One the one hand, there is something to be said for Ordinariate clergy dressing the same as diocesan Latin Rite clergy, to emphasize their belonging to the same order and participating in the same priesthood. But what fun is that? More seriously, would that really further the aim of an Anglican body within the Catholic Church “united but not absorbed”? Anglo-Catholics have often dressed like Romans to express that they hold the same faith as Roman Catholic clergy. Now that unity of faith can be taken for granted in the Ordinariates, it would be fitting for them to dress like Anglicans to express their distinct identity within the Catholic Church.
The Anglican double-breasted cassock has been mentioned. Its actual history is a bit murky (medieval cassocks were a bit different). Nevertheless, I like it too, not least because, as Percy Dearmer pointed out, there is no risk of accidentally kneeling on a button (and kneeling is a big part of our Patrimony). And just look, in the photo attached, how well it suits Father Benson (founder of the SSJE, Fr. Roland Palmer’s order).
Surplice and tippet (black scarf), formerly universal in the medieval West, are still the Anglican cleric’s distinctive choir dress, as modelled by St. John Fisher below (with optional Canterbury cap, a form of headgear that evolved into the biretta on the Continent, and into the academic mortarboard in England). If Ordinariate clergy will not dress as he did, they should at least aspire to live (and die) as he did.
I wonder if the pontificalia permitted for the Ordinary even when only in priest’s orders extend to the Anglican bishop’s choir dress of rochet (white sleeved overgarment) and chimere (abbreviated doctoral gown, black or scarlet), as worn here by Archbishop Cranmer, whose dress (if not theology) was always orthodox.
He is also sporting a furred tippet (descendant of the medieval fur almuce — cathedrals were cold), which was reserved for dignitaries. I would love to see Mgr. Steenson dressed like this when attending meetings of the USCCB (seeing that he won’t get the chance to dress thus in the House of Lords).
Dearmer further insisted, with impressive documentation, that Anglican priests ought also to wear academic gowns over the cassock (with black tippet) as part of their street dress (pictured below — I would love to lecture like this!). Perhaps this would be best reserved for more formal occasions; say, ad limina visits.
Dearmer has sometimes been attacked by Anglo-Catholics because he preferred medieval English precedents for church furnishings, vestments, and ceremonial (affectionately known as “British Museum Religion”) to the contemporary Continental Roman Catholic usages that had been adopted by many Anglican Ritualists. This has been seen as a prejudiced anti-Romanism on Dearmer’s part. Dearmer, I think, saw it simply as obedience to the liturgical law of the Church of England as illuminated by historical research. The irony of calling this mode of dress anti-Roman is that Dearmer would go about in public thus attired and would be taunted by passers-by with shouts of “No Popery!” But then, with characteristic Patrimonial wit, he would retort, “Are you aware that this is the precise costume in which Latimer went to the stake?” That kind of paradox — that our most traditional “Catholic” clerical dress is precisely what was worn by the English Reformers — perhaps captures the very essence of the ambiguity that must attend an explicitly Anglican identity within the Catholic Church.
As for vestments worn during the sacraments, I care not a whit so long as they are simple, noble, and beautiful, worthy of such awful mysteries.
Of course, it will look pretty silly if there is an army of Ordinariate clergy dressed in a distinctive way with no flocks to shepherd. The real honorific dress of a Catholic priest will be the invisible garlands bestowed on him by souls he has healed, nourished, and sanctified through Word, Sacrament, and personal sacrifice. (Or as John Bunyan puts it in the mouth of Mr. Valiant-for-Truth in Pilgrim’s Progress, “My marks and scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me that I have fought His battles who now will be my rewarder.”)
What kind of priestly dress would most help the effort of evangelization? I recall hearing on the radio years ago an interview with an Anglican priest who had completely revitalized a failing parish in the north of England. When asked what the secret was, he said, “I wear my cassock around the village, and I go into the pubs to meet people and share a pint and a conversation with them. You have to be visible, and you have to go to where people are.”
LIKE! I’m for most of these recommends except the academic gown over the cassock. To me, academics need to stay in the classroom.
“……as worn here by Archbishop Cranmer, whose dress (if not theology) was always orthodox.” Never a big Cranmer fan myself but it is good advice.
PERCY LIVES!
I like the Eastern style of inner and outer cassock. An Orthodox priest explained to me that technically the inner cassock is a cleric’s underwear, and should never be worn without something else on top – be it vestments or something else. Although priests increasingly ignore this custom.
