Friends, I am looking at examples of Anglican vestments. Here are some examples I've found: Moderate attire: Laudian attire: Cassock, surplice, tippet, cassock, and bishop's academic hood/scarf Holy Communion Blessed Cranmer showing off an Elizabethan Tippet:
very interesting, thanks Consular. Are you perhaps able to give a brief introduction to the symbolism of the different Anglican gowns and dress?
The Alb is a rather dumpy-looking, thick garment. I always thought it looked like a shower curtain. Its whiteness represents the purity of the soul washed in the blood of the Lamb, which can be applied to the surplice as well. The stole scarf has a different colour for each season of the Liturgical Year: Purple for Advent and Lent (Dec. and March, approximately). It symbolises penance. Green is used for "Ordinary", Pentecost, or Trinity time (most of January & February; then June-November). Gold is used for Christmas and Easter. It symbolizes joy and triumph. Red is used for Pentecost and the memorial of a martyr. It symbolises fire (for the Holy Spirit) and blood. Black is usually not used, since it smacks of Roman Catholic requiem Masses for the dead. It also looks like a tippet, so that'd be confusing. Low Church/Free/Methodist sympathisers just wear a dress shirt or suit. It's called Secularism. The Laudian vestments are English developments of Roman Catholic garb of the middle ages. They consist of black cassock, white surplice, and black tippet, or scarf. The Cassock is just a long black robe. It can look rather like a monk's habit to those who aren't familiar. Some have 33 buttons, symbolizing the traditional number of years Christ lived on Earth. They are black to symbolise the clergyman's rejection of worldly goods, and his continuing repentance of sin so as to be a good shepherd. Anglican cassock: The Surplice is much lighter and thinner in material than its thick brother, the Alb. Its name comes from super-pellicium, and just means "over the pelt". They were developed in northern Christian countries to wear over the fur pelt clothing which some northern clergy had to wear due to cold climate. The super-pellicium added that extra warmth. Altar servers in High Laudian circles wear the cassock and surplice, without the tippet. It's a very dignified appearance. Also, remember that Anglican services used to be 2-3 hours long on Sundays, so one had to be comfortable.
The tippet is a development after the 1604 canons as with the bands. The original line up was cassock, surplice, hood, and cope in cathedrals or collegiate chapels. The minister was also instructed to wear a coif in the 1604 canons. The bishop wears either a black or red chimere, over which a tippet is worn, with appropriate academic hood, if applicable. The black chimere signifies that the bishop does not hold a Doctorate. The Laudians were advocates of wearing the cope, so they would have also worn a cope over the cassock, surplice, tippet, and hood.
Slight addition: the Bishop wears a rochet rather than a surplice. (See 4th pic down in original post - in the Anglican tradition it's a long white vestment with sleeves gathered at the wrists.
Thought I'd just mention, that as I was reading through "Jane Eyre" I came across a part which said "the priest waited in his white surplice at the lowly alter" and thanks to this thread I know what a surplice is and can now imagine the scene accurately!
This was a tract, printed in 1833, encouraging clergy to use the surplice in divine service: http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/misc/cuming_surplice1833.html
Perhaps I'm reading this thread wrong, but could anyone tell me if there is a difference between traditional Anglican house dress and choir dress? If I am not mistaken, the surplice is supposed be worn even when the priest goes about his daily duties, even outside of liturgical events? The same goes for the tippet?
A six part series on AngloCatholic vestments: http://stevenrindahl.com/2018/08/14/why-are-you-dressed-like-that-part-1/ My training was that if you are out and about town you wear the clerical attire: collared shirt, trousers, jacket or priest's cloak. If you are on the church property, you should put on your cassock. The surplice and other accoutrements are only necessary when you are preparing to lead an office.
The old Canons of the CofE deal with clergy attire: https://www.anglican.net/doctrines/1604-canon-law/ See also Saint Percy (Dearmer) 'Parson's Handbook' Chapter 3: http://anglicanhistory.org/dearmer/handbook/1899/chapter03.html Here's Percy in his outdoor attire: Our Rector quite often wears cassock or cassock and cloak.
Indeed, no, the surplice is a vestment, and therefore worn only for liturgical functions. Practically all liturgical functions, in classical Anglican practice. As to the original post, I think I know the priest in the first "Moderate attire" photo (or at least someone who looks an awful lot like him). I would not call that moderate attire, but rather "Cheap Episcopalian attire." Alb & stole was never considered properly vested before the Episcopalians went nuts in the late 20th century.
I I don't know if there is. If coping Roman Catholics, as many do, the surplice would not be part of house dress. It forms part of choir dress or is used for liturgies, e.g. baptisms.
What does everyone think about the wearing of traditional clerical dress out in public? I absolutely support the use of the cassock (double breasted of course), cap, etc, as the daily dress of the priest, as I imagine conversations about the faith would come about much more often simply because people are intrigued by it all. I'm hesitant to attach too much symbolism to items of clothing, however, like some do, so I don't really think that there are any specifically theological arguments for the use of traditional dress (vestments are an entirely different matter of course).
I think you have a point. The Rector of my church has remarked that people are more likely to approach out of curiosity when they see clergy in public wearing a cassock or cassock and cloak rather than just a dog collar with suit or casual clothes. I’m 55 and until my early twenties it wasn’t uncommon in my area to see clergy wearing cassocks during the week...not all the time but quite often. I’ve never seen anyone wearing a Canterbury Cap but one of our more Romeward leaning vicars wore a Biretta when out and about.
I agree with this. We once had a priest who always work his cassock, a cloak when the weather called for a coat, and walked, rather then drove, round the parish. I knew his wife complained because a short visit was never long. His manner of dress drew people to talk to him, including people who would not have considered talking to a priest or going to church. I think this also applies to religious far too many of which have abandoned their habits.
But, we are of this world for now and I think that is why we should be visible here in the Church Militant.