Cope or Vestment?

Canon XXIV - In all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, the holy Communion shall be administered upon principal Feast-days, sometimes by the Bishop if he be present, and sometimes by the Dean, and at sometimes by a Canon or Prebendary, the principal Minister using a decent Cope, and being assisted with the Gospeller and Epistler agreeably, according to the Advertisements published An. 7 Eliz. The said Communion to be Administered at such Times, and with such Limitation as is specified in the Book of Common Prayer; provided, that no such Limitation by any Construction shall be allowed of, but that all Deans, Wardens, Masters or Heads of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, Prebendaries, Canons, Vicars, Petty Canons, Singing-Men, and all others of the Foundation, shall receive the Communion Four Times Yearly at the least.

Canon XXV - In the Time of Divine Service and Prayers in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, when there is no Communion, it shall be sufficient to wear Surplices: saving that all Deans, Masters and Heads of Collegiate Churches, Canons and Prebendaries being Graduates, shall daily at the Times both of Prayer and Preaching, wear with their Surplices such Hoods as are agreeable to their Degrees.

I'm sure there are other references, I just was taking the two I am most familiar with.

 

Percy Dearmer discusses the Ornaments Rubric in 'The Parson's Handbook'.

http://anglicanhistory.org/dearmer/handbook/1899/intro.html

 

I think it is fair to say that Anglicans have been generous in application rather than legalistic. There were strong moves amongst the puritans to dispense with the surplice which I think is some of the motivation of the canons of 1604. Anglicans in general I think are better at decently and in order than they are at following the letter of the law.

Personally I think chasubles are allowable and reasonable, but I can be happy with Alb and Stole, Surplice and stole, and probably not so happy with Surplice and Tippet, and less happy with shirtsleeves and jeans.

​

 

We must keep in mind that for many years the Holy Communion was not a weekly service in many parishes (and certainly not daily). Thus, it should not be surprising to see the Bishops' portraits typically done in choir dress.

 

Shirt sleeves and jeans, lol

 

I have to say I was more than disappointed, and to my mind it did not meet the decently and in order test. If I felt that was all that was on offer I would have to think about swimming a river or two.

 

Right so this doesn't really have a complete enumeration of vestments as the Ornaments Rubric has.... The key question for me remains, what was the legislated set of vestments? If you were a new ordinand, where would you go to learn what vestments you were to wear?

 

Indeed. There are Novus Ordites who dress casually, I refer to them as Fr Trendy. The SSPX look as a priest should with the solemnity of their vocation

 

Well, having digested all this very learned and arcane conversation, I am now going to daringly wear a cope for the celebration of the Eucharist for Christ the King, the patronal festival of the mother church of our parish, tomorrow.
As far as I am aware, only the bishop & canons usually turn out in copes in our diocese (the Eucharistic norm is the chasuble), but I have been given a rather splendid white & gold cope, which I think will be most appropriate for our feast day. What do you reckon?

 

I would ask the Bishop for permission, if it were me.. after all he is the head of the Church in your diocese, and it's not so much the priest's job to innovate or stand out but rather to serve the bishop in growing the diocese as a whole...

 

In some parts of our Diocese the priest may wear a cope on a great festival up to the Greeting of Peace, and then exchange it for a Chasuble for the Great Thanksgiving, returning to the Chasuble before the recessional. That might be a sort of each way bet option.

Happy Christ the King!

 

Appropriately, that's the thing to do nowadays. It might also be wise to have a procession, but alas it may be a tad late for that.

 

Just wanted to bring this up again, as I came across a very illuminating piece of scholarship online, regarding the historic Anglican vestments

This article shows that it's somewhat misleading to merely quote the Ornaments rubric from 1549 and say that that's basically what the ornaments are. It omits the fact that the ornaments (vestments) were revised by the order of Archbishop Matthew Parker in 1566, and things like the chasuble were not listed as allowed (but the puritan violations were abolished as well):
http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2011/08/ornaments-and-ornament-rubric.html

This in short explains how it is that the cassock, surplice and tippet form the classical foundation for Anglican vestments, and dispels the mystery for why this and not other things were what Anglican priests had worn for centuries...

If preferred, here is a simpler article to this effect:
http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2011/08/vestments.html
"In 1559 Elizabeth, and her cautious Statesmen and Churchmen, resolved to restore the surplice, but, unwilling to shock prejudice by too violent and sudden a change, induced the Parliament to let the rule of 1549 stand for the moment, while at the same time it gave the Queen authority to “take other order” on the subject with the assent of the Metropolitan. Determined to wait till she could carry public opinion with her, the Queen allowed seven years to elapse before she exercised this right. Then she issued Archbishop Parker’s “Advertisements,” which ordered that at the Holy Communion the officiating clergy should in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches use the cope (which had never been regarded as a “sacrificial” garment), and that at all other times and in all other Churches a surplice only should be used."