I’ve always been in favour of clerics looking like clerics, and I’ve heard enough tales of people seeing a priest properly dressed in the supermarket and suddenly realising that this was a person to whom they could unburden their sorrows to convince me that the cassock should be compulsory. I don’t care how many breasts it has. Let’s just have priests looking like priests.
For academic gowns to be worn over the cassock, we must first take over the secularized institutes of education, cast out the demons in their faculties, and return the academic prestige clergy used to have before the “Enlightenment”.
Pingback: SMM1 weighs in on Anglican Use Ordinariate clergy attire! | Catholic Canada
YEAH! Man, I’m so excited to see Catholic clergy with traditional Western clerical garb! Us Romans can’t even get our priests (in the U.S.) to wear birettas! Let’s see some Canterbury caps and tippets/chimeres!
Anglicans are so classy, I keep my fingers crossed that there won’t be any upset/jealous influential “catholic” objector who will prattle on about how the “Spirit” of Vatican II “liberates” the clergy to be as mediocre as can be!
I agree with all the recommendations here, and I think that they are grand. They are also fun, and that is also important.. As for the University, it would at least be fun to shock the liberal professorate by dressing this way.
Of course, while I prefer these recommendations, any cassocks of any kind would be better than what we are getting. In my Diocese, the Latin priests mostly dress in lay clothing, but they never wear jackets and ties! No, that’s too laical and yet, somehow, jeans and a sweater is not. I’m told that one F.S.S.P. priest in Texas or thereabouts wears his black calotte (zucchetto if you prefer) with his cassock and wears them about everywhere. I’d almost consider entering seminary just to do that–and, yes, I am kidding, Norm.
Emotion needs to be taken into account in these matters. When I see one of our Roman bishops wearing the clerical suit with the disappearing pectoral cross in the vest pocket (or no cross at all), I have to adjust my thinking every time. I have to remind myself that he is a Bishop and not the Methodist undertaker whom he appears to be. When a bishop appears in simar in public, the reaction from everyone is instant: This is a Catholic bishop! One reflects on that after rising from kissing his ring.
P.K.T.P.
Well, I think that if the concept of an Anglican Ordinariate is to make sense and be a reality, then its clergy ought to look like Anglican Catholics not Roman Catholics. So, double breasted cassocks and Canterbury caps appear to be very appropriate.
However, that principle aside, I don’t share other readers’ enthusiasm for consciously adopted clerical dress as a symbol of what they undoubtedly see as anti-liberalism (whatever they imagine liberalism to consist of). I understand the desire to have clergy wear symbolic and distinctive dress, but think that one has to be careful of promoting or sustaining clerical models that encourage wearers to think of themselves as anything but servants of everyone else.
This is a tricky problem, I admit. But, as a rule of thumb, I would propose that anything that could be said to be “finery” or “archaic” or “eccentric” must be rejected, no matter how aesthetically pleasing it may be to this or that sideline admirer. Somehow, the spirit of self-effacement must be reflected in whatever threads our clergy wear, or they risk placing their and our souls at risk.
What better way to rebel against the world than to uphold tradition?
What better way to conform to the world than to follow its fashions?
The world is impermanent, Heaven is Eternal. The future becomes now; the now becomes the past; the past ages no further- it passes into eternity, after passing through human experience.
Liberalism is the rejection of the conservation of what was handed down to us. It is both “Yes” and “No” when our “Yes” ought to be “Yes” and our “No” ought to be “No”
Pingback: Anglican priestly attire – part of the Anglican Patrimony | Ordinariate Expats
Deborah,
SMM1 wrote: One the one hand, there is something to be said for Ordinariate clergy dressing the same as diocesan Latin Rite clergy, to emphasize their belonging to the same order and participating in the same priesthood. But what fun is that? More seriously, would that really further the aim of an Anglican body within the Catholic Church “united but not absorbed”? Anglo-Catholics have often dressed like Romans to express that they hold the same faith as Roman Catholic clergy. Now that unity of faith can be taken for granted in the Ordinariates, it would be fitting for them to dress like Anglicans to express their distinct identity within the Catholic Church.
Here, I’m reminded of the opinion expressed by Pope Gregory the Great in the matter of clerical attire. The pope said that the clergy should distinguish themselves by the manner in which they live rather than by the manner in which they dress. A few centuries later, in a similar vein, St. Francis of Assissi told a follower: “Always preach the gospel. Use words, if you must.”
Of course, we who are the laity should do likewise — that is, distinguishing ourselves as Christians by the manner in which we live rather than by the manner in which we dress. It’s the age-old question: if you were arrested and brought to trial on the charge of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?
Norm.
