing the thurible, or help set up the altar for the consecration of the bread and wine. You don't need all this for a valid Mass, but if you just have the priest (who may or may not have a server to help her) then it's a Low Mass. High Mass is very definitely an Anglo-Catholic thing (within Anglicanism, that is).

Deacon: deacon is the lowest grade of ordination. Deacons can carry out weddings and funerals. You get permanent deacons, who spend all their life as deacons and concentrate on pastoral ministry, but you have to spend a year as a deacon before you are ordained a priest. You also don't stop being a deacon when you become a priest, so often in the context of a Mass, the deacon will be another priest from the parish. The deacon's main role in the service is to assist the priest, and to read the Gospel. Sub-deacons can be lay people (I've done it a number of times), but still get to wear the fancy vestments; their role in the service is mostly confined to reading the Epistle and looking pretty/ pious.

There's no rules about what you can or can't put on a chasuble or dalmatic (what the deacon wears) or tunicle (what the sub-deacon wears), though if you've ever spent any time at bad vestments you may come to think it isn't a bad idea.

Often the chasuble will have a cross on the back (and front), as in this nice black set**; the symbolism is obvious, especially in an eastward facing Mass, where the priest spends a large chunk of time facing away from the congregation, so as you look at the altar you can also focus on the cross (rather than on the priest's face, as in a westward-facing Mass). But you might just have a panel of ornamental fabric - as in this rather fine antique French set. The only real rule is that the deacon and sub-deacon's kit is less fancy; the 'H' shape, or vertical bars, is common, but I don't believe it has any meaning.

The chasuble/ dalmatic/ tunicle is worn over a cassock, an amice (which is a square white cloth with strings at the corner which you tie round your neck to hide your collar) and an alb, a long white collarless garment. All the vestments have short prayers associated them which the priest says as he puts them on, though the only one I can remember off hand is the one for the amice which says something about the helmet of salvation (this makes more sense than you'd think, because to put it on securely you have to put the cloth on your head, tie the strings round your chest, and then pull the amice proper down and adjust it so it lies well). Actually it has a practical purpose as well as a symbolic one, because it stops you sweating into the alb or, worse still, the chasuble/ dalmatic. Amices are much easier to wash.

The dalmatic, incidentally, used to be Byzantine court dress; most of the vestments seem to originate in ordinary "good" clothes.

* There's a good guide to what happens at Mass, with some reasonable pictures, here. NB that the 'fogginess' of some of the pictures is not poor picture quality, it's smoke.///

**The whole gallery is worth a look, if you're interested in vestments, as it explains what the priest wears, but I warn you that (a) Fr Yenda apparently can't spell and (b) he has disgustingly camp taste in lacy albs and (c) very few people actually wear maniples these days, though - unlike albs made entirely from lace - I think that's a bit of a shame. Though given my natural clumsiness, possibly I shouldn't try to revive the custom, as it ceases to be pious and reverent when you catch the chalice as you turn round....

Comments

[adelheid]

Having had a look at "Bad Vestments" I think that perhaps I shouldn't make you anything as a present: our taste obviously diverges quite a bit. (although I admit that the feather boa is going rather too far...)

[zeborah]

I quite like a bunch of those too - especially the flames. Theoretically I see their point about flames coming from "that direction" but the only association it brought to my mind was the burning bush. (...Albeit quite a lot of burning bush.)

[nineveh_uk]

I thought the passion flowers were rather lovely.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, as I just said to Zeborah, so do I; it was a fine piece of work, and symbolically speaking quite appropriate (I suspect that the blogger isn't botanically clued up enough to recognise them...)

[shewhostaples]

Yes, so did I. And entirely appropriate - the clue's in the name!

[tree_and_leaf]

I think part of the problem is that the blogger was too bad at botany to ID them correctly (which is his problem, not the stole-maker's...)

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, the flame cope was actually OK; I enjoy the blog, but I do think he overdoes it sometimes. And the flower stole, though not the style I'd default to, was a lovely bit of work and I see no reason not to use it.

The feather boa stole, on the other hand....

[tree_and_leaf]

:(

Actually, I really liked the stoles you did for charis_kalos; they were lovely fabrics, and I liked the unfussy way you used them. I'm not (unlike the blogger, admittedly) slavishly devoted to traditional patterns; I think my main thing is that I'm not keen on modern illustrative styles of embroidery - abstract stuff can be very good, though (and I thought Bad Vestments guy was being entirely unfair about the passion flower stole; it was a really nice bit of work). The main problem with the blog, actually, is that he doesn't seem to get that there are different context, and that while some of the things he mocks are pretty ghastly (the stole with all the little tiny faces was just a bit creepy, though that might say more about the things watching Doctor Who as a child did to my psychology *g*), other entries would work perfectly well in different contexts. You wouldn't want an antique French chasuble for doing a school service, after all (well, I wouldn't. Bad Vestments Guy may well do, but that doesn't make him right).

[cheyinka]

I've been told that the lines on a dalmatic are a reference to St. Lawrence, a deacon who was grilled to death for refusing to give over the "treasure" of the Church. (That is, they're grill marks!) I have no idea whether this actually has any basis, but it seems at least possible...

[tree_and_leaf]

Aha! It's a good answer, anyway :)

[kindkit]

Am I right in thinking that some of what's going on at Bad Vestments is actually ideological? For instance, the site owner seems to connect what zie sees as overly bright colors with "pseudo-Christian liberalism."

[tree_and_leaf]

Some of it - and I get the impression I wouldn't agree with all the blogger's ecclesiastical views, at least going on the blogroll.

