Thread: Are young people put off church by vestments? Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008497
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
This article (perhaps someone knows a better article with more specific info) discusses how (although I am sure that ministers have been getting away with not wearing vestments at communion at certain C of E parishes for some time now), ministers are now officially allowed to wear street clothes (ie, not wear vestments) at communion.
http://religionnews.com/2017/07/14/its-no-longer-sunday-best-for-the-church-of-england/
The article suggests that to many young people, vestments put them off going to church:
"It is world of the past, a world of nostalgia, a world of deference — and mostly a world which is quite disconnected from present experience and values...
It confirms for many the impression of a church irrelevant to modern questions, contained in its own bubble of self reference. And in its hierarchical understanding of authority, it is a culture of which contemporary society is becoming less and less tolerant.”
I'm not English, let alone a member of the C of E. I'm not particularly young or old (32), so I can't really speak for the newest generation of potential churchgoers, although I do know that society in England is considerably more secular than here in the US. I was not raised to be religious, but started attending church while I was in college. I have always been fascinated by ritual and history, and even before I started attending church I did not associate traditional worship aesthetics with traditional theology regarding sexuality and other contemporary controversial issues - if anything, while acknowledging that the RCC and other churches with liturgical vestments and other ritual accoutrements had a conservative position regarding many of these issues, I associated the most conservative positions on these issues with the non-vestment-wearing preachers of the US Religious Right, which in the US had for much of the 80's, 90's, and 00's an Evangelical Protestant face.
I grant that kids who grew up in the Obama years saw the US Catholic hierarchy being more politically visible than before in resisting Obama administration policies regarding contraception, abortion, and SSM while at the same time seeing less of the conservative Evangelical Protestant "political gatekeepers" who in previous generations had quite some sway in Republican primaries. But the idea I want to question is about more than politics - do young people really think that vestments, in particular, are symbols of a reactionary social order? Is this more so in the UK where the C of E quite literally IS the church of the establishment than in the US and other countries where vestment-wearing clergy are less associated with political and economic power?
One thing I have noticed about younger secular folk is that they do not know much about Evangelical Protestantism's historical dislike for the use of images in worship and therefore assume that most Christian ministers call themselves priests, wear vestments, and use crucifixes.
One last thing: I am pretty sick of hearing the criticism across generations that "men in dresses should not denounce nontraditional sexuality and women in nontraditional roles." The younger people are, the more accepting they tend to be of whatever people want to wear. Nevertheless, it still seems to be acceptable for people of all ages to mock clergy in vestments as pompous prancing buffoons.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm no longer young (oh dear, first time I've used that phrase!) but we had the same theory put forth in my generation (X). IMHO it's bullshit. There was and AFAIK always will be a contingent of human beings who like dressing up, formality, tradition, pretty stuff, smells and bells, whatever you want to call it, and who find it an aid to their focus and worship. There will probably also always be a contingent who feels exactly opposite.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
I would say that the idea that young people (or anyone else) are put off from attending church because of vestments is simply silly, but it's really not. It's worse than simply silly—it's avoidance. It's changing the curtains and maybe slapping on a fresh coat of paint, all the while pretending the structure itself isn't compromised and hoping no one will notice otherwise.
Yes, there will always be people of all ages who prefer vestments, and others who prefer a more casual style. Likewise with who prefer chant and those who prefer praise songs, or whatever other "thing that keeps people away" one can think of. But those folks are already in the door, and are just finding which room in the house is most comfortable to them—perhaps for the moment, perhaps for the long haul..
Those folks who are still outside are only going to come in and handprint around if they have reason to think that there's an authentic community inside that might be worth participating in—whatever the people in that community might or might not be wearing.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I understand that quite a number of students at Oxford enjoy attending their colleges' chapel services, and they're not put off by clergy in vestments.
But relatively few 'young people' attend CofE worship more generally, and of those who do many will be at churches where the clergy sit lightly with regard to this sort of thing.
Of course, correlation is not causation, and I imagine that what the clergy wear at these youthful churches is less important than a range of other factors.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Those folks who are still outside are only going to come in and handprint around . . . .
Sorry, hang around. What an odd autocorrect.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Are we talking about the same generation who seem to like nothing better than put on costumes and go to Comicon conventions? Batman is o.k., but not a priest in a chasuble?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Are we talking about the same generation who seem to like nothing better than put on costumes and go to Comicon conventions?
Some of that generation like doing that. Most, probably not so much.
In other words, we're talking about a generation for which statements like "they like Comicon" or "vestments turn them off" are really useless overgeneralizations. Pretty much like all generations.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm not convinced about this. I know it's supposed to be more missional. It seems to me that the driver is much more that some clergy like wearing vestments and some don't. So they think up plausible arguments in support of their preferences, whichever way those swing.
I tend to think that an obsession either with vestments or against them is unhealthy and a distraction, elevating what is not just a secondary issue, but a tertiary or even lower one.
If you're an unthinking unbeliever, what we do in church is odd enough anyway, irrespective of what the person in front is wearing to do it.
There must be about as few people thinking 'I'll only visit that church if they don't wear vestments', as those that think, 'I won't go to that church because they don't wear rose on the 3rd Sunday in Advent'.
St Paul says 'by all means save some', but on a Venn Diagram, those two circles can't overlap. Either way, it is a tragedy that a person should cut themselves off from hearing the Word of Life and drinking of the Well of Salvation by using either position to keep themselves outside the kingdom.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
It goes deeper, surely? Vestments go with formal liturgy and "other" (or, in some people's books, "irrelevant"). Street clothes go with informal worship and "approachability". Both have their pros and cons - but differently for different people, possibly according to their background, age and personality.
Perhaps what's more important is [i]authenticity[/i} - if folk think that ministers wearing vestments are just "up themselves" and putting on a show, or those wearing Bermuda shorts are trying (and failing) to be "cool", they'll walk. If they think the ministers are genuine, they might not.
[ 16. July 2017, 08:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Speaking personally I had a point where I quite liked Anglican services and quite enjoyed singing in the choir but really disliked wearing the robes. Now I've got used to the robes and it doesn't seem so odd.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
Well it's obvious, ennit.
They don't come because of the funny clothes. And 'cos of all the old people who're there. And the awful old-fashioned music. And the words that no-one understands. And the silly smells.
Which is why one idiot priest I know of got rid of all of those, a bit at a time; indeed, he actually had the gall to tell his congregation from the pulpit that they were putting off youngsters by being too old, and even went so far as to give them the service times and addresses of churches where he thought they ought to go instead. (No, I'm not making this up!)
Result: literally an empty church. He's now heading off to a parish in leafy Bucks., where no doubt he will wreak similar havoc unless reined in.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
What this mostly proves is that you can decimate your congregation in the CofE (and many other centralised denominations, admittedly) and still have a job! Nice work if you can get it.
Changing the orientation and identity of a church is extremely difficult, but if you drive your committed members away then who's going to do the work required? And where will the money come from?
The guy didn't think this through. Or maybe he did, and this was his plan all along.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It goes deeper, surely? Vestments go with formal liturgy and "other" (or, in some people's books, "irrelevant"). Street clothes go with informal worship and "approachability".
In my experience, this correlation is the assumption, but often not the reality.
But I totally agree on authenticity.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Speaking personally I had a point where I quite liked Anglican services and quite enjoyed singing in the choir but really disliked wearing the robes. Now I've got used to the robes and it doesn't seem so odd.
As young people, we all arrived in jeans. Then put our choir robes on to sing, and then all left in jeans.
Fashion is just as much a uniform.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What this mostly proves is that you can decimate your congregation in the CofE (and many other centralised denominations, admittedly) and still have a job! Nice work if you can get it.
Changing the orientation and identity of a church is extremely difficult, but if you drive your committed members away then who's going to do the work required? And where will the money come from?
The guy didn't think this through. Or maybe he did, and this was his plan all along.
Indeed. I can't think of any other job in which it is as possible to get away with being as bone idle as a priest or minister.
And you're right that this isn't a CinW problem specifically: I know of one Methodist minister who takes idleness to extremes that would do credit to some minor members of the Royal Family.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
The OP links to a recent vote of the C of E General Synod. All that is, is a tidying up measure to authorise what has long been common practice in many churches. So nothing to see here, move along please.
Except that, in general the sort of church that has abandoned vestments (of any sort, even the evangelical surplice and scarf) tends to have a strongly evangelical theology which emphasises the Word over the Sacraments. Any sense that the eucharist is about a Mystery which can't be put into words (or even any sense that the eucharist is essential or particularly important) tends to be dismissed. The theologian Ian Paul implied on his blog that to think otherwise is to be guilty of Roman Catholic superstition (I'm not quoting his actual words but even to hint at that is surely unacceptable in this day and age).
There are contexts in which informal celebrations of the eucharist can nevertheless be deeply contemplative and mystical experiences. A eucharist to conclude a house-group meeting for prayer; an outdoor mass en route to a pilgrimage site; a communion at the bedside of a sick or dying person... there are many examples where vestments might be inappropriate or impractical.
But in a church building with a large congregation (and for many of those who abandon vestments, large congregations are the ideal if not the norm), informal clothing for the liturgical president simply draws more attention to his or her individuality. Fashion sense, the 'tribe' s/he identifies with (young trendies, middle-class professionals whatever). Or simply underlines that this is "Rev Darren" rather than an anonymous priest exercising a function on behalf of the body.
While by contrast, a priest standing at an altar, dressed in the traditional and timeless vesture of the Church, emphasises that the gathering is not just a group of Jesus enthusiasts or, worse, fans of Darren, but is the Body of Christ in that place, seeking to become even more conformed to that Body.
Vestments are by no means essential to that of course. But along with other signs and symbols they help to point us beyond transitory things to the Mystery at the heart of life.
Sorry I've just realised I've typed half a sermon a long way from the generally light-hearted tone of this board. So I'll conclude with a couple of ecclesiantical moans. Black scarves worn as part of choir dress should be completely plain (apart from official insignia worn by canons, chaplains and others – which I grudgingly concede), yet so many (usually of evangelical tendency) have them embroidered with personal emblems in various degrees of good taste. And then at the top of the candle there are the Father Lacey-Cottas of this world who delight in exhibiting their own personal wardrobes of exotic vestments.
The point of vesture is that it cloaks the person in the role, not draws attention to the particular priest or minister and their idiosyncrasies.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What this mostly proves is that you can decimate your congregation in the CofE (and many other centralised denominations, admittedly) and still have a job! Nice work if you can get it.
Changing the orientation and identity of a church is extremely difficult, but if you drive your committed members away then who's going to do the work required? And where will the money come from?
The guy didn't think this through. Or maybe he did, and this was his plan all along.
At the core of this, I suspect, is that he didn't really believe that the congregation he started with was the flock God had given him to love and care for.
And even if he didn't really believe that, perhaps it should have occurred to him that the youngsters he wanted to draw in were presumably embedded in the same community as the the people he's already got. So would they really be likely to come to a church he'd driven their mams and tadas away from?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
....in a church building with a large congregation (and for many of those who abandon vestments, large congregations are the ideal if not the norm), informal clothing for the liturgical president simply draws more attention to his or her individuality. Fashion sense, the 'tribe' s/he identifies with (young trendies, middle-class professionals whatever). Or simply underlines that this is "Rev Darren" rather than an anonymous priest exercising a function on behalf of the body.
While by contrast, a priest standing at an altar, dressed in the traditional and timeless vesture of the Church, emphasises that the gathering is not just a group of Jesus enthusiasts or, worse, fans of Darren, but is the Body of Christ in that place, seeking to become even more conformed to that Body.
Vestments are by no means essential to that of course. But along with other signs and symbols they help to point us beyond transitory things to the Mystery at the heart of life....
Yes. Thinking about it, I wonder whether the reason that some people, at least, dislike robes and vestments is that they are, deep or not-so-deep down, uncomfortable with the idea that the Church is something more than an assembly of people who are just like them.
Robes and vestments are sui generis. Street clothes pretty much inevitably associate themselves with some cultural and/or power group in secular society (actually, that's an argument for clergy wearing cassocks as walking-out dress too, isn't it?). From this perspective, I almost think that, were it not for the other considerations it would raise, it might even be preferable in some ways for clergy to officiate naked than in street dress. (NB I am not suggesting that they should do this!)
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
I think that it a great shame that clergy in the Church of England are allowed to celebrate the sacraments in street clothes.THis will certainly lead not to larger congregations.
Symbolism is an essential part of our Christian
Worship.What is wrong with the white alb ? Essential when the Sacrament of Baptism is being
administered.
Is is not a sign that the current Church of England has been strongly influenced by Secularism or Puritanism.?Lack of Reverence ?
On the otherhand,the use of vestments,chasuble is growing in the Church of Ireland,thanks to influence from the Episcopal Church in the USA.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
I am always deeply saddened when the protestant end of anglicanism baulk at mystery in favour of this imposter "relevance." Funnily - and I don't have a concordance to hand - but I don't rcall the latter being frequently used in biblical texts.
quote:
Behold, I tell you a relevance
proclaimed Paul, when?
My sine qua non is a stole. Something to say that what I do when I preside is not normality, but an in-breaking of divine mystery.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I think that it a great shame that clergy in the Church of England are allowed to celebrate the sacraments in street clothes.THis will certainly lead not to larger congregations.
Symbolism is an essential part of our Christian
Worship.What is wrong with the white alb ? Essential when the Sacrament of Baptism is being
administered.
Is is not a sign that the current Church of England has been strongly influenced by Secularism or Puritanism.?Lack of Reverence ?
On the otherhand,the use of vestments,chasuble is growing in the Church of Ireland,thanks to influence from the Episcopal Church in the USA.
The chasuble is illegal in the Church in Ireland.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I still count as young in CoE terms (28) and am a Millennial (Millennials are born between 1982 and 2004). It's nonsense and I'm immensely frustrated by the HTBification of much of the CoE.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
Whether Legal or Illegal the Chasuble is currently being worn in the Church of Ireland, even by bishops at ordinations.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Goodness, you're right.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I wonder whether the reason that some people, at least, dislike robes and vestments is that they are, deep or not-so-deep down, uncomfortable with the idea that the Church is something more than an assembly of people who are just like them.
But those of in the Baptist/Independent tradition do see the Minister in those terms: yes, called by God, recognised to have certain gifts and given aa certain authority in their congregation - but not ontologically changed by their ordination.
(And here, of course, one gets into different ideas of what the Sacraments mean, too).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Thinking about it, I wonder whether the reason that some people, at least, dislike robes and vestments is that they are, deep or not-so-deep down, uncomfortable with the idea that the Church is something more than an assembly of people who are just like them.
