Should a Cope or Vestment be used at the celebration of Holy Communion? Of course, pre-Reformation practice prescribed the use of the Vestment (Chasuble), and after the Oxford Movement it came back into vogue. However, the Caroline Divines used a cope with surplice and tippet. Is one more correct than the other? The cope and chasuble of course have a common origin, but is there a preferable option for Anglicans?
It sounds to me like the Cope has a very venerable pedigree in Anglican usage, and I'm not convinced that it appeared out of nothing in the nineteenth century; on the other hand the Chasuble is a very clear instance of not being used for centuries and only re-appearing in recent history... So by that logic the Cope is the far more preferable vestment.
The Cope had the authority of tradition in Anglicanism, and it was prescribed by the Canons. However, properly, the Cope was for choir offices and other such non-sacramental duties in the pre-Reformation church. I suppose the question is, when an aberration of tradition becomes tradition, which are we bound to follow?
The Ornaments Rubric is often seen as an authority. "And here is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all Times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth." This first appeared in the 1559 edition of the Prayer Book of Elizabeth 1. Edward's reign began on the 28th day of January 1847, so the second year is taken to be from the 28th day of January 1548 to the 27th day of January 1549. The 1549 Prayer Book was passed by parliament on the 21st day of January 1549. It contained this rubric “Upon the day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the Holy Communion, the Priest, that shall execute the Holy ministry, shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say: a white Albe, plain, with a vestment or Cope. And where there may be many Priests or Deacons, there so many shall be ready to help the Priest in the ministration, as shall be requisite; and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, Albes with Tunicles.” This was replaced in 1552 with this rubric “And here it is to be noted, that the minister, at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope; but . . . being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only.” It would seem on the surface the restoration of the classic traditional vestments of the Church has some strong support, and certainly seems like a reasonable reading. In 1662 the rubric was revised to read “And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be RETAINED and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.” The Puritans at this stage it seems were keen to remove the requirement to wear the surplice (this may well have been more an issues of Matins and Evensong), none the less, there desire was not upheld. This is but a review of the rubric. In terms of the usage of the Church one must acknowledge that at some stage the use of classic and traditional vestments must have fallen into some disuse, and it's revival during the period of and following the Oxford Movement from the 1830's was certainly a source of some broad consternation. In summary, therefore I would conclude that the Anglican use of vestments is varied. The use of the chasuble seems mandatory in some places and prohibited in others. My feeling is that just as clothes maketh not the man, so vestments do not make the sacrament. Nonetheless I am concerned when my surgeon appears in greasy overalls, or my mechanic in a three piece suit. Of preeminent importance is that all things be done decently and in order. A mantra it would seem often lost on the modern church.
Proper and scholarly Philip, as always, thank you. If the rubric was changed in the 1552 BCP, what does the scholarship say about the fact that under Elizabeth and under the 1662 BCP, they actually went back to the 1549 Rubric? That seems like a pretty extraordinary piece of detail that often goes unnoticed.
This is how Archbishop Gordon instructs the clergy: the cope is an outer garment and should not properly be worn past the conclusion of ante-communion, except for the recessional. The chasuble (or dalmatic for the deacons) is the proper Eucharistic vestment and it is traditional in the jurisdiction to give one to an ordinand at his ordination. In my circles, those who would contemplate celebrating with a cope also tend to be 'North-enders.'
Occasionally among the Anglo-Catholics who tend to a churchmanship that approximates the Tridentine era of Catholicism.
In the Diocese of Sydney where 'the vestment' is banned, catholic minded Anglicans tend to wear copes, and I know a couple of them where the rig for High Mass is Cope, Dalmatic and Tunicle - and no where near the north end!
Thats unique imo. I wasn't aware there were still Dioceses (outside of Ireland) where chasubles were still banned.
Shane, can you please develop the idea of "churchmanship resembling Tridentine"? Are there many Anglican clergy to whom this would apply?
Most clergy of Anglo-Catholic stripe liturgically nowadays tend to approximate "Tridentine" Roman Catholicism. Fiddleback chasubles, maniples, six lights on the Altar, saying the epistle and gospel at altar, cottas, lace, et cetera.
Aiden, have a browse through St Silas' website. (Church of England, Kentish Town, London.) Should interest you. http://www.saintsilas.org.uk/
Amazing. This resembles Catholicism so much more than the Novus Ordite. Very impressive Marian devotion including a pilgrimage to Lourdes. Also mention of the pontif. Have never seen anything like this before. Have been to C Of I services number of years ago. The minister wore just a sautane and surplice and I now know was extremely "low". Do you worship here?