Norm, that may be true enough to a certain extent, but many orders and congregations of women religious have used that as an excuse to abandon the religious habit completely contrary to the law and will of the Church. Fortunately most orders and congregations of men religious have continued to wear the traditional habit (at least out in public). Although it appears that almost all diocesan clergy have abandoned the cassock, at least almost all wear the Roman collar. Much has to be said for the wearing of an identifiable garb for religious and/or clergy; most groups that do seem to have the most vocations.
Tim,
You wrote: Fortunately most orders and congregations of men religious have continued to wear the traditional habit (at least out in public).
That actually depends why they are “out in public.” They typically wear either the habit or clerical attire if they are engaged in ministry (for example, when going to a parish to assist with the Sunday mass schedule or to celebrate a wedding or a funeral), but they typically wear ordinary street clothes when travelling on airplanes, shopping, taking a walk for exercise, or even when going out to dinner with friends.
Norm.
Norm, that’s the spirit of the great iconoclasm of the 1970s. We need visible symbols in order to believe and distinctive dress for priests and religious is one such symbol.
Maximilian,
You wrote: We need visible symbols in order to believe and distinctive dress for priests and religious is one such symbol.
Yes — and the most visible symbol of all is the life of the believer who walks humbly with God (see Micah 6:8).
Norm.
Nonsense. That is neither visible nor a symbol. By that logic, you’d be content to have priests naked in the sanctuary so long as they are “holy”.
This is anthropolatry more profound than the sort of vain clergy who heap honors upon himself in the way he dresses. More insidious because of its supposed desire for egalitarianism.
The believer identifies strongly with Jesus Christ, to be so unified with Him and His Passion and Death so that we are unified with Him in Heaven.
The idolatry of the believer who walks humbly with God is this- in destroying what is set aside for God and points towards His worship, in that vacuum, what fills it would be the worship of the creature. Destroy the Sacraments, you have personality cults. Destroy the charismatic individuals, you have anarchy- what is anarchy? “Everyone believes what they want and does what they will.”
That is the motto of the Satanists: “Do what you will.”
And for Catholics, “Do what you will” is disguised by the insistence “It is Holy” by questionable authority.
If I am wrong, Norm, be a sign of contradiction. How to do that while espousing an iconoclastic mainstream theology, I don’t know.
Ioannes,
You wrote: By that logic, you’d be content to have priests naked in the sanctuary so long as they are “holy”.
No, not at all. In fact, quite to the contrary, I would ensure that everybody in the sanctuary is wearing an alb, which is the robe of baptism. This would even include all members of a music ministry who are positioned in front of the congregation to lead the congregation in song.
Note, however, that a cassock is NOT a liturgical vestment. Rather, it was the street clothing of the clergy in times past. Today, it is mandatory only when wearing a surplice instead of an alb.
You wrote: How to do that while espousing an iconoclastic mainstream theology, I don’t know.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, unless you are calling Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI iconoclasts. Catholic theology is, by definition, what the pope, as head of the magisterium, promulgates. It simply is not possible to be more Catholic than the pope.
Norm.
Think about your own response to a woman in a face veil or other aspects of men’s or women’s Islamic sartorial hijab. No doubt the wearers are told that this is a significant evangelical witness, but most of us see it as evidence of a separatist, obscurantist agenda. A man wandering around in what appears to be a dress does not have much of a visual message for a post-Christian society, IMHO. And the obsession with lacy cottas and fancy headwear seems to bear an inverse relationship to the number of faithful actually under one’s care.
A cult of personality does not make a community of the faithful. Be dismayed at how liberation theology/crypto-marxists who subscribe to the opposite of clergy looking like clergy attract so many people- attract them all to hell.
And who says that an abaya, a hijab, a burqa or a niquab are not voluntary? Some Muslim women I’ve spoken to about the issue consider the fact that they don’t have to worry about “showing off” as a liberating thing. Their brothers or fathers or husband do not beat them as many sensational news report honor killings and pedophilic marriages.
The point is not whether these get-ups are voluntary, but whether they are an effective witness in contemporary society, or whether they are one more barrier to be overcome in connecting to people outside one’s faith.
In ritual, wear something appropriate. It is never about us and how much we demand the holy to be easily grasped by making it mundane.
There has to be a line between the sacred and the mundane, not so that the sacred is barred from the person, but to know when to “Take off the sandals in holy ground”; The general population are not monks or nuns, so a misinterpretation of a “call to holiness” blurs this line, and people forget the necessity of repentance and the fallen nature of humanity because of the blurring of what is sacred and what is mundane. Personal holiness is a challenge. It’s not “going about daily life” like what so many people wish holiness is redefined as. It’s not about just feeding the hungry, or the corporal acts of mercy- they’re important, but turning the sacred into something mundane destroys the supernatural in what is holy.