Are you saying that having a minister in robes reminds us that we're all different? Surely the main message it sends is that the minister is different from us, the laity. What the rest of us look like in comparison with each other is of secondary importance.
But if there's enough demand for clergy in vestments then surely that's what there will be. I don't get the impression that CofE clergy in vestments are deemed to be undesirable in my city.
ISTM that the trend for jeans is more of a small town/suburban thing, probably because that's where the most middle class, youth-attracting churches are. But if you live in an urban area it's quite easy to find CofE churches with more traditional standards.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No. What I'm saying is that because the minister isn't dressed like any particular lay person, it's a reminded that the Church is more varied than any particular group of lay people.
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on
:
It's not so much that a priest can celebrate the Eucharist in street clothes, but that there is no need to bung on an alb/chasuble/dalmatic/stole etc. In short not to draw attention to yourself by wearing expensive looking clobber in a church full of people who might be struggling to put clothes on their backs.
I still think there is a place for the shirt/collar vicar uniform so you don't draw attention to yourself in services. I certainly wouldn't inflict my personal dress sense on a congregation during regular Eucharistic services. Non-Eucharistic worship services are a different matter and a degree of informality is probably appropriate, just you are more approachable.
Young people are more likely to be put off by incomprehensible liturgy, feeling excluded by the way the service is conducted (all that sitting and standing and knowing when to do it) and sermons that bang on about sin! Making young people feel included to the point of invisibility seems to go down quite well, apart from the natural exhibitionists who want to stand out.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What I'm saying is that because the minister isn't dressed like any particular lay person, it's a reminded that the Church is more varied than any particular group of lay people.
As a mere laywoman, I must say that this particular message has never impressed itself upon me. Maybe the CofE needs to make it more explicit.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Is is not a sign that the current Church of England has been strongly influenced by Secularism or Puritanism.?Lack of Reverence ?
At best, the idea that lack of vestments = secularism or lack reverence is ignorant. At worst, it is arrogant. Meanwhile the linking of secularism and Puritanism is interesting,
Vestments are adiaphora, neither good nor bad in and of themselves. Depending on the worshipper/worshipping community and other matters of context, they can add dignity and deep meaning to worship or they can distract, or even send the wrong message. If they enhance worship in a given context, use them. If they don't, don't. If what the person presiding is wearing matters to you, go somewhere he or she is dressed the way you prefer, and allow othes to do the same.
Why does one size need to fit all?
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
Mr.Tamen,your response sounds very protestant.
The proper Christian Worship is the Eucharist and this kind of service,requires Symbols,like Vestments in the Liturgical Colour,and if possible, Incense,,quite normal in the Anglican tradition, certainly in the C.of E.cathedrals.
Both Canterbury,Anglicans and Utrecht,Old-Catholics have been in full communion,as from the Bonn Agreement in 1931.
The two bodies share the Faith of the Undivided Church.
Presbyterians,like most Reformed Churches have a different approach to liturgical matters..
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Mr.Tamen,your response sounds very protestant.
The proper Christian Worship is the Eucharist and this kind of service,requires Symbols,like Vestments in the Liturgical Colour.
Are you therefore saying that non-Eucharistic services - and even Eucharistic services which do not have the "required" vestments in the correct colours - are not "proper" worship? If so, than I doubt if the first Christians worshipped "properly" - not to speak of millions of Christians down through the centuries.
I understand, of course, that your tradition is different to mine, and I am quite prepared to respect that. But your comment suggests that my tradition is defective (or even unacceptable to God) - and that I cannot accept.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Of course all sorts of worship are equally 'proper', but it is the Eucharist at the centre which gives meaning to the rest. The early Christians certainly met regularly - weekly at least - for the 'breaking of the bread'.
That other traditions have since grown up without that focus is a fact that we all have to come to terms with. But for Anglicans the Book of Common Prayer insists on a balance between Word and Sacament, and on the distinctive role of the ordained threefold ministry. It seems to me that some Anglicans have effectively abandoned that tradition and would be more at ease elsewhere.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
The proper Christian Worship is the Eucharist and this kind of service,requires Symbols,like Vestments in the Liturgical Colour,and if possible, Incense,,quite normal in the Anglican tradition, certainly in the C.of E.cathedrals.
Well, if it inspires in you and your congregation: love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control - then more power to your arm.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
It's not so much that a priest can celebrate the Eucharist in street clothes, but that there is no need to bung on an alb/chasuble/dalmatic/stole etc. In short not to draw attention to yourself by wearing expensive looking clobber in a church full of people who might be struggling to put clothes on their backs.
*snip*
Alas the last time I saw a priest celebrate in civvies he was wearing what my (former sales clerk) companion identified as a $1,400 off-the-rack Samuelsohn from Harry Rosen. As the congregation was not managerial level, I quietly wondered to my bolshie companion what message was being sent, and he replied that it was possibly the same one sent when a cleric was wearing a golf shirt and, presumably, could afford the fees for the links.
I have encountered TEC clergy doing beach-side services, and noted that they are very dressed up although I could only ascribe the sea-foam green trousers to a lingering connexion with the liturgical calendar.
I have always been puzzled by the civvie-fetish among some Anglican clerics.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Mr.Tamen,your response sounds very protestant.
The proper Christian Worship is the Eucharist and this kind of service,requires Symbols,like Vestments in the Liturgical Colour,and if possible, Incense,,quite normal in the Anglican tradition, certainly in the C.of E.cathedrals.
Both Canterbury,Anglicans and Utrecht,Old-Catholics have been in full communion,as from the Bonn Agreement in 1931.
The two bodies share the Faith of the Undivided Church.
Presbyterians,like most Reformed Churches have a different approach to liturgical matters..
So Matins, Vespers, Compline etc are not 'proper worship' then?
While a Western Rite liturgical service is my preference, it is not *required* for 'real worship' - what's required there is a worshipful heart. What Millennials want is authenticity. Those Catholickly inclined as as prone to shallowness as much as anyone else, there just hasn't been an Anglo-Catholic version of the HTB model to push it on others yet.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
It's not so much that a priest can celebrate the Eucharist in street clothes, but that there is no need to bung on an alb/chasuble/dalmatic/stole etc. In short not to draw attention to yourself by wearing expensive looking clobber in a church full of people who might be struggling to put clothes on their backs.
Just remind me again which one of the Disciples protested that all that expensive stuff being used to worship our Lord should have been sold, and the money given to the poor.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
The thing I like about vestments is that I can always tell who is doing what on Sunday morning (preacher, helpers at communion, acolytes, etc.) This is especially helpful to me because I'm faceblind and it's incredibly embarrassing to confuse a random attendee with the pastor/elder/whatever I meant to ask a question to. I would imagine that newcomers and visitors would also find the distinction of dress helpful in a new setting.
My mother attends a church where the pastor makes a practice of wearing civvies at all times, and when we visit, I eye him warily, wondering if it really IS him or just some other random dude in a corduroy jacket...
(And there's the other problem--when you get distracted by the preacher's [lack of]/fashion sense.)
As for expensive vestments and showing off one's finances, in my denomination most vestments are either the property of the congregation or they are gifts/hand-me-downs/inheritances. I think my husband bought a plain alb thirty years ago. Everything else has just sort of found its way into the closet, and from what I know of other pastors, it's much the same. (which is how you can wind up with a bright yellow chasuble that makes the youth giggle and say "He looks like a giant butterfly!" Result, one chasuble buried in the back of the sacristy)
[ 16. July 2017, 21:25: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
It's not so much that a priest can celebrate the Eucharist in street clothes, but that there is no need to bung on an alb/chasuble/dalmatic/stole etc. In short not to draw attention to yourself by wearing expensive looking clobber in a church full of people who might be struggling to put clothes on their backs.
I still think there is a place for the shirt/collar vicar uniform so you don't draw attention to yourself in services. I certainly wouldn't inflict my personal dress sense on a congregation during regular Eucharistic services. Non-Eucharistic worship services are a different matter and a degree of informality is probably appropriate, just you are more approachable.
Young people are more likely to be put off by incomprehensible liturgy, feeling excluded by the way the service is conducted (all that sitting and standing and knowing when to do it) and sermons that bang on about sin! Making young people feel included to the point of invisibility seems to go down quite well, apart from the natural exhibitionists who want to stand out.
Vestments are precisely about not making it about one's own taste in clothing. They are a way of saying something about the priestly office and the Mystery of Christ's priesthood. They are not supposed to be about the priest as an individual (which is why many of us strongly dislike vestments which are more personal than purely liturgical). Furthermore vestments are usually owned by the church, not by the priest, and get used by many generations of clergy. As someone who has been poor for much of their life, including being homeless and being really, really, actually starving poor - I do not remotely object to money being spent on vestments and other church stuff for the glory of God. It's not as if most churches don't spend money on vestments *and* social programmes.
As someone who is officially still a Young Person according to their church and is a Millennial - we want clergy and churches to be authentically 'them'. What being 'them' means will obviously vary, but many clergy are naturally more formal and they should just be themselves. I don't want a priest to try to be 'approachable' at Evensong by wearing everyday clothing, as forced informality is just cringey. I don't want a priest to try and be my mate, I want them to be my priest. Equally young people are perfectly capable of understanding and appreciating more formal liturgy - see for example the increased popularity of the Latin Mass amongst young Roman Catholics. I've only encountered sermons that bang on about sin and nothing else in more informal 'matey' churches anyway - more formal churches will generally preach on that day's Gospel.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Alas the last time I saw a priest celebrate in civvies he was wearing what my (former sales clerk) companion identified as a $1,400 off-the-rack Samuelsohn from Harry Rosen. As the congregation was not managerial level, I quietly wondered to my bolshie companion what message was being sent,
At least I suspect it's a more authentic message that would have been sent if the priest who could afford $1,000+ suits dressed head-to-toe in finest Primark.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Mr.Tamen,your response sounds very protestant.
The proper Christian Worship is the Eucharist and this kind of service,requires Symbols,like Vestments in the Liturgical Colour,and if possible, Incense,,quite normal in the Anglican tradition, certainly in the C.of E.cathedrals.
Both Canterbury,Anglicans and Utrecht,Old-Catholics have been in full communion,as from the Bonn Agreement in 1931.
The two bodies share the Faith of the Undivided Church.
Presbyterians,like most Reformed Churches have a different approach to liturgical matters..
Yes, we do. And yet here I am, a Presbyterian who thinks the use of vestments is a Good Thing. I'm all for them, and I'm one of those who, given a choice, would choose the place where they are worn over the place where they are not.
They're not a Necessary Thing, though, and that's the point.
BTW, a study of the history of vestment use in the CofE and the wider Anglican tradition might be a useful thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Of course all sorts of worship are equally 'proper', but it is the Eucharist at the centre which gives meaning to the rest. The early Christians certainly met regularly - weekly at least - for the 'breaking of the bread'.
Absolutely. And yet until the Fourth Century, Christians celebrated the Eucharist without the use of vestments at all, much less vestments in the proper liturgical colors. Hard to see, then, how the proper celebration of the Eucharist requires (as Utrecht Catholic says) the wearing of them.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The thing I like about vestments is that I can always tell who is doing what on Sunday morning (preacher, helpers at communion, acolytes, etc.) This is especially helpful to me because I'm faceblind and it's incredibly embarrassing to confuse a random attendee with the pastor/elder/whatever I meant to ask a question to. I would imagine that newcomers and visitors would also find the distinction of dress helpful in a new setting.
My mother attends a church where the pastor makes a practice of wearing civvies at all times, and when we visit, I eye him warily, wondering if it really IS him or just some other random dude in a corduroy jacket...
(And there's the other problem--when you get distracted by the preacher's [lack of]/fashion sense.)
As for expensive vestments and showing off one's finances, in my denomination most vestments are either the property of the congregation or they are gifts/hand-me-downs/inheritances. I think my husband bought a plain alb thirty years ago. Everything else has just sort of found its way into the closet, and from what I know of other pastors, it's much the same. (which is how you can wind up with a bright yellow chasuble that makes the youth giggle and say "He looks like a giant butterfly!" Result, one chasuble buried in the back of the sacristy)
Indeed - as a somewhat faceblind lay person it is incredibly unhelpful when visiting churches which don't robe. I recently visited a HTB plant where the vicar didn't even wear his collar, and it made me feel far less welcome as a visitor than vestments would. Vestments enable visitors to know 'who's who' - even most unchurched people know that 'biggest' vestments + collar = priest.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
"There's no need" for beauty in worship = race to the bottom. Too much of Protestantism thinks this way, alas. Why give God our best when we can lounge around in our Pajamas and worship him just the same, with crappy music and lousy preaching because it's not necessary to be good or beautiful. Giving our best to the Lord is so Old Testament.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Dude, have you really got to pick on the Protestants again? Why not just specify the behavior ("race to the bottom") without so often pinning the behavior on the nearest denomination not yours?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Dude, have you really got to pick on the Protestants again?
We're talking about people with a phobia to vestments. That's what this thread is about. Who else would that be? Who are the low-on-the-candle churches? Catholics? Orthodox? Anglicans? Old-line Lutherans? No. But they are Protestant. If I'm going to say something about anti-vestment types, I'm going to be talking about a certain subset of Protestants, aren't I? God forbid anybody on this thread talk about the actual topic of the thread.
quote:
Why not just specify the behavior ("race to the bottom") without so often pinning the behavior on the nearest denomination not yours?
See above.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"There's no need" for beauty in worship = race to the bottom. Too much of Protestantism thinks this way, alas. Why give God our best when we can lounge around in our Pajamas and worship him just the same, with crappy music and lousy preaching because it's not necessary to be good or beautiful. Giving our best to the Lord is so Old Testament.
Who has said ”there's no need for beauty in worship"? No one that I'm aware of.*
Somehow we seem to have gone from discussing whether one clergyman was right when he suggested vestments are off-putting to young people to assertions that vestments are required for proper worship and that too much of Protestantism thinks there's no need for beauty in worship.
* Of course, people may have honest disagreements about what is beautiful. One person's crap may be another person's gem. And some vestments are anything but beautiful.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Dude, have you really got to pick on the Protestants again?
We're talking about people with a phobia to vestments. That's what this thread is about. Who else would that be? Who are the low-on-the-candle churches? Catholics? Orthodox? Anglicans? Old-line Lutherans? No.
What? We're talking about an Anglican clergyman who suggested that vestments may keep young people from coming to church, and whether he's on to something or smoking something. And I don't think anyone has agreed that he's on to something, at least not as to young people as a whole.
quote:
God forbid anybody on this thread talk about the actual topic of the thread.
God forbid indeed.
