Neither the Church's legal officers nor Roman Catholic clergy wear academic hoods when robed. Why do Anglican clergy do so, irrespective of faculty? Is it an anachronism reflecting the time when an Oxford, Cambridge, or Dublin degree was the accepted requirement for ordination?

Anglican clergy wear their academic hoods because it was laid down in Canon 58 of 1604 that they were to do so: "Every minister saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the church, shall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves. . . Furthermore, such ministers as are graduates shall wear upon their surplices, at such times, such hoods as by the orders of the universities are agreeable to their degrees."

So the faculty is irrelevant: whatever your degree is, that is the hood you are to wear. Canons 17 and 25 have a bit to say about hoods, too.

Theological-college hoods were invented in the19th century, and are not covered by the canon, but they have longbeen tolerated by custom, and were regulated by Convocation in 1882. Nevertheless,they are always outranked by a degree hood, and should never be worn insteadof one.

The mention of RC clergy is a red herring, as they have never been required to wear their hoods.

The current canon on vesture is so vague as to be useless (it permits scarf with alb, and chasuble with surplice), and (most probably unintentionally) does not mention hoods, but it does not say that theyare not tobe worn; so it is to be assumed that previous use continues unaltered.

(Dr) Nicholas Groves (Editor,
Shaw's Academical Dress)
Norwich

When I was confirmed, nearly 50 years ago, I learnt of the consecration of bishops, the ordination of priests, and the making of deacons. Although it seems still to be customary to consecrate bishops, I frequently read of the priesting of priests and the ordination of deacons. Has the terminology changed, or is this an informal usage that the layman can ignore? P. H.

Orders in Council define team ministries. This is the means of defining the ministry of the incumbent (allocating the cure of souls) over the designated parishes. The constituent parishes are frequently described in the Order as remaining distinct, thus allowing them to act independently of the team to which they belong. Parishes operate as separate legal entities appropriate to the single incumbent - single parish circumstances that in many cases no longer exist. Does the coexistence of two legal definitions, one for the team and one for parish, help or hinder the mission of an incumbent in a team ministry? It is half a century since teams were introduced, and this would not have happened without the clause allowing parishes to remain distinct. Is it not time to reconsider this element of the Order in Council that concerns team ministries? J. W.

Address for answers and more questions: Out of the Question, Church Times, 3rd floor, Invicta House, 108-114 Golden Lane, London EC1Y 0TG.

questions@churchtimes.co.uk