Timing of Chasuble Vestment

[Fish and Bread]

At Roman Catholic masses, I've noticed that priests usually vest fully, including the use of a chasuble, in the sacristy prior to the opening procession.

At Episcopalian Eucharists, I've noticed that the priest often processes in and proceeds through the Liturgy of the Word with simply an alb and a stole, and then vests with the chasuble just prior to the Eucharistic Prayer, in view of the congregation.

Does anyone know why this difference evolved and when? Is there a theological or symbolic meaning attached to it?

The reason for some differences between the Roman Catholic and Episcopalian liturgies are obvious. For example, Episcopalian priests leave the altar area and stand in the middle of the people to proclaim the Gospel- which is almost certainly symbolic of the Reformation's emphasis on speaking the word amongst the people, and of course traditionally Roman Catholic priests are not supposed to leave the altar during mass (Which isn't to say that some don't) for reasons of their own.

However, the difference in when a priest vests with a chasuble puzzles me. I've read that chasubles actually fell out of favor with Anglican priests for centuries before being restored by the Oxford Movement in the 19th century, so its also not as easy for me just to imagine some sort of symbolism stemming from the Reformation- this could easily be something that dates back to the Sarum Rite that was practiced in England when the church in England was united with Rome prior to the Reformation (and restored), or something that was decided on by the Oxford Movement or a compromise between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals, or...

I'm curious.

 

[Paidiske]

My guess - and it's a guess, I've never read anything about it - is that it stems from the days of the old prayer books (pre-liturgical renewal movement, which gave rise to the Vatican II liturgies as well as new prayer books and forms of prayer in a range of other traditions including Anglicanism).

In that liturgy, the pattern was to have a service of morning prayer (matins) and the litany, and then holy communion. In practice, if not by design, matins and the litany (ante-communion) often were done as a service in their own right, with holy communion being celebrated less frequently, in some places as infrequently as four times a year.

So my guess is that the priests generally vested for matins-and-litany (in choir habit), and then only put on Eucharistic vestments if communion was to be celebrated.

For what it's worth, my observation of local practice here is that generally speaking our clergy will vest for the Eucharist (in whatever the customary manner of the parish is; chasubles are nowhere near ubiquitous) for the whole service. The only time I've seen what you've described is in college chapel, where our practice was to have holy communion flow straight through from morning prayer (using morning prayer as a kind of liturgy of the word), and morning prayer was led by someone other than the priest presiding. So he/she might sit through morning prayer in an alb and then vest when, instead of ending morning prayer, we had the greeting of the peace.

 

[Deegie]

I think Paidiske's answer makes a lot of sense. There is perhaps a very practical reason that the practice stuck around even after Eucharist became the normative Sunday service: comfort. A chasuble is often quite heavy and given that many churches weren't (or still aren't) air conditioned, the priest was probably happy to only wear it for half the service.

I should add that, to my experience, the practice of putting the chasuble on mid-way through the service seems far less common now than it did a few decades ago. In fact, the last time I saw it was several years ago on Ash Wednesday, and I know she did so because she didn't want to risk getting ash on the chasuble (which must be professionally dry-cleaned).

 

[gordonhooker]

I don't believe there is symbolic or liturgical reason for either not wearing, wearing, or wearing later in the service other than local tradition. At the cathedral here in Brisbane a chasuble is always worn, at our local parish of Waterloo Bay in summer the priest does not wear a chasuble but may sometime during the winter (we don't have air-conditioning), other times a visiting priest will wear a chasuble, and when ever we have visit by the bishop the priest will wear a chasuble come rain or shine...

 

[Paidiske]

Does the bishop not preside when he comes, gordon?

Melbourne actually passed a bit of canon law which says (I forget the exact words, but something to the effect of) that we attach no meaning to the various vestments available, and that clergy may wear whatever vestments are customary in the parish.

In practice of course that's silly because people attach all sorts of meanings to different vestments, but I guess it stopped the fierce arguments about whether a chasuble was a sacrificial garment or ancient English rubrics forbade anything but choir habit and so on...

 

[Albion]

I find the practice of changing vestments in mid-service a bit distracting, awkward. But there is a difference in theme that occurs at that point in the service, as we all recognize, so I don't find it offensive if that's what the priest wants to do (and I remember seeing done it in a parish church as early as the 1960s).

 

[Deegie]

I find the practice of changing vestments in mid-service a bit distracting, awkward.

Agreed. I've always thought if priests were going to do it (and I would prefer they didn't), that it should be done with a quick trip to the sacristy (or "vestry", across the pond) and not with everyone watching.

 

[FireDragon76]

The local Episcopalians wear a chausible during the entire service, usually, the same as Catholics.

At my Lutheran parish, the priest puts on a chausible before the second half of the liturgy, at the distribution of the offering plates.

The chausible was largely done away with altogether in the Anglican tradition during the Reformation, and was only retained at some Lutheran churches, particularly Scandinavian countries.

 

[Albion]

I sorta appreciate the symbolism intended (Mass of the Catechumens, Mass of the Faithful, etc.), but putting on a chasuble is somewhat awkward by nature. Like pulling on a sweater in public. If, hypothetically speaking, the priest instead put on a stole at that point, that would probably seem like no big thing.

Then too, those who put on the chasuble part way through the service normally drape it over the communion rail until that moment. This display looks out of place and IMHO is a distraction. But that's just my thinking; I am sure others see it entirely differently.