[ 16. July 2017, 23:21: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
As someone who is officially still a Young Person according to their church and is a Millennial - we want clergy and churches to be authentically 'them'. What being 'them' means will obviously vary, but many clergy are naturally more formal and they should just be themselves.
I agree that we don't want formally-inclined clergymen to be forced to dress inauthentically in casual wear. That wouldn't impress anyone, would it? Especially not if the clergy in question were elderly. I hope that no one in the CofE hierarchy would suggest such a thing....
BTW, are any of these jeans-wearing CofE vicars women? Or are the women more traditional than the men when it comes to clothing? Maybe they feel they have to be more formal in order to project their authority, or maybe it's just that they're quite happy, on the whole, to minister to people who are united in their love of tradition.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
As someone who is officially still a Young Person according to their church and is a Millennial - we want clergy and churches to be authentically 'them'. What being 'them' means will obviously vary, but many clergy are naturally more formal and they should just be themselves.
I agree that we don't want formally-inclined clergymen to be forced to dress inauthentically in casual wear. That wouldn't impress anyone, would it? Especially not if the clergy in question were elderly. I hope that no one in the CofE hierarchy would suggest such a thing....
BTW, are any of these jeans-wearing CofE vicars women? Or are the women more traditional than the men when it comes to clothing? Maybe they feel they have to be more formal in order to project their authority, or maybe it's just that they're quite happy, on the whole, to minister to people who are united in their love of tradition.
I certainly know of women clergy in the CoE who dress informally. I think however that it's more a case of very informal CoE churches being less likely to have women clergy since they also tend to be more conservative, rather than women clergy's own preferences...there is a definite correlation between informality of clergy dress and conservatism in clergy. I find that women clergy are much less inclined to ditch the collar, in order to be more visibly clergy, but that doesn't necessarily apply to vestments.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
It's not so much that a priest can celebrate the Eucharist in street clothes, but that there is no need to bung on an alb/chasuble/dalmatic/stole etc. In short not to draw attention to yourself by wearing expensive looking clobber in a church full of people who might be struggling to put clothes on their backs.
Just remind me again which one of the Disciples protested that all that expensive stuff being used to worship our Lord should have been sold, and the money given to the poor.
I always used to enjoy hearing "... consider the lilies of the field..." read in the presence of pension managers.
Posted by RainbowGirl (# 18543) on
:
Another Young One here. I'm twenty-five. I second the comments about us millenials wanting authenticity. I don't care what you wear, I've worshipped in churches where priests wear suits and churches that use the whole shebang. I like priests to be identifiable, but whether that's with a clerical collar or crosses on the corners of a turned down collar, it doesn't bother me. What I deeply dislike are the attempts to be hip and relevant. I'm not looking for a relevant church, I'm looking for a church with authentic faith.
The biggest thing to put me off of a church is when you attend a service for the first time and no-one makes eye contact with you or acknowledges you at all. Or worse, the ones who tell you how brilliant it is to have a young one but wouldn't you be happier at the charismatic/Pentecostal church down the road?
I'm also put off when, despite being a cradle Anglican I can't find where to collect books/pewslip, or even where to enter the church. On one memorable occasion I walked fully around a church building three times before I found the single very small unlocked door by which the congregation was to enter.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I'm not aware of any evidence to support the common assertion that young people don't want a formal service/don't want vestments. The only evidence I know of is in Bob Jackson's work where he says that the real growth in church attendance by people in their 20s and 30s is in either cathedral attendance or in the more formal churches - this is UK specific of course. That strongly suggests that young people are not turned away by vestments.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Firstly, I can see why anyone coming to church for the first time would find vestments strange. Probably would also be puzzled by the dress code of the congregation. Why do we largely dress as if going to a business meeting?
Secondly, I also do not think people who come for the first time expect church services to be just the same as everyday life. What most seem to prefer is to not feel as if the congregation thinks they have walked in from Mars.
Jengie
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There are two equal and opposite dangers ISTM. One Anglican parish here affects a studied informality that can be grating. The other has an incumbent who is upping the ante on liturgical niceties to the extent that they are driving people away ...
It worries me on both counts.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RainbowGirl:
Another Young One here. I'm twenty-five. I second the comments about us millenials wanting authenticity. I don't care what you wear, I've worshipped in churches where priests wear suits and churches that use the whole shebang. I like priests to be identifiable, but whether that's with a clerical collar or crosses on the corners of a turned down collar, it doesn't bother me. What I deeply dislike are the attempts to be hip and relevant. I'm not looking for a relevant church, I'm looking for a church with authentic faith.
The biggest thing to put me off of a church is when you attend a service for the first time and no-one makes eye contact with you or acknowledges you at all. Or worse, the ones who tell you how brilliant it is to have a young one but wouldn't you be happier at the charismatic/Pentecostal church down the road?
I'm also put off when, despite being a cradle Anglican I can't find where to collect books/pewslip, or even where to enter the church. On one memorable occasion I walked fully around a church building three times before I found the single very small unlocked door by which the congregation was to enter.
oh, amen and amen
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Firstly, I can see why anyone coming to church for the first time would find vestments strange. Probably would also be puzzled by the dress code of the congregation. Why do we largely dress as if going to a business meeting?
My impression is that 'Sunday best' holds for older churchgoers (who are in the great majority, of course) but for hardly anyone under middle age. The exception would be ethnic minority congregations, where members like to make more of an effort.
IME occasional churchgoers often expect church to be quite a formal environment, perhaps because they're older and their reference point is church life from decades ago. But people who don't really go to church at all, which includes most younger people, might have a range of expectations.
Young people who are assimilated into church life are already extreme outliers, so maybe their preferences are unlikely to be replicated among unchurched people of the same age.
[ 17. July 2017, 09:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Of course all sorts of worship are equally 'proper', but it is the Eucharist at the centre which gives meaning to the rest. The early Christians certainly met regularly - weekly at least - for the 'breaking of the bread'.
Absolutely. And yet until the Fourth Century, Christians celebrated the Eucharist without the use of vestments at all, much less vestments in the proper liturgical colors. Hard to see, then, how the proper celebration of the Eucharist requires (as Utrecht Catholic says) the wearing of them.
The early Christians were the early Christians. They didn't need signs to connect them to themselves. One reason for the traditional vestments (however much they have evolved over the centuries) is to do just that: to show that our worship is in continuity with theirs.
But of course vestments aren't essential. It's the reasons some people give for abandoning them that many of us question.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
My young ones howled with mirth when they saw this: as they put it, sometimes it was only analysing the ghastliness of material and/or design of visiting bishop's vestments that made services bearable.
Listen: vestments are what is known as workwear - that is uniform by another name. You are required to wear uniform whether you work as a bellboy in an hotel, drive a train on the underground or serve in HM forces. I have friends in the forces and they've all said there are days when having to kit up in number 1s is a major pain, especially the chap in the Blues & Royals who said that wearing a metal breastplate when the temperature is 30 degrees Celsius should be classified as torture; but they wear their uniform because they knew that was part of the deal they signed up to when they joined the navy/ army/ airforce. The same is true of those members of the clergy who now moan about vestments: they were part of the deal when you signed-up. You can may call it a vocation and you may have been "selected" for training but the bottom line is you did enter the priesthood voluntarily knowing that liturgical vesture was part of the deal.
As for those clergy who prefer not to wear the collar: how do they square that with their mission to be a visible presence of the body of Christ in the community?
As for the young: some young people find uniforms on police, fire officers, etc, equally off-putting - are we seriously suggesting that they too should go into plainclothes to spare the feelings of young who will, in all likelihood, be wearing their own (albeit informal) uniform of skin-tight jeans, rumpled T-shirt, bandanna, or whatever?
I suspect that the "young" concerned were approached along the lines of do you find people in church wearing funny clothes off-putting? to which they obligingly answered in the affirmative.
[ 17. July 2017, 11:10: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
I fully agree with this statement,A Chasuble, vestment is a uniform of the church,and nothing else.
It is not for dressing up as some Evangelicals suggest.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
UC, a chasuble may be part the uniform if you are an Old Catholic. It isn't, if you are, say, Church of Scotland. Expecting other people to wear the uniform of your regiment rather than their own is akin to a Scottish soldier complaining that other parts of the army do not wear the kilt.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But of course vestments aren't essential. It's the reasons some people give for abandoning them that many of us question.
This. Yes. Thank you.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Absolutely. And yet until the Fourth Century, Christians celebrated the Eucharist without the use of vestments at all, much less vestments in the proper liturgical colors. Hard to see, then, how the proper celebration of the Eucharist requires (as Utrecht Catholic says) the wearing of them.
The vestments of modern day priests do look, in many ways, like the robes worn every day in Palestine. Long, flowing, tied with a cord, etc. So the link stretches across the centuries.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Bishops wearing pointy hats and walking with giant wooden candy canes. I know what they are supposed to symbolize. But I also know what they looked like to me when I saw them for the first time at age 15.
The liturgy at the time used language like "crumbs underneath thy table" and "quick and the dead" at that time. All thought of returning quickly died for me. I didn't come back for 9 years. And that was because of a girl, none other.
You gotta play to your audience. There's no evangelism in tradition which plays only to an inner circle of gnostics. Perhaps in England you get in the know via your schooling or because you've an establishment church.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
When I was very young, aged 5, sometimes I was taken to Sung Eucharist, when the vicar vested in a certain way in the sanctuary and sometimes I was taken to Matins/Evensong, when the vicar robed in quite another way in choir. At that young age, this variation was enough to confuse me.
Yes, confused, but not put off, by my long past experience.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
This isn't per se about vestments in liturgy.
I started watching Father Brown and Grantchester, and I understood that both series are set in the Fifties. It seems that Fr. Brown and the Rev. Sidney, both fictional clergy, spend pretty much their waking moments in clericals, I imagine it was common back in the "good old days".
Fast forward to my seminary class, a few years ago, and my congregational studies professor tell us, that other than in formal worship, the ideal is to wear what your parishioners would suitably wear in a professional setting (i.e. business casual), he said, he very rarely outside of liturgy, wears a collar.
As a young priest, let me be blunt, that unless I wear vestments in liturgy or clericals, very few people would identify me as a clergyperson. My view, is that vestments and clericals are uniforms, in much the same way that professionals are expected to wear uniforms, i think clergy should have that mindset.
In the context of liturgy, it depends on the context. A Sunday High Mass in a Cathedral is very different than a beachside Eucharist on a weekday with youth. But generally speaking, on a Sunday, if a church places emphasis on beauty through the fresh flowers and the polished chalice and paten, why would't that same emphasis be placed on the vestments that the priest wears?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on
:
In answer to the original question, and after an unscientific canvasing of teenagers in the school where I work - they are not put off by vestments. About 90% of them have no church affiliation and no idea about what actually goes on in a church so I had to explain vestments. Most of them see no reason to even go into a church or if they do it is more likely to be a church which is untainted by the scandals that have hit the established churches.
Wearing 'funny clothes' is not going to make that much difference.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
]My impression is that 'Sunday best' holds for older churchgoers (who are in the great majority, of course) but for hardly anyone under middle age.
None of our retired in the congregation wear 'Sunday best' whereas most of our students wear suits.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
As a young priest, let me be blunt, that unless I wear vestments in liturgy or clericals, very few people would identify me as a clergyperson. My view, is that vestments and clericals are uniforms, in much the same way that professionals are expected to wear uniforms, i think clergy should have that mindset.
Thanks, Anglican_Brat. Long may your opinion prosper.
My own priest wears clericals whenever he is "on duty". Paying a pastoral visit? Put clericals on - his parishioners want to see a priest. He also wears clericals shopping, and generally going about his business. He views it as both a sign of his calling and an indication that he is available to talk if he happens to encounter someone who wants to talk to a priest.
He doesn't wear clericals on his day off (when he doesn't want to be recognized as a priest) or if he's going out for the evening qua friend rather than qua priest.
I suspect attitudes towards clergy in clericals are rather driven by attitudes towards the priesthood in general. I'd expect business-casual wearers to tend to be low church types.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But of course vestments aren't essential. It's the reasons some people give for abandoning them that many of us question.
This. Yes. Thank you.
I agree too. And those reasons aren't always just questionable. Sometimes, as I said in responding to the OP, the reasons are, I think, an effort to avoid harder questions and conversations.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
In answer to the original question, and after an unscientific canvasing of teenagers in the school where I work - they are not put off by vestments. About 90% of them have no church affiliation and no idea about what actually goes on in a church so I had to explain vestments. Most of them see no reason to even go into a church or if they do it is more likely to be a church which is untainted by the scandals that have hit the established churches.
Wearing 'funny clothes' is not going to make that much difference.
This, I have to say, was rather my gut feeling. Of all the barriers to getting young people to come to faith, what church leaders are wearing or not wearing is unlikely to be high on the list of priorities.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Absolutely. And yet until the Fourth Century, Christians celebrated the Eucharist without the use of vestments at all, much less vestments in the proper liturgical colors. Hard to see, then, how the proper celebration of the Eucharist requires (as Utrecht Catholic says) the wearing of them.
The vestments of modern day priests do look, in many ways, like the robes worn every day in Palestine. Long, flowing, tied with a cord, etc. So the link stretches across the centuries.
It is said that our church's vestments closely resemble the robes worn by government functionaries in 4th/5th century Constantinople.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Bishops wearing pointy hats and walking with giant wooden candy canes. I know what they are supposed to symbolize. But I also know what they looked like to me when I saw them for the first time at age 15.
The liturgy at the time used language like "crumbs underneath thy table" and "quick and the dead" at that time. All thought of returning quickly died for me. I didn't come back for 9 years. And that was because of a girl, none other.
You gotta play to your audience. There's no evangelism in tradition which plays only to an inner circle of gnostics. Perhaps in England you get in the know via your schooling or because you've an establishment church.
I get your point, but the CofE's 'audience' is already older people, on the whole. Those younger people who are in the Church but leave have much deeper issues than what their clergy are wearing. The vast majority of young people here, though, have nothing to do with the CofE, or with any sort of organised Christianity. Clergywear alone won't make much difference to people who aren't there, and don't intend to be!
Regarding the general tone of this thread, I doubt that anyone would seriously suggest a wholesale abandonment of vestments in the CofE. It's a high status historical denomination as well as a state church, and a respect for tradition is probably a uniting feature among many of its regular churchgoers as well as its admiring outsiders. Maintaining the heritage is part of the CofE's unofficial job specification, so to speak, quite apart from the more principled arguments about why vestments are a good thing.
Nevertheless, considering that the CofE wants to hold on to its broad church credentials, I'm not sure why it should be wrong for some churches, taking into account their own context and mission, to be officially allowed to forgo the use of vestments.
