To conclude this series some observations on matters related to the celebration and presentation of the liturgy.

Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament

In mediaeval England the Blessed Sacrament was reserved in a pyx, suspended over the High Altar of the parish church. The practice of reserving the Sacrament for the sick and as the centre for devotion to Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist, was lost by the Church of England (though not in Scotland) at the Reformation. Little by little it was restored  towards the end of the 19^th century. The Anglican Bishops were cautious and tried to insist that Reservation should be in a wall aumbry in a side-chapel. (Oddly, and embarrassingly for the Anglican bishops, Dom Gregory Dix showed that Reservation in the aumbry had been developed in Germany during the late Middle Ages where the aumbry was placed against a pillar at the head of the nave, and given a transparent door, to enable the laity to have more direct access for adoration.)  The use of the hanging pyx for Reservation continued in France until the Revolution, but by the 19^th century Rome’s insisted on the use of a veiled and lockable tabernacle, firmly fixed to the altar. In parish churches this was normally the main altar, but in Cathedrals and monastic churches a suitable side chapel was prescribed. (Westminster Cathedral, and of course, St Peter’s Rome are examples.)

With the post-Council reforms to the liturgy came the requirement that the altar be arranged so that the Celebrant might position himself facing the people or facing east. This clearly made reservation in the fixed tabernacle on the main altar impossible.  Various solutions were adopted, with the Blessed Sacrament being placed in a chapel off the main sanctuary, on a plinth within the sanctuary itself, or where the original High Altar remained intact, upon that altar. Mass should not to be celebrated on the altar where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved to avoid confusion. In many Catholic churches, especially during the week the priest will consecrate only one host (unfortunately still often called the ‘priest’s host’) with communion being given to the people from the tabernacle. While this may be understandable where the number of communicants varies wildly it is contrary to the rubrics which state that communion should be given from the sacred elements consecrated at that Mass. This is usually possible with a little forethought and planning.

Permission for Reservation in the pyx suspended over the altar would discourage this practice, as well as making the Reserved Sacrament central without impeding the altar of celebration. If the pyx is suspended above the altar it makes it almost impossible to violate or steal, and the provision of an electric lift, controlled by a key from close to (or even at) the altar, makes the raising and lowering of the pyx at Mass or Adoration comparatively simple. This method of Reservation is undoubtedly true to the Patrimony though it was realised in only a small number of Anglican churches.

Vestments

The restoration of the traditional vestments in the C of E was seen as one of the great achievements of the Oxford Movement. The move was fought against by those who realised, quite correctly, that such vesture emphasised the centrality of the Eucharist and proclaimed the sacrificial nature of the celebration – thus seeming to link the worship of the C of E with the earliest years of Christianity, rather than the outworn controversies of the Reformation. (It is worth noting that even today a minority of C of E churches have given up almost entirely the use of ‘robes’ in worship, although attempts to legalise this through the General Synod have so far failed.

The Ordinariate brings with it that strand of Anglicanism which has a high regard for the Eucharist, fighting to retain the surplice for the priest (the ‘rag of Popery’ according to the Puritans of the 17^th century) and rejoicing to see the chasuble and other vestments so clearly ordered by the Prayer Book restored in the 19^th century. A late mediaeval shape, often heavily embroidered, became the norm. This shape (which we might call ‘Gothic Revival’) represented a halfway-house in the gradual abbreviation of the chasuble, which happened as a result of the elaboration of manual gestures performed by the Celebrant. This process  culminated in the so-called ‘Latin’ or ‘Spanish’ shape, where the vestment is reduced to two strips which hang front and back of the Celebrant (hence the nickname ‘sandwich boards’ or ‘fiddle-back’).  With the dramatic simplification of ceremonial in the latter half of the 20^th century there is no need to continue with this abbreviated form of vestment, and so a return to something which resembles the chasuble of the first thousand years of Catholic worship may be achieved. Curiously, as the chasuble diminished in size from the 17^th to the 19^th century the stole and maniple (a vestment worn over the left arm by the priest) became larger and more exaggerated, until they resembled a lady’s handbag or reticule  The use of  canvas interlining to stiffen the vestments destroyed the graceful folds of the older pattern. The sleeves disappeared from the deacon’s dalmatic to be replaced by flaps hanging from the shoulders.

We might note that the linen under-vestment, the alb (and its associated vestments the surplice, rochet and cotta) were similarly abbreviated and decorated with lace, losing  dignity and simplicity. What might well be pretty on a night-gown in the privacy of a bedroom looks fussy in public worship.