 

[gordonhooker]

Does the bishop not preside when he comes, gordon?

Melbourne actually passed a bit of canon law which says (I forget the exact words, but something to the effect of) that we attach no meaning to the various vestments available, and that clergy may wear whatever vestments are customary in the parish.

In practice of course that's silly because people attach all sorts of meanings to different vestments, but I guess it stopped the fierce arguments about whether a chasuble was a sacrificial garment or ancient English rubrics forbade anything but choir habit and so on...

Not always - the last 2 times in our parish the bishop preached but did not preside.... so I suppose it depends on the what the bishop thinks on that particular day.

 

[gordonhooker]

I find the practice of changing vestments in mid-service a bit distracting, awkward. But there is a difference in theme that occurs at that point in the service, as we all recognize, so I don't find it offensive if that's what the priest wants to do (and I remember seeing done it in a parish church as early as the 1960s).

Our priests will normally do it when the offertory hymn is being sung so you should be singing away and looking at your hymn book rather than watching what the priest is doing

 

[gordonhooker]

The local Episcopalians wear a chausible during the entire service, usually, the same as Catholics.

At my Lutheran parish, the priest puts on a chausible before the second half of the liturgy, at the distribution of the offering plates.

The chausible was largely done away with altogether in the Anglican tradition during the Reformation, and was only retained at some Lutheran churches, particularly Scandinavian countries.

Not sure what Anglican tradition you are referring to - because it is only over the past 20 years that I have seen the lapsing of the requirement in South East Queensland where I come from.

 

[FireDragon76]

I sorta appreciate the symbolism intended (Mass of the Catechumens, Mass of the Faithful, etc.), but putting on a chasuble is somewhat awkward by nature. Like pulling on a sweater in public.

The pastor at church steps into the vestment closet to put on the chausible.

Putting it on a railing would look a bit tacky. Better to not wear it at all, in that case.

Not sure what Anglican tradition you are referring to - because it is only over the past 20 years that I have seen the lapsing of the requirement in South East Queensland where I come from.

The chausible was revived in the 19th century Ritualist movement in England. But it was rare before then in Anglican churches. That is my understanding.

 

[Paidiske]

Not sure what Anglican tradition you are referring to - because it is only over the past 20 years that I have seen the lapsing of the requirement in South East Queensland where I come from.

There were long centuries when it was not allowed for chasubles to be worn. Anglican clergy typically wore what we would call choir habit - cassock and surplice - even for the Eucharist. The use of Eucharistic vestments was something which came back to Anglicanism with the Oxford movement and was highly controversial, which is why it isn't something we all do.

In my last parish chasubles were mandatory, in this one I only have permission to wear them at Christmas and Easter only. Two different vicars from two very different strands of the tradition!

 

[gordonhooker]

There were long centuries when it was not allowed for chasubles to be worn. Anglican clergy typically wore what we would call choir habit - cassock and surplice - even for the Eucharist. The use of Eucharistic vestments was something which came back to Anglicanism with the Oxford movement and was highly controversial, which is why it isn't something we all do.

In my last parish chasubles were mandatory, in this one I only have permission to wear them at Christmas and Easter only. Two different vicars from two very different strands of the tradition!

Given that I not centuries old I can only comment on what I have experienced LOL

 

[gordonhooker]

The pastor at church steps into the vestment closet to put on the chausible.

Putting it on a railing would look a bit tacky. Better to not wear it at all, in that case.



The chausible was revived in the 19th century Ritualist movement in England. But it was rare before then in Anglican churches. That is my understanding.

God bless those fine gentleman of the Oxford movement.....

 

[Shane R]

On high holy days, the Canon who I assist changes from cope to chasuble after the sermon. He, as Albion mentioned, drapes the chasuble over the rail until he dons it. He seldom wears the chasuble other times, despite the bishop's wishes.

 

[FireDragon76]

At one time in the 19th century in England there were even disputes about the number of candlesticks on the altar (or table, depending on your churchmanship), with threats of prosecution for nonconformity.

The Oxford movement really created a shift in Anglican identity. At one time the consensus was that Anglicans were some flavor of Reformed church with episcopal governance. But the Oxford movement and Ritualism was also a way for churchmen to assert that they weren't just the extension of the state as civil servants, with the corresponding low ecclessiology. Vestments played a symbolic role in that. They also fed into the Romanticism of the era, to have a religion that had ties to a perceived past (even if sometimes it was anachronistic), or to have more sensuality and beauty in worship (whereas the Reformed tended to regard that sort of stuff as a distraction, even idolatry).

The chausible was the lightening rod for Ritualism. It was believed by its detractors to show clear Roman sympathies, so it got the most opposition.

 

[FireDragon76]

Wading into a congregation is not particularly Protestant at all, it's actually very ancient and dates back to the synagogue.

Pulpits are actually relatively "modern" furniture, they became more common during the reformation. They allowed long sermons to be more easily heard (so did pews, BTW). Before then, the priest would simply walk out into the people, or more commonly in the east, stand on an ambon (an elevated platform, a holdover from the synagogue) to preach.

At my old Orthodox church, the priest would walk out from the altar, past the doors a good ways to preach. If the number of congregants that day was especially small and he was especially enthusiastic, he'ld even walk into the midst of them, up quite close. That's actually normal in an orthodox church from the few I've been to.

 

[gordonhooker]

I believe the founders of the Oxford Movement realised the Church in England threw the baby out with bath water during the reformation in England and simply brought balance back into the Church in England.