I think the real fear is that casual dress among the clergy is associated with evangelicalism, and that the acceptance of casual dress is a symptom of the creeping influence of evangelicals in the CofE. IMO the answer to this is for the more visually traditional, theologically moderate churches, especially those outside the South East of England, to become more adept at creating their own distinctive ways of reaching the young (and everyone else) in their communities.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Fast forward to my seminary class, a few years ago, and my congregational studies professor tell us, that other than in formal worship, the ideal is to wear what your parishioners would suitably wear in a professional setting (i.e. business casual), he said, he very rarely outside of liturgy, wears a collar.
Assuming your parishioners do actually spend time in a professional setting.
'Business casual' is a very strange thing when you look at it closely. It is certainly not neutral in meaning. But I suppose it is historically suitable for Anglican ministers - it indicates a nice midway point on the class ladder, certainly not low but not too high either. Someone who advises, not decides. I can see Mr Collins arriving at Longbourn now in a nice, moderately priced suit with a single colour shirt, no tie.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
In answer to the original question, and after an unscientific canvasing of teenagers in the school where I work - they are not put off by vestments. About 90% of them have no church affiliation and no idea about what actually goes on in a church so I had to explain vestments. Most of them see no reason to even go into a church or if they do it is more likely to be a church which is untainted by the scandals that have hit the established churches.
Wearing 'funny clothes' is not going to make that much difference.
This, I have to say, was rather my gut feeling. Of all the barriers to getting young people to come to faith, what church leaders are wearing or not wearing is unlikely to be high on the list of priorities.
But if young people associate church scandals and centuries of oppression of women/people of color/LGBTQI+ folk, etc., with vestments, then if they ever darken the door of a church, as you have said, they are more likely to darken the door of one that in terms of preaching and mission seems to be free of scandal and addressing the problems of modern society - and doesn't wear vestments - than one that is just as scandal-free and modern-day-conscious and does wear vestments. It's this whole idea that vestments are a badge of old white men trapped in their ivory tower - even when they aren't worn by old white men - that I find infuriating.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But if young people associate church scandals and centuries of oppression of women/people of color/LGBTQI+ folk, etc., with vestments, ...
Do we have any reason to think they do?
One doesn't have to think of centuries of oppression when one can turn on the TV (or modern equivalent) and see it unfolding at the local Hobby Lobby. The people screaming at frightened young women outside the Planned Parenthood aren't wearing vestments. Pat Robertson doesn't wear vestments.
I can see no reason young people would associate vestments with toxic Christianity when the most ready-to-hand examples of toxic Christianity in their day-to-day lives do not wear vestments.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
The vestments of modern day priests do look, in many ways, like the robes worn every day in Palestine. Long, flowing, tied with a cord, etc. So the link stretches across the centuries.
Not sure this is really true. Many, probably most, Palestinian men wear Western clothing.
Those who wear traditional clothing tend to wear something that is more like a Thobe or Egyptian Gallibaya - but there is a lot of variation of styles. Neither really are much like Anglican vestments, which appear to be much baggier and have a lot more folds.
I think it is unlikely that the Anglican vestments are anything to do with dress from the ME. Much more likely it is a mutated form of clothing from those worn in Rome.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't think there is a particular problem with vestments in general. I think most people understand the concept of a uniform and that the person wearing it is doing a particular job eg policeman or nurse.
I think there is a problem when the dress code is unexplained or nonsensical or comic and when weird things happen which visitors are not supposed to find amusing.
But then I think the reverse can also be off-putting to a visitor; I think people in general and young people in particular are looking to understand the authority structures in a religious setting and are unconsciously trying to assess what is being said and who is saying it. The liturgy of non-conformists can be extremely hard to follow if one is not in the "in-crowd" and the leaders look like everyone else.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Nick Tamen said:
quote:
Sometimes, as I said in responding to the OP, the reasons are, I think, an effort to avoid harder questions and conversations.
I've wondered about this. If a priest / minister went out here (inner city) in a dog collar, I reckon they'd get tapped up for money 20, 30 times a day. With no dog collar, I could get tapped up 10 times a day - if I were wearing one then what, would I stop at everyone sat on the pavement - or not, and convey a different message?
Any priests here able to say how they handle that?
(I volunteer amongst homeless and ex-homeless in the security of a centre where begging (inside) is not allowed - so I have some insight into the reality of what's going on on the streets, including reasons why I would and would not want to give. But that's not what I'm asking about).
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But if young people associate church scandals and centuries of oppression of women/people of color/LGBTQI+ folk, etc., with vestments, then if they ever darken the door of a church, as you have said, they are more likely to darken the door of one that in terms of preaching and mission seems to be free of scandal and addressing the problems of modern society - and doesn't wear vestments - than one that is just as scandal-free and modern-day-conscious and does wear vestments.
If anything, the chances are that the blank-eyed men in suits and/or open neck shirts and chinos are the impression of Christian bigotry that they encounter. Occasionally a cardinal's robes.
If you can exclude all other associations, you're back to the question of whether accessibility or otherness is going to work better in attracting and retaining interest that leads to faith.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But if young people associate church scandals and centuries of oppression of women/people of color/LGBTQI+ folk, etc., with vestments, then if they ever darken the door of a church, as you have said, they are more likely to darken the door of one that in terms of preaching and mission seems to be free of scandal and addressing the problems of modern society - and doesn't wear vestments - than one that is just as scandal-free and modern-day-conscious and does wear vestments. It's this whole idea that vestments are a badge of old white men trapped in their ivory tower - even when they aren't worn by old white men - that I find infuriating.
I don't know from what part of the world you write, but both here and in the US the great scandals have been across all denominations (save here for the Orthodoxen, still apparently free) and religions - including one devised by the abuser.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think people in general and young people in particular are looking to understand the authority structures in a religious setting and are unconsciously trying to assess what is being said and who is saying it. The liturgy of non-conformists can be extremely hard to follow if one is not in the "in-crowd" and the leaders look like everyone else.
This is an interesting idea, but not terribly convincing.
If someone is standing in a pulpit, or are seated behind the pulpit, you know they're in authority. If they're standing by the door at the end, shaking people's hands, you know they're in authority. So-and-so may be referred to as the pastor/minister/vicar. Some churches have named photos of all the church leaders. Otherwise, church members will tell you who the minister is if you're unsure. So it's not that hard!
Maybe by 'authority' you're talking about authority figures. But it's the CofE's status above all that provides status for its clergy. The vicar is a figurehead and a source of advice and moral support. You need him or her for baptisms, weddings and funerals. But otherwise, the nice, tolerant, traditionally dressed vicar is hardly a greater authority figure than a casually dressed evangelical pastor.
BTW, most Nonconformist clergy do wear at least a dog collar. The Baptists may or may not be an exception. I've met a Baptist pastor who does wear one - but only when he's outside church!
It's the New Churches that most consistently (but not always) avoid dog collars. It works for them, but I agree that the role of a pastor in one of those churches is different from that of a CofE vicar.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I've met a Baptist pastor who does wear one - but only when he's outside church!...
I met one who did just the same thing, his explanation being that 'my flock know I'm a minister, but people outside don't'- which makes good consistent sense if your theology is of the gathered church.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This is an interesting idea, but not terribly convincing.
If someone is standing in a pulpit, or are seated behind the pulpit, you know they're in authority. If they're standing by the door at the end, shaking people's hands, you know they're in authority. So-and-so may be referred to as the pastor/minister/vicar. Some churches have named photos of all the church leaders. Otherwise, church members will tell you who the minister is if you're unsure. So it's not that hard!
I think this depends on the churches you've been to. I've had extensive experience in Evangelical churches (including Anglican ones) where the person standing behind the pulpit isn't in any kind of position of responsibility in the church for various reasons - visiting speakers, members of the congregation who are allowed to preach by the vicar, etc. I'm sorry to say that Anglican churches exist where those who occupy the pulpit are not really monitored very well.
I also know of churches, including Anglican churches, where the leader is known by their first name and who wears the same clothing as the rest of the congregation. If he is never introduced, visitors may not ever know who they are in relation to the leadership of that church.
Of course, YMMV.
quote:
Maybe by 'authority' you're talking about authority figures. But it's the CofE's status above all that provides status for its clergy. The vicar is a figurehead and a source of advice and moral support. You need him or her for baptisms, weddings and funerals. But otherwise, the nice, tolerant, traditionally dressed vicar is hardly a greater authority figure than a casually dressed evangelical pastor.
I know that and you know that. I suggest that someone walking in from the street with no idea what is going on might well focus on a guy in vestments in an Anglican church as an authority figure rather than some guy in a suit amongst a crowd of people in suits in an Evangelical church. Again, YMMV.
I appreciate that this is more complicated in Anglican churches where several people wear uniforms. But in the vast majority of Evangelical churches I've ever been to - which must be a lot over the years - the minister and/or leader wears a suit. As to deacons, elders, visiting speakers, even general members of the congregation who might be preaching in a one-off capacity.
quote:
BTW, most Nonconformist clergy do wear at least a dog collar. The Baptists may or may not be an exception. I've met a Baptist pastor who does wear one - but only when he's outside church!
I've not ever been to URC churches and very rarely Methodist churches. But I've been to many different types of Evangelical church, and outside of the Anglican church, none have ever worn any kind of dogcollar or vestment. The clothing has varied from very smart suits to t-shirts and shorts. Again, YMMV, but I believe it is incredibly unlikely anyone from the street will see someone in any kind of religious uniform (other than suit) in a non-conformist church.
quote:
It's the New Churches that most consistently (but not always) avoid dog collars. It works for them, but I agree that the role of a pastor in one of those churches is different from that of a CofE vicar.
I don't think so. Evangelical churches, particularly those associated with a Baptist, Congregational or Brethren background haven't worn dog collars for more than 50 years. Some never wore them.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I've met a Baptist pastor who does wear one - but only when he's outside church!...
I met one who did just the same thing, his explanation being that 'my flock know I'm a minister, but people outside don't'- which makes good consistent sense if your theology is of the gathered church.
And that you don't see yourself as a Priest offering a sacrifice on behalf of the people, but as someone "set aside" and recognised to lead worship and minister.
[Turns away from stable door to avoid entering DH territory].
[ 18. July 2017, 10:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes, thank you for that amplification.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Evangelical churches, particularly those associated with a Baptist, Congregational or Brethren background haven't worn dog collars for more than 50 years. Some never wore them.
I think you misunderstood me.
My point was that most English evangelical churches are not 'Nonconformist' in historical terms. The Baptists are the most significant Nonconformist evangelicals, but the other evangelical groups, such as the Congregationalists, are tiny. The Methodists are URC (who don't normally identify as evangelical) are more numerous, and do have clergy in dog collars.
I'd wager that most evangelical congregations outside the CofE are now in the New Churches. I agree that their pastors don't wear dog collars on the whole.
You may be right that evangelical churches with non-distinctive clergy are confusing places for visitors. All I can say is, if that's a serious problem then they should be declining faster than the more traditional churches, but it's normally the other way round.
As I said, IMO churches should do what's right for them.
[ 18. July 2017, 10:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think you misunderstood me.
My point was that most English evangelical churches are not 'Nonconformist' in historical terms. The Baptists are the most significant Nonconformist evangelicals, but the other evangelical groups, such as the Congregationalists, are tiny. The Methodists are URC (who don't normally identify as evangelical) are more numerous, and do have clergy in dog collars.
I'm sorry I don't understand what you are talking about.
Your hairsplitting about whether Evangelicals are non-conformist is largely irrelevant. Most people who walk into a church from the street are likely to be going to one where there are no vestments unless it happens to be an Anglican or RC church.
If they walk into a Protestant church, they're even less likely to see someone in vestments because only a minority of Methodist and URC minister regularly wear them. And those are a minority of Protestant churches anyway.
If one walks into an Evangelical church (of many different kinds), the chances of the leader being identified by a collar or other vestment are vanishingly small.
Newer churches rarely have ministers with uniform, but even older Evangelical churches with a Brethren or Baptist root haven't had ministers with collars or vestments for at least 50 years.
It might be different in the URC or Methodist circles you move in, I concede. But I'd suggest those are so numerically small that the chances of someone walking into them from the street and seeing someone in vestments is negligible.
quote:
I'd wager that most evangelical congregations outside the CofE are now in the New Churches. I agree that their pastors don't wear dog collars on the whole.
I doubt that. But what does it matter anyway? We can agree that the Evangelical churches represent a large number of church buildings in this country and very few of them wear collars or vestments. Can't we?
quote:
You may be right that evangelical churches with non-distinctive clergy are confusing places for visitors. All I can say is, if that's a serious problem then they should be declining faster than the more traditional churches, but it's normally the other way round.
I don't think those thoughts necessarily follow on from each other.
quote:
As I said, IMO churches should do what's right for them.
You've said a lot of things which don't seem to stand up to scrutiny.
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on
:
Further discussion, and a lot of google translate with our EAL students. The unfamiliarity of the form of service is off putting , but they are quite curious about what we do.
The LGBT student said she's feel awkward given her perception of Christian teaching on homosexuality. I've just pointed her up the road the the massively inclusive URC church and refuted most of what they thought they knew.
It turns out that talking about faith in a non church context helps. I've just had 30 minutes of why do you...? questions
Also you can't be a vicar if you swear as much as me - so that's me told
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Most people who walk into a church from the street are likely to be going to one where there are no vestments unless it happens to be an Anglican or RC church.[...]
You've said a lot of things which don't seem to stand up to scrutiny.
But the CofE is the state church, the default to which most people turn, if they are minded to. Most religious weddings and funerals take place in the CofE. I would assume that most CofE clergy still wear vestments? The RCC has an even larger membership, so it's strange to dismiss it. The Orthodox clergy also have sizeable numbers.
Looking at the membership figures here (see page 4), there are fair numbers of non-CofE historical denominations around, so the idea that they and their vestment-wearing clergy are irrelevant is rather odd. More Presbyterians than I was expecting, but the list is for the whole of the UK, not just England.
So it seems that people who drift into a random neighbourhood church could easily come across clergy in vestments of some kind.
However, I fully admit that I don't mix in the same church circles as you. A world where considerable numbers of non-religious people turn up to random churches and get confused by unidentifiable clergy is not one I'm very familiar with. It's probably a regional thing.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sigh, yeah OK, you've experienced something therefore it must be the case for the majority of people.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I would say that vestment-using churches in the UK are far and away the majority.
Let's face it, we all know the big Deceased Equine which keeps young people out of churches - I fear this is a deflection from churches who don't want to have to deal with it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sigh, yeah OK, you've experienced something therefore it must be the case for the majority of people.
But as I said, I accept that your area is probably different from mine. I meant that.