But of course often the kind of vestments people wear are an expression of ideology, though it's really more a traditionalism-modernism split than a conservative-liberal one. Or at least it depends what's meant by 'liberalism'. What the blogger is mostly objecting to, it seems to me, is the loss of a clearly defined set of symbols, which they would connect with a particular kind of liberal theology. The first objection I agree with, more or less; I don't think the link to liberalism entirely stands up.

For one thing, I know quite a lot of people who have conservative tastes in vestments but are very liberal in their theology, and for another, economic and other non-theological factors come into play as well - not in the sense that richer churches can afford better quality (this is very definitely an area where money doesn't buy taste, as the really wacky sort of vestment tends to be a special commission), but in that rich or high-profile places have the resources to replace things more often. And at that stage what results tends to be more a reflection of the taste of the fabric guild, who may or may not be aware of the theological/ political signals they seem to be sending, or indeed particularly care what the incumbent wants.... (like the verger or the flower ladies, the fabric guild theoretically has no status or authority but in fact has a great deal of power over the rest of the parish).

[kindkit]

I can certainly understand how it's possible to be aesthetically/symbologically conservative but theologically liberal. If I were a believer, I'd be very much drawn aesthetically to Anglo-Catholic or traditional Roman Catholic worship, but my social views are all liberal/left.

Anyway, thanks for the explanations! It's interesting.

(Hey, do you ever watch the show Lewis? I've been confused ever since that show started about whether the character of James Hathaway is supposed to be an Anglo-Catholic or a Roman Catholic, and an expert opinion would be valued.)

[tree_and_leaf]

Huh. I haven't seen much Lewis, but he always struck me as more of a lapsed Roman than a lapsed Anglican, but that's pretty impressionistic and I'm not entirely sure why. On the other hand, wiki informs me that he did his training (as far as he did) in Oxford, which I think would imply he was an Anglican, and presumably a S. Stephen's House man. I'm almost certain there's never been an RC seminary in Oxford.

(Though it's entirely possible that the writers didn't bother to check that, and they expect us to think he's RC).

Anglo-Catholics are an odd bunch politically. They're either very conservative (if not Jacobite) or unreconstructed socialists of one kind or another. I'm one of the latter kind. And they're a very mixed bag on the ordination of women issue, despite the press' belief that we all hate the idea. (And then there's sexuality and Anglo-Catholicism, but that's a whole other post).

[tree_and_leaf]

And, of course, there's a big definition between what people outside the church usually mean by 'liberal Christians', where they mean liberal on issues of gender and sexuality, and what 'liberal' tends to mean within theology, which is a particular way of looking at the Bible, and often a sceptical attitude to traditional doctrines. I'm a liberal in the first sense, but not the second, which is why I tend to avoid the term 'liberal catholic', it's too open to misunderstanding.

[em_h]

Deacons in the diocese of Toronto cannot carry out weddings, btw. But this is of course a matter of diocesan regulation, not inherent in the office of deacon. I'm just as glad, though ...

[tree_and_leaf]

Really? How fascinating. I wonder why?

[em_h]

No one knows. It's quite a recent regulation and everyone is finding it confusing (especially some people with new assistant curates whom they had hoped could take on some of the wedding work). I suspect it's all to do with the currently troubled state of marriage in the church -- there's a motion on the table for Synod which would get us out of the marrying business altogether -- but the point of specifically barring deacons at this stage is hard to figure out. Maybe they think we're more likely to run rogue and start marrying all the gays in town?

[tree_and_leaf]

there's a motion on the table for Synod which would get us out of the marrying business altogether

How can you not marry people? Or does it just propose not carrying out legally binding marriages?

[em_h]

Well, much of this is still being discussed, and details are unclear. I also think it's unlikely to be adopted at this Synod. But it does look like we're heading in the direction of no longer acting as an arm of the state in performing legal marriages. Whether the religious ceremony continues to be called "marriage" may be in question. What it means for about marriage as sacrament (which is another question under argument) is unclear. But that we will at some point no longer exercise the option of acting as the state's representative in marriages seems fairly likely.

[tree_and_leaf]

Gosh.

I'd be deeply opposed, myself, to any statement that marriage isn't a sacrament (I just think it's a sacrament that operates without need for the church to bless it, and is not restricted to heterosexuals...) Though I think the church ought to bless it.

[forthwritten]

Over Easter, we discovered the best way to persuade someone to clean the thurible.

Basically, there was black tarry gunk on it which made it sticky when you tried to open it and generally annoying. I once had to do it with my bare hands because it would. not. open. People also got tarry black smears on their albs if they weren't careful.

Turns out that if the priest gets tarry black smears on his chasuble, by the next time you see the thurible it will be the cleanest and shinest it's been since it was bought.

[tree_and_leaf]

Hee!

I got such smears on my cotta once. They still haven't entirely come out (wd be grateful for any hints?)

[wychwood]

You put the amice on your *head* while you fasten it? I am trying to work out how that actually helps! :)

(we use what I suspect you are calling "cassock albs", so I've only ever worn an amice when I was at university, but we used to drape the square around the neck, tucking into collars as necessary, and then cross the strings around the body before tying into a bow at the front. Do you do significantly otherwise?)

[tree_and_leaf]

I would drape the amice over my head (as if it was a headscarf, i.e. not covering my face), tie the strings, then pull it down to tuck into the collar of the cassock. Then the alb goes on over the top. I think this method is easier if you have an apparelled amice (the embroidered band that forms a collar), though of course not everyone uses those. But I think the primary reason you're told to put them on that way is the vesting prayer.

I've never seen amices worn with cassock albs before!

[wychwood]

Haha, amices and cassock albs would be serious overkill! No, sorry; when I was an undergraduate we used round-necked cassocks which needed amices, as opposed to the cassock albs I've used before and since.

[tree_and_leaf]

Sorry, was being thick. Or tired...