Perhaps the concept of “Mystery” is important as well- while in the West, the attitude seems to be “See, there’s nothing special.”, in Eastern churches, there are curtains or iconostasis that tells us there is something beyond the mundane occurring. That there is sacred time, and sacred space. Indeed, in talking about the Everlasting nature of the Eucharist, it is appropriate to speak of sacred time and sacred space, that liminality between our world and another.
I am reminded of the statement of an Orthodox hierarch who said that the health of the Church can be measured by the health of monasticism in the land. In monasticism, there is a definite overlap between the mundane and the sacred- every breath or action the monk takes is for the greater glory of God. But there is a time and a place for such an overlap. There is an ethos that dictates the clothing, the practices, and the worship.
So, going back to attire… They are not meant to be a separation, but a distinction, that a person is marked for something- you mark yourself with a cross to separate the mundane time and space from the sacred time and space. Yet it cannot be such a sterile and mundane expression. But, what I think you are saying- clothes cannot be worn for the sake of the clothes themselves. Wearing a mozzetta or a cassock or red shoes for the sake of wearing them is idolatry. Wearing a cassock because you know that people will know you as a priest by looking at you, and that you will suffer because of it- there is glorification directed to God. It is not vanity. It is witness to a society devoid of truth and beauty.
Ioannes,
You wrote: Be dismayed at how liberation theology/crypto-marxists who subscribe to the opposite of clergy looking like clergy attract so many people- attract them all to hell.
You are horribly confused here. There are many of us who quite readily spot and refute the heresies of so-called “libertion theology” (which is indeed a spin on Marxism) and “feminist theology” simply are not so rigid as to insist that clergy always wear clerical attire. There are situations in which clerical attire is in order, situations in which clerical attire is not really necessary, and situations in which clerical attire would not be appropriate. It would be rather absurd for Fr. Sullivan to wear his clericals while mowing the lawn around the rectory and the church, for example, which is something that pastors of many rural parishes actually must do.
Norm.
And the fact that Islam is wrong at its basic foundation does not make liberal catholicism right- nor does it make atheism right.
The fact that virginity, for example, is treasured in Islam, compared to the roundabout mockery of virgins and virginity occur in the West, does not make the West’s attitude correct.
Would I advocate for Islamic dress for Catholic women? No. I advocate modest clothing, and I practice what I preach despite the disapproving looks or the sentiment that I am a strange person. The ideal would be Amish -probably the only Protestant group I can respect- and indeed, there are Plain Catholics who prefer to dress modestly. Though I do not know what their clergy look like.
Purple socks, buttons, and sashes; lace, fur capes, red shoes. This discussion is not about modesty; it’s about whether ostentation can be justified as “witnessing.”
Of course not.
Fur capes? Ew. That’s not ostentatious, that’s just tacky. Unlless talking about Mozzettas. Ermine mozzettas, I can understand being used in winter, during official functions. But going about town with a mozzetta is like going about town with your graduation robes. And mortarboard. Making priests wear cassocks in their daily lives is fair. Making them wear lace and ermine mozzettas and red shoes in their daily lives is silly.
Red shoes are reserved for the Pope, and that’s fine.
Color-coding your clergy is good at pointing out who is what in a hierarchy. We can’t have everyone in business suits. How I loathe the “corporate business uniform”.
After a more careful thought about the Ordinariate clerical attire….
The fact that the Ordinariates are just new, and small in numbers… It would be fitting for clerical attire to be simple yet dignified. At least outside of Mass. Keep the fancy stuff for during Mass.
From what I have seen of Anglican clerical attire (tippet and all) they seem so much simpler than traditional Roman attire. No lace, no Cappa Magna, etc. and since we’re talking about Anglican dress, it seems fair that they are retained to show what makes the Ordinariates an expression of Anglicanorum Coetibus in the vestment topic.
Here’s the problem: Catholics who look like Anglicans are bound to be mistaken for Anglicans by people who don’t know any better in the same manner Eastern Catholics could be mistaken for Orthodox. And those Catholics who look like old-school Catholics would be mistaken for being too “Romish” which is at least better than what “Roman Catholics” tend to look like. Which is to look like your ordinary, average shmoe. Yet where is the Anglican flavor, hmm? The Anglican salt, I feel, has not lost its taste. Or the Ordinariates will be cast underfoot like flavorless salt.