I live in a large industrial city, on the fringe of suburbia and a more urban social environment. I'm not in London, the South East, a small town, a commuter belt village, or a far flung suburb. If you live anywhere like that then I can well imagine your experiences are different.
Ironically, my experience of traditional city Christianity might have a little bit more in common with the kind of small village whose old-fashioned churches are struggling.
Considering that indigenous English evangelicalism is often claimed to be quite middle class nowadays, the geographical setting is likely to be quite significant overall. And where there are more English evangelicals, it seems there are fewer clergy in vestments.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I wonder if the missing link in stonespring's argument is something like this:
Wearing vestments is camp and therefore gay. Gay priests abuse children. Therefore young (and prejudiced) people are put off places where prominent people are obviously not straight.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Let's face it, we all know the big Deceased Equine which keeps young people out of churches - I fear this is a deflection from churches who don't want to have to deal with it.
Are churches that take the "modern" line on that particular pony overflowing with young people, then? Because I can't say that I've particularly noticed it.
My recent experience is mostly with the US rather than the UK, but if I compare my TEC shack (women and gay-friendly) with the RC place down the street, I don't see much difference in the demographics. (My eldest sings in the RC church choir from time to time, so I have a reasonable feel for their normal crowd.)
There's a Presbyterian place that's considering un-chartering its Boy Scout troop because the Boy Scouts have become a little less disapproving of homosexuality, and a non-denominational modern megachurch-style place that's gay-affirming (big posters with rainbow flags etc.) I know those less well, but I don't see much difference in their demographics either.
And then there's the local UUs, who are very socially active (take part in Pride events, organize volunteers to escort women to abortion clinics, ...). I don't think I'd really describe their syncretic practices as Christian (and nor would they, necessarily), but that's rather beside the point, which is that they have a similar demographic mix as well.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Sorry, but could you explain 'UUs', please? (I'm guessing Unitarian of some sort).
IJ
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Sorry, but could you explain 'UUs', please? (I'm guessing Unitarian of some sort).
Unitarian Universalist.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I would say that vestment-using churches in the UK are far and away the majority.
Er ... no. You need to include Baptist, Methodist, New Church, Pentecostal, Brethren, Salvationist, Church of Scotland (etc.) in your totals, as well as subtracting non-vestment wearing Anglicans. And remember that a Reformed "preaching gown" or even a Low Church surplice is not a vestment!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And remember that a Reformed "preaching gown" or even a Low Church surplice is not a vestment!
Not terribly relevant if the question is putting off youth coming through the door. The youth aren't going to go, "Well, that's not properly speaking a 'vestment' so it doesn't bother me."
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Let's face it, we all know the big Deceased Equine which keeps young people out of churches - I fear this is a deflection from churches who don't want to have to deal with it.
Are churches that take the "modern" line on that particular pony overflowing with young people, then? Because I can't say that I've particularly noticed it.
Someone once bitten by a poisonous snake might not stop to ask the next snake if it's poisonous or not before shunning it.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't know from what part of the world you write, but both here and in the US the great scandals have been across all denominations (save here for the Orthodoxen, still apparently free) and religions - including one devised by the abuser.
Not free, just not on the radar. We've had some scandals that ended in turnover at the top levels of one of our American jurisdictions (OCA). But we're not on anyone's radar so it went unnoticed by the press at large.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If they're standing by the door at the end, shaking people's hands, you know they're in authority.
I know that. But I am a long-time churchgoer. Does our hypothetical unchurched youth know that? Consider what is perhaps to many youths the closest analogue to a church service: a music concert. The people at the doors as you leave are not the band or anyone important.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Sorry, but could you explain 'UUs', please? (I'm guessing Unitarian of some sort).
Unitarian Universalist.
Dissimilar to us TUs
(Trinitarian universalists)
[though our universalism is stretched by Unitarians
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Thanks, Nick. I guessed Unitarian, but forgot about the universalist bit!
IJ
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Let's face it, we all know the big Deceased Equine which keeps young people out of churches - I fear this is a deflection from churches who don't want to have to deal with it.
Are churches that take the "modern" line on that particular pony overflowing with young people, then? Because I can't say that I've particularly noticed it.
My recent experience is mostly with the US rather than the UK, but if I compare my TEC shack (women and gay-friendly) with the RC place down the street, I don't see much difference in the demographics. (My eldest sings in the RC church choir from time to time, so I have a reasonable feel for their normal crowd.)
There's a Presbyterian place that's considering un-chartering its Boy Scout troop because the Boy Scouts have become a little less disapproving of homosexuality, and a non-denominational modern megachurch-style place that's gay-affirming (big posters with rainbow flags etc.) I know those less well, but I don't see much difference in their demographics either.
And then there's the local UUs, who are very socially active (take part in Pride events, organize volunteers to escort women to abortion clinics, ...). I don't think I'd really describe their syncretic practices as Christian (and nor would they, necessarily), but that's rather beside the point, which is that they have a similar demographic mix as well.
No, my point was more that it keeps young people out of all churches generally - they're not going to bother trying to find inclusive ones, they just won't go anywhere.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I would say that vestment-using churches in the UK are far and away the majority.
Er ... no. You need to include Baptist, Methodist, New Church, Pentecostal, Brethren, Salvationist, Church of Scotland (etc.) in your totals, as well as subtracting non-vestment wearing Anglicans. And remember that a Reformed "preaching gown" or even a Low Church surplice is not a vestment!
By vestment-using churches I mean the denominations, not individual churches, sorry. But I would have included preaching gowns or Low Church surplices as vestments of a kind, along with SA uniforms etc. I would have thought that Anglican and RC churches physically outnumber the others, though? Just in terms of there being so many parish Anglican churches in places where there isn't any other church.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Firstly, I can see why anyone coming to church for the first time would find vestments strange. Probably would also be puzzled by the dress code of the congregation. Why do we largely dress as if going to a business meeting?
My impression is that 'Sunday best' holds for older churchgoers (who are in the great majority, of course) but for hardly anyone under middle age. The exception would be ethnic minority congregations, where members like to make more of an effort.
Read what I said. I said 'business smart' NOT Sunday Best. I know what Sunday Best is because it was what I was brought up in. It is wearing your smartest clothes that are specially kept for attending church. Business smart is dressing as you would do for a fairly formal work occasion. So a lower standard than Sunday Best. It is the closest I can get to the average dress of congregation. Yes strangers often stand out by the fact that they are too smartly dressed.
Jengie
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Let's face it, we all know the big Deceased Equine which keeps young people out of churches - I fear this is a deflection from churches who don't want to have to deal with it.
You may well be right, but what is the evidence in support of you statements?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Jengie jon
From my slobby perspective there's not really much difference!
Mind you, I've slowly realised that church is just too posh for me in general. Even those 'evangelical jeans' look expensive.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
From my slobby perspective there's not really much difference!
Don't know about in the UK, but in my part of the world, and outside of the African American community, there isn't much difference between standard business attire and Sunday best for men. For women, on the other hand, there can be quite a difference.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
I've been to business meetings where the really important people were much more casually dressed than their underlings. Since everyone who's anyone can afford a suit and tie, you show status by indicating the rules of dressing up don't apply to you.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I've swung from so low yoy can get under a thing that's really close to the ground and bells, smells and men in guilded frocks. My personal uniform has remained at the narrow black jeans (below 17C) and cargo shorts (warmer conditions) and black t-shirt with or without dragons, hard rock band or related image thereon that's always been what I weae when Not at Work, Not on ths Bike and Not on a Seriois Walk. It's never, IME told you much beyond the place's churchmanship. I've met great people and tossers everywhere.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've swung from so low yoy can get under a thing that's really close to the ground and bells, smells and men in guilded frocks. My personal uniform has remained at the narrow black jeans (below 17C) and cargo shorts (warmer conditions) and black t-shirt with or without dragons, hard rock band or related image thereon that's always been what I weae when Not at Work, Not on ths Bike and Not on a Seriois Walk. It's never, IME told you much beyond the place's churchmanship. I've met great people and tossers everywhere.
That'd be more interesting if you were the vicar.
Having spent quite a lot of time in congregations in Anglican Cathedrals, it seems that most of the time they're deliberately taking far less interest in the clothing of the congregation than many baptist/evangelical churches I've been to.
It almost seems that when the clergy have completely over-the-top garb, the focus moves off the congregation. Of course some get dressed up, but I've seen many in shorts, t-shirts and various other clothing.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
If you go to civic services and other uniformed services eg. St. George's Day, the clergy are the most under-dressed there!
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
that's always been what I weae when Not at Work, Not on ths Bike and Not on a Seriois Walk.
My standard dress for church is clean jeans and t-shirt (in winter) and clean shorts and t-shirt (summer), usually accessorized with a small child. That's also my standard business attire (usually not with small child). If I'm an usher at church this week, I wear a suit (which I also do for work when I have to represent my employer in public).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've swung from so low yoy can get under a thing that's really close to the ground and bells, smells and men in guilded frocks. My personal uniform has remained at the narrow black jeans (below 17C) and cargo shorts (warmer conditions) and black t-shirt with or without dragons, hard rock band or related image thereon that's always been what I weae when Not at Work, Not on ths Bike and Not on a Seriois Walk. It's never, IME told you much beyond the place's churchmanship. I've met great people and tossers everywhere.
That'd be more interesting if you were the vicar.
Interestingly, then, he wears pretty much the same, as it happens. I was going somewhere with all that but God alone knows where now. I think I was making a point about my bewilderment with the concept of Sunday Best. Mind, I'm also bewildered by the concept of Business Attire. But then I'm pretty much bewildered by people. If I had any points, they were (a) that what people wear often tells you naff all beyond their music tastes and whether they're the sort of person who thinks what they wear tells you something about them (which is a bit meta), (b) that I have a long standing conflict with the Neurotypical world and its external unspoken signalling thing, (c) that posts made on phones are rather slower than even my Pooh Bear brain and I lose track, (d) they always end up full of typos, and (e) if the hospital don't sort out Dad's discharge soon the psych wing will need a bed for me.
[ 20. July 2017, 07:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you go to civic services and other uniformed services eg. St. George's Day, the clergy are the most under-dressed there!
I treat them much as Superman does Kryptonite. The Orcspawn sometimes have to go because Scouts, but Mrs Backslider and I generally nip off to the sort of coffee shop we daren't take the Orcspawn to.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
What, you have time to go all the way to Amsterdam and back? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What, you have time to go all the way to Amsterdam and back?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
, no, anywhere with tablecloths. We run a book on how long it will be until one of them spills something all over it, not []iwhether[/i].
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
IMO churches should do what's right for them.
I wanted to return to this statement, since it was implied above that it didn't 'stand up to scrutiny'.
I do tend to the view that a diversity of churches is healthy for Christianity, which does indeed mean that churches need to do what's right for their own constituency and their own context.
But this isn't just my view. There are scholars who posit a theory of religious economy. This refers to:
quote:
religious persons and organizations interacting within a market framework of competing groups and ideologies. An economy makes it possible for religious suppliers to meet the demands of different religious consumers. By offering an array of religions and religious products, a competitive religious economy stimulates such activity in a market-type setting.
In the context of this thread, the above perspective would recognise that for some Christians vestments may be a problem, while other Christians they won't. So we need churches which satisfy both groups. Otherwise, one group will be uncatered for, and may reduce its level of religious engagement as a result.
Some academics don't accept the idea of the religious economy. One argument against it is that pluralism undermines religion because it's easier to dismiss a range of competing truths than to dismiss one powerful and culturally all-encompassing one.
From the perspective of the historical denominations, lots of religious competition may also be perceived as negative. It'd be easier to control disgruntled members if a monopoly church (or a mutually reinforcing historical mainstream) meant they couldn't just waltz off to other churches, or even start their own. A religious market creates losers as well as winners.
In reality, AIUI, the national success or failure of religious competition versus that of a religious monopoly depends on various factors. The British case shows how secularisation has of course damaged most British churches, but many of the smaller, competing churches have suffered far more than the CofE.
The CofE seems to have absorbed various practices and theologies from a range of sources, and arguably reduced the need for other denominations to exist (except as an ongoing source of ideas and manpower). The religious market theorists would claim that the CofE's established status means that in the long term its Nonconformist and more recent evangelical challengers were never going to be as dynamic as they could be as a result. The CofE would always make the best use of what other Christian movements offered, and would come out on top.
However, if the CofE now benefits from its own diverse internal 'market', this means that any move to insist on formality, or tradition, or whatever else the wearing of distinctive clergy garments implies, this might well stimulate an exodus from the denomination. To judge from the Ship, and from the Church's new ruling on vestments, the CofE doesn't want this to happen.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
All this time I thought young people were put off church by hypocrisy.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
All this time I thought young people were put off church by hypocrisy.
And its weirdness.
And the early hours.
And the preaching.
And the religion.
And the geographical location.
And the music.
And the language.
And the fanatics.
And the apathetics.
And the tedium.
And the way they get ignored when they do go.
And the way they get pounced on when they do go.
And the way people dress up.
And the way people don't make an effort to dress appropriately.
And..... [insert any one of a few thousand reasons young people - or any people for that matter give - for not bothering with church.]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Just so. It amazes me, every Sunday, that Our Place manages to get any congregation at all, no matter how large, small, young, or old...
IJ
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Just so. It amazes me, every Sunday, that Our Place manages to get any congregation at all, no matter how large, small, young, or old...
IJ
Ah, the triumph of hope over experience!
(Not necessarily meaning your church, of course, just the principle.)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think I was making a point about my bewilderment with the concept of Sunday Best.
I have noticed that older people, particularly the elderly who don't go out in the evenings, rarely get the chance to dress up once they have retired. So church on Sundays is a regular chance to do so and to wear some of those special, little used clothes. Perhaps if younger people understood this, whilst not being made to feel that they, too, must dress up, then it would be easier for them to feel they belong.
There's a tendency for people to dress up even for Christenings now and you can see the discomfort, for those not used to wearing suits, at feeling they must - just like at weddings, there is this misunderstanding that you have to when going to church, just as if you were going to court!
This notice should be pinned up outside every church in the country
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I find that notice rather worthy, to be honest. And very long. It also gives the 'regular' congregation a lot to live up to.
But do I agree that churches ought to provide more information on their noticeboards.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I rather think that Coventry Cathedral have recently had their irony-o-meter recalibrated!
I agree with the sentiments, though.
Re christenings - yes, we've noticed at Our Place that people tend to really make an effort to dress up (one young Mum - tall enough already, in all honesty - tottered in on 9-inch heels, and wearing a skirt which was really just a wide belt ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
).