So I'm really tying to find the answer to the point that @Philip Barrington brought up... Is it really the case that the standard BCP Ornaments Rubric points to the 1549 regulations on vestments? And do those regulations really mandate a chasuble and/or cope, and albs, and tunicles? (what are tunicles by the way) I don't know where to check for any of this... Here is the text again (courtesy of our friend Philip) “Upon the day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the Holy Communion, the Priest, that shall execute the Holy ministry, shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say: a white Albe, plain, with a vestment or Cope. And where there may be many Priests or Deacons, there so many shall be ready to help the Priest in the ministration, as shall be requisite; and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, Albes with Tunicles.”
It would point to the 1549 regulation as the BCP Ornaments Rubric refers to the 2nd year of the reign of King Edward VI. Tunicles are essentially dalmatics with less ornamentation. http://www.vestments.pl/userdata/gfx/5283d88adb467e0302348d962ec4365a.jpg
Edward's reign began on the 28th day of January 1847, so the second year is to be from the 28th day of January 1548 to the 27th day of January 1549. Fact Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VI_of_England ¶ Upon the date and at the tyme appoincted for the ministracion of the holy Communion, the Priest that shal execute the holy ministery, shall put upon hym the vesture appoincted for that ministracion, that is to saye: a white Albe plain, with a vestement or Cope. And where there be many Priestes, or Decons, there so many shalbe ready to helpe the Priest, in the ministracion, as shalbee requisite: And shall have upon them lykewise the vestures appointed for their ministery, that is to saye, Albes with tunacles. Then shall the Clerkes syng in Englishe for the office, or Introite, (as they call it,) a Psalme appointed for that daie. Fact Check: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/Communion_1549.htm The 1549 prayer book was passed in the House of Lords 21 January 1549 as The Act of Uniformity 1549. Of the 18 Bishops present 10 voted in favour. Bishop Gardner is believed to have said 'it is patient with a Catholic interpretation'. Fact Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1549#cite_note-4 That effectively means that for the last week of the 2nd year of the reign of Edward VI this was clearly in place. Preceding this was the Sacrament Act of 1547, which required that the sacrament be administered in both kinds. The rites in place were those that had been received from time past, and on my understanding there was a variety of approaches used centred around the latin rite. Fact Check: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw6/1/1/section/VIII So I would conclude that for 51 of the 52 weeks Clergy wore for the Holy Communion (masse) whatever they had been wearing from time past which I would take to include Chasubles, Copes, Dalmatics and Tunicles. The Act of Uniformity clearly spells out what that might be, and on the basis of the mood of the time I would take that to be an attempt to moderate the extreme positions. I think that the BCP 1661/2 rubric was intended to preserve the status quo by replicating that which had been in the Elizabethan rite. The rubric in that rite clearly intended to return the Church to a sane and livable position following the pendulum between the reigns of her siblings Edward and Mary, and I think it did intend to refer to the Act of Uniformity - and notably the rubric in 1549 suggests what was understood. Article 9 of the 10 Articles of 1536 says: “[of them]… and all other like laudable customs, rites, and ceremonies, be not to be condemned and cast away, but to be used and continued, as things good and laudable, to put us in remembrance of those spiritual things that they do signify, no suffering them to be forgotten, or to be put in oblivion, but renewing them in our memories from time to time” In a sense this was some of Henry VIII's general wavering and trying to preserve a balance that would allow for some reform whilst retaining much that had sustained his faith. Like much of what came to be the Elizabethan settlement there was room for discussion. Of course it should be noted that for many it will seem bizarre that it is a matter for the English Parliament to decide what clergy are going to wear!
Then how can we explain that for the next few hundred years Anglican priests dressed in a cassock, surplice and tippet, and the bishops added to it a chimere? Can we assume that the cassock was assumed in the above text? Even if it was assumed, the next layer is not described as "surplice and tippet", or for bishops it does not say, "rochet and chimere"? Even Archbishop Laud exemplifies the classic Anglican "look". Whence the disparity between the text and the actual practice?
Disparity resulted from the Elizabethian Settlement. Rather than taking the near Roman position permitted in the 1549 BCP, many orthodox Bishops reflect a middle way. Choir dress was primarily the bit referred to in the ornaments rubric, considering its position at Mattins instead of Holy Communion. The policy was mostly promoted under Queen Elizabeth (correct me if I'm wrong), and so Bishops from henceforth merely wore what they had always worn. Taking into account the early relationship between the Divines and the Eastern Church, copes reflect nearly more closely reflect the form of Eastern vestments and so the Laudian Bishops would have promoted such wear. After the Restoration of course, most of the vestments were tossed except for what was prescribed directly in the Canons.