The vestments worn by the priest and deacon in the photographs of this presentation are long and ample. The plain fabric hangs in heavy folds, and a note of richness is added by the use of decorative strips or orphreys of elaborate woven tapestry. The undecorated albs (worn by the servers as well as the ministers) are enlivened by apparels (which form collars) – a particular feature of English vesture. The shape of the chasuble is a compromise. Well into the mediaeval period this vestment was cut as a semicircle joined to form a cone (hence the description ‘conical chasuble’ ) with an opening for the priest’s head at the apex. (If you are not familiar with the chasuble shaped like this, imagine wearing a cope with the front edges joined. To handle anything, you will need to pull the sides up over your arms, thus creating the crescent-shaped folds front and back which are such a beautiful feature of this shape of chasuble.) The ‘conical’ chasuble requires time and care putting on, and unhurried movement in celebrating the liturgy. Incensing the altar or elevating host, for example, the Celebrant may need the help of the deacon and servers. (Ironically, such ‘assistance’ may  be seen in the celebration of the ‘Extraordinary Form’ where it is quite unnecessary,   as the Celebrant will be wearing a chasuble of the abbreviated ‘latin’ shape!) The albs fall right to the ground, thus covering trouser legs and doing at least something to ameliorate the effect of the oversized (and hideous) ‘trainers’ worn by the younger servers, in spite of pleas by parents and priests.  The clergy should wear the cassock under the alb, though the ugly custom of cutting the alb short, thus exposing inches of cassock, should be avoided. Albs are never trimmed with lace, though sometimes  apparels are tacked to the skirt and cuffs of the alb.

The stole is made of a strip of material some 3 inches wide and 8 – 9 feet long, usually of the same fabric of the vestments, (but sometimes of the fabric of any decorative orphrey) and lined and perhaps interlined. The ends may be slightly splayed (any exaggeration is to be avoided) and may be finished with fringe or tassels.  Both Celebrant and Deacon wear the stole under their respective vestments, the Celebrant wearing his stole around the neck and hanging down the front, (older pictures show the stole crossed over the breast but this is no longer required) to a couple of inches short of the alb hem. The deacon places it over his left shoulder and fastens  it  at his right side, similar to a sash.

Note on the maniple: This vestment, whose origin and symbolism is uncertain, is now only worn when the 1962 Missal is used. There is no mention of it in either the current Missal or Divine Worship. Especially in its  exaggerated form as seen in the 17^th and 18^th century it required some skill on the part of the Celebrant to avoid knocking over the vessels on the altar!

Note on the biretta:  The biretta is the later development  of clergy head-covering, preceded by the square cap (sometimes called the ‘Canterbury cap’) and by the mortar board now only seen at university graduations. Its obligatory use during the Mass by the priest and other ministers from the 17^th century to the middle of the 20^th century led to the stiffened form which could be easily managed with one hand.  It was widely adopted in the C of E during the 19^th century but mainly as out-of-doors headgear, for which it is not well-adapted especially in wet weather. (The cardboard becomes soggy). The older English tradition is for the priest to remain bare headed during Mass. A black skull cap might be used in unheated churches during the recitation of the Office, if the priest feels the cold.

Note on liturgical colours        The modern sequence of white, red, violet and green , (with black and rose-pink as extras) was standardised only comparatively recently. Until the 17^th century usage of colours varied widely. In the so-called ‘English Use’ adopted by many Anglican Cathedrals in the 20^th century dark blue was sometimes used in place of violet. Almost universal before the Reformation and widely revived in the C of E in the 19^th and 20^th century was the use of the “Lenten Array’.  This is not really a colour at all,  but a veiling of statues, crosses and altars with unbleached linen. (Modern cotton curtain lining gives a similar impression.) These veils, which covered up much that was coloured and gilded in the church, were put in place for the whole of Lent. Whether the ministers wore vestments of the same unbleached linen, or violet/blue is uncertain; but we do know that crimson or blood-red was worn for the last two weeks of Lent (sometimes called Passiontide) The linen veils were stencilled in black, red or blue, with the symbols of the Passion.

A move in this direction came in the revised Roman Rite which now orders red for Palm Sunday and Good Friday. (There is an option for black for Good Friday in the Divine Worship missal.) In some places a distinction is made between the two penitential seasons with violet (i.e. blue-toned ) being used for Advent, and purple (i.e. red-toned) for Lent.

There is a curious anomaly in the veiling, during the last two weeks of Lent, of realistic crucifixes. This is made more curious where the altar-piece is, say, of a saint in heavenly glory, unveiled for all to see, and in front stands the crucifix with a violet cover over it. (The explanation probably, is that the covering of crucifixes dates from the earlier period when the Lord on the cross was shown in kingly splendour, rather than the agonised suffering figure of the later period.)

The Divine Worship calendar has a period of three weeks before Ash Wednesday which are ordered to be celebrated in violet/purple, although the readings of these Sundays continue the cycle of Ordinary Time with the rest of the Church. The changing seasons would be more clearly marked if violet vestments were worn for the three pre-Lent weeks, with the ‘Lent Array’ coming into use for Ash Wednesday. (Even if it were felt necessary to continue with violet vestments, nonetheless the change in the appearance of the church building would still be very marked.)  The last two weeks of Lent (in the old rite called ‘Passiontide’)  are more clearly defined in the Ordinariate calendar and suggest the use of red as the liturgical colour a week earlier than in the current Roman Rite. This would accord with the ‘English Use’. But vestments decorated with symbols of the Holy Spirit are clearly inappropriate – plain red with black would be good, and the scarlet/crimson distinction  (similar to the violet/purple distinction) might be useful.  Veiling, colours – as with all customs – need to be thought through and explained as part of our catechesis. Does what we do show forth, simply and clearly, what we believe,  or does it confuse and hide, or at least require doubtful justifications? ‘Vain ceremonies’ (to use an expression from  the old Anglican Prayer Book) are best avoided.