A former churchwarden acidly (and, IMHO, rather unkindly) remarked that all this sartorial extravagance was to make up for the wedding that hadn't happened (yet), but I sort of saw her point.
IJ
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I imagine that with her wearing those heels and that skirt, that wasn't all you saw. But perhaps you are well practiced in exercising custody of the eyes.
I rather like it that people feel the urge to dress up like that. Bit of glam, especially, never did any service any harm.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I imagine that with her wearing those heels and that skirt, that wasn't all you saw. But perhaps you are well practiced in exercising custody of the eyes.
I rather like it that people feel the urge to dress up like that. Bit of glam, especially, never did any service any harm.
Yes. Whether you like the aesthetics or not, they are saying "I recognise this as being important."
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find that notice rather worthy, to be honest. And very long. It also gives the 'regular' congregation a lot to live up to.
But do I agree that churches ought to provide more information on their noticeboards.
A long-standing and locally famous notice in a Catholic church in Ipswich - not sure sure about the bit on the right, but then I'm not RC! THe PP is lovely, by the way,
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Yes, the bit on the right does seem to detract somewhat from the welcome to turbulent little ones, but I expect the church (and its PP) has its reasons.
@Albertus, the young Mum in the heels and very short skirt was actually drop-dead gorgeous.
Or so I am told. I, of course, didn't notice, as the episcopal eyes were modestly downcast....
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
IJ
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
If you think the first notice linked to was too long and the second one too short, then here is an appropriately Goldilocksian 'just right'. I took a copy of it, but unfortunately forgot to record from whence it came.
"BEWARE! Here we practise the inclusive Gospel of Jesus Christ. This means you may be mixing with tax-collectors, sinners, adulterers, hypocrites, Greeks, Jews, women and well as men, female and male priests, homosexuals, lesbians, the disabled, dying thieves and other sinners. Black people, Asians and other ethnic minorities, Muslims, Bishops, bigots, peoples of other faiths, strangers from Rome and Nigeria, heretics, etc., etc. Even you, dear guest, are welcome. In fact, anyone like those whom Jesus mixed with. So beware, this is not a private club! Welcome to ALL."
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Thanks for that, Chorister!
I've saved it, ready to print out, and display at Our Place. Alas, I can't do so at the moment, as we still (officially) don't acknowledge women priests as priests....
That Official Line may, of course, eventually change... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
IJ
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
"BEWARE! Here we practise the inclusive Gospel of Jesus Christ. This means you may be mixing with tax-collectors, sinners, adulterers, hypocrites, Greeks, Jews, women and well as men, female and male priests, homosexuals, lesbians, the disabled, dying thieves and other sinners. Black people, Asians and other ethnic minorities, Muslims, Bishops, bigots, peoples of other faiths, strangers from Rome and Nigeria, heretics, etc., etc. Even you, dear guest, are welcome. In fact, anyone like those whom Jesus mixed with. So beware, this is not a private club! Welcome to ALL."
This notice emphasises tolerance, which is useful to many, but who's going to admit to being a bigot?
The unspoken message is that if you suspect you may be taken for a bigot, this probably isn't the church for you. Unless you're keen to have those tendencies knocked out of you!
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you think the first notice linked to was too long and the second one too short, then here is an appropriately Goldilocksian 'just right'.
Sorry, but that one is a turn-off to me. Too long and monotonous. Too many words, and somewhat hard to read, imo. It's trying too hard.
And personally, while I get the point, I'd never start anything meant to be welcoming with "Beware!"
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Nick Tamen and Svitlana, I challenge you to do better!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I suppose I was asking for that!
I don't mind the main RC notice. It doesn't try to achieve too much or make grand claims for the church.
The addendum could be made a little more polite. E.g.:
'Please remember that we don't take communion in the hands.'
As for the other one, I think it just needs to project a little more humility. Maybe something along these lines:
'St Mary's is an inclusive church which tries to provide an encouraging setting for people from all walks of life and at all stages of faith - or none. Jesus mixed with imperfect people like us, and like you!
YOU ARE WELCOME HERE.'
I'm not sure about 'encouraging setting'. Others might prefer a more assertive tone overall.
[ 09. August 2017, 17:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SL52 (# 18810) on
:
Archbishop Maurice Couve de Murville of Birmingham used to say that the Catholic church was a "Church for sinners - which is why you and I are so happy in it!!"
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Welcome aboard, SL52, and thank you for a timely reminder!
Our Place used to have a great big notice in the porch enjoining SILENCE! i.e. before the service. Our late churchwarden replaced it with a new notice, when he took office, saying simply WELCOME!
Much better, IMHO.
IJ
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Our Place used to have a great big notice in the porch enjoining SILENCE!
Very much of its time. I remember, as a small child, being led into church and reminded to whisper. It was God's house and therefore a special privilege to be there, we were to treat it with great respect, as you would a precious jewel.
Times have changed now - this feeling of awe and wonder leading to hushed tones isn't something I've seen for a long time.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Parents need to teach children how to be quiet and be still -- at home. Start with five minutes. Give rewards. Build up the time. Church shouldn't be the only and first time a child is expected to behave respectfully and quietly.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Our Place used to have a great big notice in the porch enjoining SILENCE!
Very much of its time. I remember, as a small child, being led into church and reminded to whisper. It was God's house and therefore a special privilege to be there, we were to treat it with great respect, as you would a precious jewel.
Times have changed now - this feeling of awe and wonder leading to hushed tones isn't something I've seen for a long time.
I once came across:
quote:
Enter this door
as if the floor
within were gold;
and every wall
of jewels all
of wealth untold;
as if a choir,
in robes of fire,
were singing here;
nor shout, nor rush,
but hush
for God is here.
I find it quite lovely.
As for extolling silence, this features heavily in our Divine Liturgy where the deacon repeatedly exhorts the people to silence (I count five times), referring as much to the silence of the heart at pivotal moments as it does any reduction in soundwaves.
[ 11. August 2017, 00:21: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Yes, that's nice, but do you mind if I don't enthuse about it quite so much? Back when I was growing up in the 1950s, so much emphasis was put on such a sense, that it was very easy for a child to pick up the notion that the core of the Christian faith was about the caring for holy stonework, that God really cared about the difference between Early English, Decorated and Perpendicular architecture.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think I was making a point about my bewilderment with the concept of Sunday Best.
I have noticed that older people, particularly the elderly who don't go out in the evenings, rarely get the chance to dress up once they have retired. So church on Sundays is a regular chance to do so and to wear some of those special, little used clothes. Perhaps if younger people understood this, whilst not being made to feel that they, too, must dress up, then it would be easier for them to feel they belong.
There's a tendency for people to dress up even for Christenings now and you can see the discomfort, for those not used to wearing suits, at feeling they must - just like at weddings, there is this misunderstanding that you have to when going to church, just as if you were going to court!
This notice should be pinned up outside every church in the country
*I* regularly get the "chance" (I consider it more an unwelcome requirement) to "dress up". Doesn't make me want to for church. In my perfect world my wardrobe would consist entirely of comfortable black narrow jeans, cargo shorts and black t-shirts with a range of heavy rock band logos, dragons and similar on them, and never an expectation that I wear anything else, bar where required for function - walking and cycling. Formal clothing to me means "stuff I hate but sometimes am forced to wear and resent having to part with brass for". If one day I can have a bonfire of suits, ties and especially throat-bats I'll dance around it laughing maniacally.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
(First sentence should be *I* DON'T...) ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yes, that's nice, but do you mind if I don't enthuse about it quite so much? Back when I was growing up in the 1950s, so much emphasis was put on such a sense, that it was very easy for a child to pick up the notion that the core of the Christian faith was about the caring for holy stonework, that God really cared about the difference between Early English, Decorated and Perpendicular architecture.
Whereas is you've been to the church I grew up in, you would've heard Revelation preached enough times, to know it was a reference to the construction of the heavenly kingdom (streets and city made of gold and jewels) and that the idea was you treated coming to church like a trip to a holy place like heaven (yeah, well....). Not much in the way of either early English or perpindicular where I grew up (sadly!). Very low, very modern, very undecorated!
I fear, however, that the exhortation to keep silence would've just been further excuse for the censorious old biddies to give my mum even more disapproving looks and instructions not to bring those kids in here! Glad things have moved on in many churches.
I do love that little quote, though.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
God really cared about the difference between Early English, Decorated and Perpendicular architecture.
So God doesn't care for Norman (architecturally speaking)? Is Outrage.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
Pomona objected:
quote:
The chasuble is illegal in the Church in Ireland.
Maybe. A C-of-I priest I know moved to a job in the C-of-E where a chasuble was expected, and commented that it was the first time he'd ever worn one. He seems to have got used to the idea :-)
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
God really cared about the difference between Early English, Decorated and Perpendicular architecture.
So God doesn't care for Norman (architecturally speaking)? Is Outrage.
A friend of mine at university studied architecture. He did a project on a Saxon church, and told me that his supervisor for the project considered that there were four periods in architecture: early Saxon, middle Saxon, late Saxon and modern.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I grew up in a low (Lutheran) church where the pastor wore a black robe with a surplus and stole. Then, in the late 60's there was a noticeable shift to an alb with stole and, on high festival days a chasuble,
I like the use of visuals to help get the message across. Marshall McCuhan once wrote the media is the message. There hot forms of media and cool forms of media. Now, I would grant that one can overdress with vestments, but one can also detract from the message by underdressing. Vestments with simple symbols that everyone can identify helps promote the message--like a dove on a red chasuble helps to emphasize the message of Pentecost
What I do find helpful is to explain the why of certain vestments and symbols. Kids seem to be intrigued with the stories behind the robes.
My research tells me that millennials appreciate the depth of a well-done liturgy. This includes modest vestments.
But there are also times when informal worship calls for street clothing.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
I find it very strange to hear again that the chasuble is illegal in the Church of Ireland.
I recently discovered interesting pictures of an ordination in Cork Cathedral,C.of I.
The bishop wears not only mitre and staff,but also the chasuble, red and on another occasion. white.
Even Belfast Cathedral is using the chasuble.
One of my friends told me recently that the Irish Anglicans have copied these liturgical customs from the US Episcopal Church.
I have to assume that C.of I.has changed its rather outdated canons/laws.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
... One of my friends told me recently that the Irish Anglicans have copied these liturgical customs from the US Episcopal Church. ...
It's possible I suppose, but there are three other churches in the Anglican Communion that are rather nearer.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I find it very strange to hear again that the chasuble is illegal in the Church of Ireland.
I recently discovered interesting pictures of an ordination in Cork Cathedral,C.of I.
The bishop wears not only mitre and staff,but also the chasuble, red and on another occasion. white.
Even Belfast Cathedral is using the chasuble.
One of my friends told me recently that the Irish Anglicans have copied these liturgical customs from the US Episcopal Church.
I have to assume that C.of I.has changed its rather outdated canons/laws.
The Canons appear to be much the same! However, undoubtedly there is a small number of churches who do use cassock-albs and chasubles etc. Stoles over a surplice are also a more common sight than they ever used to be when I were a lad.
I think the main influence - which isn't to say that the USA Episcopal Church hasn't been an influence - has been the regular importing of CofE clergy from across the water. There is a fairly large contingent of ex-CofE clergy ministering in Ireland. So perhaps not so much copying of other churches going on, more taking on board imported customs of newly-arrived ministers.
Plus, there has been an increasing native tendency to include vestments. Or at least to not object to their use.
The Bishop of Cork (an Irishman) and Cathedral staff there are relatively liberal catholic style, compared to the usual conservative, low church expression common to most CofI places. In Belfast, St George's is the notoriously high end of the candle. The rector at St George's, an Ulsterman, very happily of the CofI; and under its current Rector, an Ulsterman, proudly maintains its reputation for 'paper wall' high church Anglicanism.
I'm interested to hear of St Anne's indulging in chasubles!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Ooops. Sorry about messing up the penultimate sentence there. It meant to read that St George's is the upper end of the candle of the CofI, in Belfast - indeed across the whole CofI church. And the present rector, an Ulsterman, is very happy to maintain that reputation! He'd probably go higher if he could!
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are young people put off church by vestments?
No and yes. And everything in between. 'Young people' is as varied as everyone else.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Is it worth noting the Pope Francis prefers to lead Mass in simple garb--ie an alb and a stole. He is dressed down compared to Pope Benedict.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Wot? No chasuble?
Is Outrage!
(It seems a little unlikely that he'd celebrate in alb and stole alone - is there photographic evidence?)
IJ
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Wot? No chasuble?
Is Outrage!
(It seems a little unlikely that he'd celebrate in alb and stole alone - is there photographic evidence?)
IJ
I saw a film clip of him in alb & stole, but no chasuble. He may have dispensed himself.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
It may have been extremely hot. We were at an Ash Wednesday service at an inland town. Although it was 7.30 or so, the temp was still in the high 30s.
(Celsius). The priest came out beforehand and said he'd not be wearing a chasuble, they were all hot, the Lenten one particularly so. Not only no chasuble, but wring sandals as well. Sensible, practical and had a marvellously timeless look, it could have been 1500 or more years ago, somewhere around the Mediterranean.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Well, fair enough, and very sensible on a hot day. Very seemly, too - as you say, could be anywhere or anywhen.
IJ
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Wot? No chasuble?
Is Outrage!
(It seems a little unlikely that he'd celebrate in alb and stole alone - is there photographic evidence?)
IJ
I saw a film clip of him in alb & stole, but no chasuble. He may have dispensed himself.
Roman Catholic priests frequently in my experience dispense with the chasuble. Especially Jesuits. So it's no surprise if Papa Francesco does the same.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
These might sound silly questions, but I'd seriously like to know.
1. Is it a requirement of RC canon law that a priest must wear a chasuble to celebrate Mass?
2. If so, I can see that it might matter to a Catholic that the Pope doesn't. But if not, why should that matter or even be of significance?
3. It is not a requirement of CofE canon law that a priest wears one to celebrate. Traditionally few did. Many never do. It is a requirement of CofI canon law that a priest does not wear one. Is it a requirement of any province of the Anglican Communion that a priest does wear one to celebrate, and if so, which one(s)?
4. Is it a requirement of either churches of the Union of Utrecht or the various Lutheran churches that a priest wear one?
5. Now the two clinchers. Why, apart from it's presence or absence being seen by some as a party badge, does it matter so much to some people? (or is that the only reason?) and
6. Is this anything more than the principle I've enunciated on these boards before that if you serve in a Highland regiment, you wear the kilt, but it's none of your business that other regiments don't and you can't complain that they ought to?
[ 02. November 2017, 15:08: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
These might sound silly questions, but I'd seriously like to know.
3. It is not a requirement of CofE canon law that a priest wears one to celebrate. Traditionally few did. Many never do. It is a requirement of CofI canon law that a priest does not wear one. Is it a requirement of any province of the Anglican Communion that a priest does wear one to celebrate, and if so, which one(s)?
Though not a province in its own right - though it often acts as if it is - or should - run the whole Province of Australia - the Diocese of Sydney has since the early 1900s ruled that the chasuble may not be worn - indeed, it requires all new rectors to sign a declaration that they agree not to. Some sort of foolish idea of the chasuble being a sign of sacrifice, and hence against their understanding of penal substitution which lies at the heart of their understanding of the Eucharist. Mind you, it is often hard t describe many clergy in the Diocese as having a good grasp of the sacraments themselves, let alone anything else.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I've just checked in the ACoC canons-- there appears to be nothing referring to vesture. The only possible rule seems to be from the 1959/62 BCP (still the canonical standard) on p.lvi, which reads that "...such Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof at all times of their Ministrations shall be retained, and be in use, as were in the Church of England by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth."
Aside from campfire masses (usually stole over outdoors clothes), I have only ever seen clergy vested at Communion servies, normally with chasuble (although sadly very rarely with maniple), but sometimes in alb and stole, and only very rarely (not since about 1980) with surplice and stole.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The chasuble is one of the prescribed garments for a Catholic priest celebrating Mass in the Roman rite. The priestly garment ,par excellence, is however the stole.
It doesn't make the Mass any more or any less valid if the priest does not wear a chasuble.
I have often been to Masses where the priest was not wearing a chasuble, sometimes ,but not exclusively, because it was in the warm south.
The present pope likes simplicity and I would not be surprised if he sometimes leaves aside the chasuble. However I cannot imagine him celebrating Mass without a chasuble at a significant public papal event.
I notice that he only wears the papal stole at the moment when he gives a solemn blessing. Many previous popes would wear this stole much more.
I remember a time when a priest came to celebrate Mass wearing a chasuble but not an alb. Of course it looked strange. At the end of the Mass and the priest returned to the sacristy, it was only then that he noticed he was not wearing an alb. He came back into the church and apologized, assuring the faithful that this was not meant to be a new fashion in church apparel.
There is a saying in French ' l'habit ne fait pas le moine' which I think exists in English as 'the habit does not make the monk'.
The wearing of the chasuble by Anglican priests does not make them really any more or less like Catholic priests. It is also the case , I think, that Anglo-Catholic priests recognize the validity of the eucharist celebrated by their low church colleagues, whether there be difference in vesture or in understanding of what the eucharist signifies.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Forthview said:
quote:
It is also the case , I think, that Anglo-Catholic priests recognize the validity of the eucharist celebrated by their low church colleagues, whether there be difference in vesture or in understanding of what the eucharist signifies.
...as long as the low church colleague isn't a horrid Female of the Opposite Sex....
Apologies for the smell of rotting horseflesh.
Yes, I guess it is indeed the stole that is the principal Mass vestment (though some would argue that that function belongs properly to the maniple), and it is now common in the C of E for the celebrant - be s/he high-ish or low-ish church - to wear alb (or surplice) and stole.
IJ
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Anglo-Caatholicism isn't the sole preserve of misogynists. I wouldn't be surprised if Affirming Catholics outnumbered them.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It is also the case , I think, that Anglo-Catholic priests recognize the validity of the eucharist celebrated by their low church colleagues, whether there be difference in vesture or in understanding of what the eucharist signifies.
A key tenet of Anglo=-Catholicism is that the C of E is the catholic church of this land – so all her priests are catholic priests, validly ordained, whatever their church-person-ship.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It is also the case , I think, that Anglo-Catholic priests recognize the validity of the eucharist celebrated by their low church colleagues, whether there be difference in vesture or in understanding of what the eucharist signifies.
A key tenet of Anglo=-Catholicism is that the C of E is the catholic church of this land – so all her priests are catholic priests, validly ordained, whatever their church-person-ship.
That is subject to exactly the same rule as every other statement anyone ever makes about any tenet of the Church of England. The opposite, and most other versions of the statement, is/are equally true.
Dogmatic statements like this and at least one other on this thread merely look foolish.
Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
These might sound silly questions, but I'd seriously like to know.
1. Is it a requirement of RC canon law that a priest must wear a chasuble to celebrate Mass?
2. If so, I can see that it might matter to a Catholic that the Pope doesn't. But if not, why should that matter or even be of significance?
3. It is not a requirement of CofE canon law that a priest wears one to celebrate. Traditionally few did. Many never do. It is a requirement of CofI canon law that a priest does not wear one. Is it a requirement of any province of the Anglican Communion that a priest does wear one to celebrate, and if so, which one(s)?
4. Is it a requirement of either churches of the Union of Utrecht or the various Lutheran churches that a priest wear one?
5. Now the two clinchers. Why, apart from it's presence or absence being seen by some as a party badge, does it matter so much to some people? (or is that the only reason?) and
6. Is this anything more than the principle I've enunciated on these boards before that if you serve in a Highland regiment, you wear the kilt, but it's none of your business that other regiments don't and you can't complain that they ought to?
1. Yes it is.
2. It isn't. Chasubles are omitted for many pastoral reasons. No-one except the most rigid would lose any sleep over it.
3. In the CofE vestments are optional.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It is also the case , I think, that Anglo-Catholic priests recognize the validity of the eucharist celebrated by their low church colleagues, whether there be difference in vesture or in understanding of what the eucharist signifies.
A key tenet of Anglo=-Catholicism is that the C of E is the catholic church of this land – so all her priests are catholic priests, validly ordained, whatever their church-person-ship.
That is subject to exactly the same rule as every other statement anyone ever makes about any tenet of the Church of England. The opposite, and most other versions of the statement, is/are equally true.
Dogmatic statements like this and at least one other on this thread merely look foolish.
Surely it is mnore foolish for an Anglican to believe that the eucharists celebrated by his low church colleagues are invalid.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
With regard to the use of the Chasuble within the Churces of the Union of Utrecht,the Old-Catholics,it is not a matter of canon law,it is the tradition to wear it at the celebration of the Eucharist.
Its use had also had been continued in the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches after the break with Rome.A Swedish priest told me once that the chasuble is still the tradition,
however I am wondering if it has been laid down in Canon Law,it might be perhaps.
I have said many times to Evangelical Anglicans,that the Chasuble has not any associations with the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Over the years I have attended many times the Eucharist in English Cathedrals, and I always noticed that the presider wore the Chasuble,the only exception was Liverpool Cathedral.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Over the years I have attended many times the Eucharist in English Cathedrals, and I always noticed that the presider wore the Chasuble,the only exception was Liverpool Cathedral.
I suspect Bradford is another one. But I have seen the chasuble in use at Liverpool Cathedral ... I don't go there often enough to say whether or not that is now the norm. Percy Dearmer was their liturgical consultant in the early days: perhaps his influence is being felt at last.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Chasuble, dalmatic, and tunicles at Wakefield Cathedral.
Can't see any maniples, though, so the Mass was clearly Not Valid. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
And 2 x chasubles, dalmatic, incense, and the eastward position, in the Church of Sweden.
IJ
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Chasuble, dalmatic, and tunicles at Wakefield Cathedral.
Can't see any maniples, though, so the Mass was clearly Not Valid. ...
I'm much more uncomfortable that the altar has not had a proper "fair white linen cloth" laid upon it from the start of the service. Yes, a small cloth seems to have been added by the time of the Eucharistic Prayer, but the top surface of the altar is even then still predominantly bare polished wood. That's fine for Morning or Evening Prayer but not for Communion. Whatever the canonical position, I'm antique enough for it not to feel right.
Is definitely Outrage.
[ 07. November 2017, 22:07: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Indeed. I hadn't noticed the lack of the fair linen cloth, and the small cloth you refer to is, in fact, a corporal (the Deacon can be seen unfolding it on the altar during the offertory hymn).
An odd omission, given the seemly and edifying nature of the service as a whole - lots of incense, bells, and some proper good hymns.
IJ
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Teenagers in vestments, acting as acolytes etc. during the Eucharist.
They were, I understand, confirmation candidates in a small suburban parish in the Swedish city of Vaxjo.
IJ
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Teenagers in vestments?
Our acolytes are between ages six and ten. They think it is a high honor to be included in worship
Teenagers? Not so much, though they often stand in as ushers, communion assistants and lay readers.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Indeed, though it seems to be the custom in Sweden to encourage confirmands to dress up, and to act as acolytes.
They also wear vestments (a sort of alb) for the confirmation service itself, maybe as a reminder of their Baptism?
As here, with one of the team ministry priests doing the confirming, rather than the Bishop.
IJ
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Are they in vestments, or is that what it's customary for girls to wear for Confirmation in Sweden?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Well, it's not just girls - there are other videos showing mixed groups - but it does seem to be customary, at least in Sweden. Looks like an alb to me, anyhow, and that's a sort of vestment, no?
As I said, it may be a reminder of the white baptismal gown that used to be traditional (for infants, at any rate) in this country.
IJ
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
Following on from Bishop's Finger's post:
quote:
Teenagers in vestments, acting as acolytes etc. during the Eucharist.
They were, I understand, confirmation candidates in a small suburban parish in the Swedish city of Vaxjo.
The Church of Finland was, for centuries, part of the Church of Sweden (until Sweden lost Finland to the Russian Empire in 1807). Its centre of eccelesial gravity is noticeably lower than that of Sweden (with a rather Higher-Church tendency among much of the Swedish-language sector in Finland, who have their own Bishop) but there are many continuities. So I reply on the basis of Finnish experience:
1) Confirmation is still taken by at least half the teenage population, and is a significant rite of passage – in a social sense, more than a religious one, in many cases. (Surprise, surprise.)
2) Confirmation is in my experience always carried out by the parish clergy: it is not defined as an episcopal rite.
3) All conf candidates I have ever seen in Norden [=the Nordic countries] wore albs for the occasion,
[Pedantic point, but of considerable importance to Finns and also Icelanders, possibly also Faeroese; 'Scandinavia' is the name of that enormous peninsula that hangs down from the northwest corner of the European landmass and includes Norway and Sweden, plus Denmark bulging up from the northwest corner of Germany. Those three languages (or four) – Danish, Norwegian Bokmål (+ Norwegian Nynorsk), and Swedish – are to a considerable extent mutually comprehensible. Western Nordic, = Faeroese and Icelandic from the North Atlantic, are very significantly different and mutual comprehensibility is much more challenging. (The written languages are much easier for the others to understand than the spoken.)
Finland is on a different bit of landmass, and the language is utterly, utterly different (despite a fair amount of vocabulary borrowing); the Finns are not 'Scandinavian'.
All of these countries, societies, and cultures are 'Nordic', and Norden is a name that includes them all.]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Thanks for the Finnish perspective, keibat. It's interesting that confirmation is still popular - I recall my own confirmation as a teenager 50 years ago, when the church was packed full with folk from the four local churches. There must have been 30-40 of us from my own parish.
No albs, though!
IJ
Posted by John3000 (# 18786) on
:
This debate reminds of the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer
"And whereas in this our time, the minds of men are so diverse, that some think it a great matter of conscience to depart from a piece of the least of their Ceremonies, they be so addicted to their old customs; and again on the other side, some be so newfangled, that they would innovate all things, and so despise the old, that nothing can like them, but that is new: it was thought expedient, not so much to have respect how to please and satisfy either of these parties, as how to please God, and profit them both. And yet lest any man should be offended, whom good reason might satisfy, here be certain causes rendered, why some of the accustomed Ceremonies be put away, and some retained and kept still."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Back in the 1950s in England I can remember seeing girls wearing plain white head-dresses for Confirmation. I think boys wore ordinary suits. When I was confirmed in the 1960s, it was done at a school which was boys only. So I don't know whether girls still wore them. I haven't seen this since but don't know when it died out, or even whether there are places where it is still done.
I have seen girls dressed for Confirmation more recently rather as though for an RC First Communion, though I don't think this is all that widespread. The white head-dresses I remember were quite different in style..
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I, too, was confirmed in the 1960s, in church, but I can't recall any of the girls wearing any form of white head covering.
All our local churches were very Low Church - well beneath the floorboards - so was the white head-dress perhaps more of a High Church (or even Roman Catholic) custom?
Welcome aboard, by the way, John3000 - that extract from the BCP applies quite well to Ecclesiantics, as you have already noticed....
IJ
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Confirmed in my home parish in the 1960s.
Almost all the girls wore white dresses (knee-length, no mini-skirts), the boys mostly school uniform.
Boys were told not to use any Brylcreem or other styling product; girls had white cotton veils from front of head to at least the waist at the back, which were pinned in place by members of the Mothers Union.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I, too, was confirmed in the 1960s, in church, but I can't recall any of the girls wearing any form of white head covering.
All our local churches were very Low Church - well beneath the floorboards - so was the white head-dress perhaps more of a High Church (or even Roman Catholic) custom?
IJ
I was confirmed in 1963, snake-belly low church -- but all the girls wore white veils.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Yes, we had the instruction about no Brylcreem. Does anyone use it these days?
Does anyone know when the white veils died out, or whether there is anywhere that girls are still expected to wear them?
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Sure you are not mixing up First Communion with confirmation?
Jengie
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Sure you are not mixing up First Communion with confirmation?
Jengie
In the C of E (and probably other Anglican churches) until recently, Confirmation and First Communion went together. I don't know when the tradition of white dresses and veils started, but it was certainly almost universal in the 'Lancashire Low' parishes on the fringes of the Liverpool (and I guess Manchester) dioceses at the end of the last century; very likely it still lingers in places. Like the Whit Walks, it was probably motivated by the desire to keep up with the Catholics who are very strong, if not a majority, in those parts.
Now that children and others are being encouraged to receive communion before confirmation, I wonder if the dressing up will be transferred to 'first communion' or if it will be just quietly dropped.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Jengie
Not, not first communion, just confirmation: bishop, laying-on of hands, Defend, O Lord, this thy child etc.
Brylcreem was not permitted because it would make the bishop's hands sticky.
Angloid
Actually until pretty recently the tad CofE practice was to have confirmation as an entirely separate thing from making one's first communion. Saturday or Sunday afternoons were the norm so that Godparents could get to the service, which usually took no more than an hour and was followed by TEA.
The other thing was that the bishop came to the parish (unless very small, in which case maybe two/three neighbouring parishes would take it in turns to 'host' the confirmation) rather than making everyone schlep to the cathedral before enduring the current Supermarket Sweep style confirmations which take forever - my own children's confirmation took over 3 hours and was slightly less personal than the opening of a new ball-bearing factory in, say, Omsk.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yes, we had the instruction about no Brylcreem. Does anyone use it these days?
A tangent, but Brylcreem had a marketing opportunity a few years back when male yoofs were opting in to hair gels in spades. Yet it seemed to miss the boat, and mobs like Vo5 and Schwarzkopf seized the day ... products (that being a Word With Weight™ ) ... that I note amongst my sons' collections include gems like "Shock Waves Free Style Gel (tag line "Have Your Play your Way" ) and Dominate Nitro Cement (more prosaic, with "No Parabens, No Phthalates, No Animal Testing" but on the B-side the added suggestion "Rocket fuel your look with our hardest hold Nitro Cement-construct, define then Dominate"*) ...
to redirect the tangent may I suggest that the poor Holy Spirit has little chance of penetrating such product?
At any rate, my sons take far longer to get ready in the mornings than my daughters ever did, and despite being PKs would not have a clue what confirmation was, so are unlikely to take veil or male equivalent** any time. (Younger son gave up attending when we moved to the church without walls in the tropics, and a woman whisked his hat off saying "we don't wear hats in church." He opted for the hat thereafter).
*In future years Pfizer Laboratories might steal that sentence to market Viagra ...
** the mind boggles
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
What is this 'hair' thing of which you speak?
But, as L'organist says, time was when Confirmation was a distinctly separate service (IIRC, mine was on a weekday evening), with various parishes attending. First Communion was often made, without ceremony, at the next available service (usually 8am on the following Sunday).
The only vestments worn (to get back to the OP) were those of the Bishop (rochet, chimere, etc.), and the presenting clergy (cassock, surplice, and Black Scarf - none of that High Church coloured stole nonsense in our neck of the woods).
We seem to have got onto a bit of a tangent. I reckon that any teenagers presenting themselves for Confirmation these days, whatever their church background, are unlikely to be fazed by any sort of vestment worn by the Bishop or clergy.
IJ
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...Brylcreem was not permitted because it would make the bishop's hands sticky...
[Tangent] There's a story in, I think, Aubrey's Brief Lives, of a rather louche C17 bishop about to confirm a bald man, calling to his chaplain 'A little dust, here, please'.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
In a number of countries with a widespread Catholic tradition First Communion has been for centuries an important rite of passage.Particularly for girls dresses etc had reached a giddy limit which bishops and priests did not and do not want to encourage.
In the Latin countries of France,Spain and Italy First Communion ceremonies are now replaced by a ceremony called Solemn Communion which is made at about the age of 14.
In France,at least, the prescribed dress is a white alb for both boys and girls.You will often see in photographers's shops photos of young people wearing these garments.
(The first Communion is made privately without great ceremony.The traditional ceremonies are those which were brought into being in Counter Reformation times by German Jesuits,precisely to encourage youngsters to come to Communion).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Returning to the OP, I think YP are put off church by the same things as the middle aged - the feeling it's mostly full of elderly God-botherers.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And that might well put off some older people too.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Chasuble, dalmatic, and tunicles at Wakefield Cathedral.
Oh happy memories - I used to go there regularly in the 1970s when it was much higher in churchmanship.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Sure you are not mixing up First Communion with confirmation?
No, definitely not. Confirmation did not necessarily coincide with a Communion Service. We were confirmed on a Saturday afternoon. Most of us took Communion at 8 am the next morning, as was the virtually universal practice in those days, but as the Confirmation was in the autumn, one or two people waited until Christmas.
It was recommended in those days that one should aspire to communicate monthly, as in Betjeman's famous poem about the Death of King George V + at the key festivals.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
I was confirmed in 1960 in an A-C TEC parish near Chicago. There was a sizeable class of kiddos (3rd graders) and about 20 adults. All the females wore white veils provided by the parish, with IIRC white dresses for the children's class but not the adult women.
Saturday afternoon stand-alone confirmation service from the TEC 1928 BCP, followed by Benediction (of course!)
Don't remember any cautions about Brylcreem, but we were warned about the 'buffett,' ie, the bishop slapping each candidate on the cheek.
The bishop's chair was placed in front of the high altar, on the top step, and it was tricky backing down the 3 steps, because one could not, after all, turn one's back on the bishop.
It seems a VERY long time ago!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
... Don't remember any cautions about Brylcreem, but we were warned about the 'buffett,' ie, the bishop slapping each candidate on the cheek. ...
I assume that's a joke to frighten people, like Evelyn Waugh's sacred monkeys in the Vatican, and not some weird transatlantic custom.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And that might well put off some older people too.
Well yes, but there's a serious underpinning to my comment - people are in the main put off by not being interested in religion - and generally speaking, the younger they are, the less they're interested.
The Charevos kept on promising me that revival - by which they meant lots of people becoming charevos - was just around the corner. 1988 was going to be a big year (40 years from the establishment of the state of Israel - this was relevant for some reason that escapes me now) but the reality was, and is, decline.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
don't know about the Anglican confirmation ceremony but in an RC confirmation ceremony the bishop was supposed to tap the candidate on the cheek to remind the person that they now had to stand up for Christ against the various assaults of the world and the devil. Much play was always made amongst the candidates about the bishop hitting or slapping or even ,I suppose 'buffeting' the candidates. Since the changes after Vatican 2 this detail has been changed to a handshake.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
don't know about the Anglican confirmation ceremony but in an RC confirmation ceremony the bishop was supposed to tap the candidate on the cheek to remind the person that they now had to stand up for Christ against the various assaults of the world and the devil. Much play was always made amongst the candidates about the bishop hitting or slapping or even ,I suppose 'buffeting' the candidates. Since the changes after Vatican 2 this detail has been changed to a handshake.
Yes. This still happened in Anglican confirmations as recently as the 1990s. I can't speak for current practice.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Yes. This still happened in Anglican confirmations as recently as the 1990s. I can't speak for current practice.
Did it? Where? I've never seen or heard of such a thing. It's not in the 1662 BCP. It's weird enough that I'd have remembered it if it had happened at mine, or if I'd seen it anywhere else.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Yes. This still happened in Anglican confirmations as recently as the 1990s. I can't speak for current practice.
Did it? Where? I've never seen or heard of such a thing. It's not in the 1662 BCP. It's weird enough that I'd have remembered it if it had happened at mine, or if I'd seen it anywhere else.
It was done at my own Anglican confirmation in the Diocese of NECA in the Province of the West Indies, and at all confirmations at which I served as a teenager.
ETA that it was as Augustine said: there was always much ado over it among the confirmation candidates before the event.
[ 12. November 2017, 22:06: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
... Don't remember any cautions about Brylcreem, but we were warned about the 'buffett,' ie, the bishop slapping each candidate on the cheek. ...
I assume that's a joke to frighten people, like Evelyn Waugh's sacred monkeys in the Vatican, and not some weird transatlantic custom.
No, the slap on the cheek was in the Roman Pontifical, which our parish followed as closely as possible.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
'I stand amazed'. I thought it must be a joke. There's no mention of any such thing in either 1662 or Common Worship, which has regularised quite a lot of things that some people have been doing for years but were a bit under the radar.
As far as I am aware, this extra-liturgical oddity has never been part of how things are done in England. It would require the connivance of both bishop and parish if anyone was minded to try it on. Not sure I can imagine what might happen if a parish secretary were to ring up the diocesan office and say 'Father has asked me to check with you that the bishop will be happy to slap all the candidates on the face after he/she has confirmed them'.
Whatever might happen in other provinces, has any Shipmate encountered it here?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
No.
But them Roaming Carflicks are a Funny Lot - there's no telling wot they might get up to.....
IJ
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
I was confirmed around 1960 by the saintly Bishop George Bell of Chichester, whose reputation has been more recently been tarnished by an accusation of impropriety which I am completely unable to evaluate – but I know he was a saintly man, a peacemaker. And he most certainly did not buffet any of us.
I presume that buffetry was copied, like so much other Roman ceremonial, by the more Romanizing sections of Anglicanism, but never made any inroads elsewhere. The fact that it is not mentioned in 1662 (or 1549 or 1552...) is no surprise, since rubrics about ritual actions are sparse and far between in the old BCP. And CW leaves a great deal to be decided by local custom. It makes no specifications about reverencing the altar, or the Blessed Sacrament, for instance; it only ever mentions incense in passages quoted from Scripture (it does amuse me that Evangelicals object so strongly to incense, when it was so incontrovertibly a prominent feature of Jewish Temple worship!). But it doesn't forbid them either.
I can't say I would like to see buffeting used more widely!
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
O, I don't know - I can think of a few people at Our Place who might benefit from being lined up in front of a Bishop for a good 'buffeting'!
Mind you, if it were done in today's abuse-aware climate, the Bishop might soon find him/herself up before the beak (and possibly sent to the jug).
IJ
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
(it does amuse me that Evangelicals object so strongly to incense,
I'm not sure that they do any more. Unless they are the type of Evangelical who objects to everything (who are a small minority but increasingly vocal).
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O, I don't know - I can think of a few people at Our Place who might benefit from being lined up in front of a Bishop for a good 'buffeting'!
I can think of a few Bishops I'd like to see lined up...
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I know of one or two churches around here which now use incense - on a small scale - from time to time, even though it's never been part of their tradition.
Well, not quite never - I was asked to serve as thurifer at the funeral of a gent who came to Our Place occasionally for (as he put it) 'some proper religion'.
His Own Place - a thriving, Low-to-MOTR village church, 900 years old, albeit much rebuilt and restored - was packed for his funeral, at which holy water and incense were used, probably for the first time since the Reformation.
Not a 'Protestant Coff' was to be heard, except from a choir lady, who apologised (bless her) for having The Mother And Father Of All Colds, but who still turned out for the service.
/tangent alert/
The Team Vicar became somewhat emotional during his sermon, and signalled for a glass of water. For various reasons, all that was available was the clearly-labelled bottle of Holy Water I'd brought along, so a glass of this was duly administered - and the TV saw where it came from. How he kept from laughing, I know not, but he said (some time later) that it must have been Good Stuff, as he hadn't had a sore throat or a cold all winter!
IJ
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O, I don't know - I can think of a few people at Our Place who might benefit from being lined up in front of a Bishop for a good 'buffeting'!
I can think of a few Bishops I'd like to see lined up...
There are times and places for bashing Bishops but a Confirmation service isn't one of them...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
There are times and places for bashing Bishops but a Confirmation service isn't one of them...
Do you need the same bottle to wash your mouth out?
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Does anyone else know the limerick:
There once was a Bishop of Birmingham?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
This one?
Probably NSFW, so be warned!
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
IJ
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
This one?
Probably NSFW, so be warned!
IJ
I know a similar one -- it goes on for several verses.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
There once was a Bishop of Birmingham
Used to rape all the girls while confirming them.
To sounds of applause
He would pull down their drawers
And insert the episcopal worm in them.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
...who buggered young boys while confirming 'em
While reading from Job
He'd lift up his robe
And pump the episcopal sperm in'em
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Rape and child abuse jokes? Seriously?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Disgusting.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Rape and child abuse jokes? Seriously?
No. Just limericks
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Hosting
Given the horrendous reports of abuse that are emerging from around the world, let's stick to vestments, okay?
/hosting
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Apologies, O Hostly One - my fault, for providing a link....
IJ
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I, too, apologise
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Yes. This still happened in Anglican confirmations as recently as the 1990s. I can't speak for current practice.
Did it? Where? I've never seen or heard of such a thing. It's not in the 1662 BCP. It's weird enough that I'd have remembered it if it had happened at mine, or if I'd seen it anywhere else.
nor me
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Ahem.
Reverting to vestments, I wonder how many of the multitudes of confirmands of yore were put off by the Bishop's vestments?
The Bishop of Dudley appears to be wearing the traditional vesture of a bishop (he's the chap on the left), similar to what our Bishop wore when I was confirmed sometime last century... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
IJ
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I, too, apologise
Yes, and me.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
Bishop's Finger commented:
quote:
Reverting to vestments, I wonder how many of the multitudes of confirmands of yore were put off by the Bishop's vestments?
The Bishop of Dudley appears to be wearing the traditional vesture of a bishop (
Two points:
1) 'The young' [i e of today] is equally as helpful a categorization as 'the young of yore' [OK, BF was referring to 'confirmands of yore']. Crucial issue: folk are different. Even within the 'same' category, folk are different; and when the category is one of biological + cultural age [the two being inseparable], folk are very different.
2) Lots of bishops continue to wear the chimere [how does one pronounce that word?!] as choir dress for a variety of nonsacramental occasions – look at the recent photo ops from the Primates' meeting. It's rather cool, and very distinctively Anglican
Edit (beyond the job description really, but we're just nice like that): UBB flaw was messing up the dramatic impact]
[ 17. November 2017, 20:05: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Wikipedia to the rescue!
The accent can be on either the first or the second syllable, as you see.
Point taken re the somewhat fluid definition of 'young', BTW.
IJ
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Choir dress, Canterbury rig or convocation robes are other names for that get-up. Very Anglican.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Ahem.
Reverting to vestments, I wonder how many of the multitudes of confirmands of yore were put off by the Bishop's vestments?
The Bishop of Dudley appears to be wearing the traditional vesture of a bishop (he's the chap on the left), similar to what our Bishop wore when I was confirmed sometime last century...
IJ
Standard rig for the Church of Ireland bishes on the left. The poncy sugar-icing Christmas-tree effect on the right (she said puckishly) would, with perhaps a couple of exceptions already mentioned elsewhere in Eccles, cause actual coronaries in most parts of the CofI - especially North of the border.
Liturgically coloured book-marks for the Bible on the lectern is about as decorated as it's allowed to get in a lot of places!
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
The Dioceses' of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, Ferns, Cashel, Ossory, Leighlin, Lismore and Waterford, Limerick, Ardfert, Aghadoe, Clonfert, Kilfenora, Emly, Kilmacduagh and Killaloe, Dublin and Glendaough, Tuam, Killala and Achonry better start updating their coronary care centres.
You'll no doubt be able to work out from that where the dividing line is
Further edited to add:
You could - at a great stretch - include Down and Dromore in that, but only when he's abroad.
[ 17. November 2017, 12:26: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Choir dress, Canterbury rig or convocation robes are other names for that get-up. Very Anglican.
As worn in the House of Lords, although with black chimere.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The Bishop of Dudley appears to be wearing the traditional vesture of a bishop (he's the chap on the left), similar to what our Bishop wore when I was confirmed sometime last century...
IJ
That's not a bishop ... that's a prep school prefect in dressups
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Yes, he does look rather young to be a Bishop..... ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
IJ
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Hmm. On reflection, it's me that's getting older (and crabbier... ).
IJ
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0