Ship of Fools: Swords in Church

Thread: Swords in Church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024917

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

The thread on medals on tippets made me think of this.

Is it appropriate for a man in the forces who is entitled to wear a sword as part of his uniform to wear it in church, if he wears his uniform to the service?

This came up recently at a celebratory service where one of the sidesman was an officer, and wore his dress uniform, and wanted to wear the sword but was told not to.

I was recently at a wedding at which the father of the bride was a Navy officer and he made a point of explaining he had left the sword off for the service (the bride later used it to cut the cake at the reception).

For some reason I was under the impression that Navy officers were permitted to wear their swords in church as a courtesy, but I can find no substantiation of this.

So, are there rules (or conventions) for this and would it make a difference if one were participating in the service rather than just attending?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

http://www.rcbishopricforces.org.uk/navy-customs-etiquette.php

It seems that wearing the sword during the service is generally not the done thing.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The number of times a member of the Canadian Forces wears a sword in their career may typically be counted on one hand.

Swords would be a problem when sitting in the pews, depending on how they are slung. Slings would be easier than a frog and Sam Browne belt.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

There are some old churches in the UK which have a 'sword stand' eg St. Stephen's City, Bristol. It is on the south side of the chancel.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I believe that in the British Army there may be some regiments which do or did- the old 53rd Foot (now i think part of the Rifles) springs to mind for some reason, but whether that has carried on into the successor regiment or not I don't know. Somewhere buried deep in the MOD website there are IIRC dress regulations for the RAF and probably RN and RM which i think cover this point too.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

"Swords" in Rifle regiments are sword-bayonets, bayonets which are longer than average. The original Baker Rifle of the Napoleonic Wars was shorter than a musket and so had a longer bayonet issued to make up the difference.

I'm a Sharpe fan.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I was at a wedding recently where a guest wore military uniform including a sword. I think that bringing weapons into church is always inappropriate and had it been a church for which I had responsibility I would have asked the guest to leave the sword outside.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

One would love to see Isaiah 2:4 for the reading.

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

I played for a wedding, with the groom in his Civil War re-Enactment uniform, complete with sword. The bride was in an Old South Belle of the ball flouncy dress. He did a lot of bowing and kissing her hand. It was a little too stage-crafty for me.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

I once did some supply preaching at a country church. Just as the service was starting, a man in kilt and armour, including a helmet with visor covering most of his face, wandered into the church and sat at the back. He joined fully in all the hymns and worship. At the door, he wished me good morning as I shook his hand, then picked up his broadsword from the porch and left without explanation.

When I asked the locals about him, they confirmed that he was a regular, and that he always dressed like that. "But we did have to ask him to leave his sword at the door," they informed me cheerfully.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There are some old churches in the UK which have a 'sword stand' eg St. Stephen's City, Bristol. It is on the south side of the chancel.

That will be for the Lord Mayor's ceremonial sword, carried if front of him by his Swordbearer, if Bristol and the City of London follow the same traditions.

The Queen was presented with a ceremonial sword in the course of her coronation. This is quite different from members of the congregation wearing swords.

What did the old South re-enactment do about slaves?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I don't see a problem either way. It is a courtesy that should be shown by an officer to ask if there is any objection to wearing a sword. If so, then the sword can be removed and replaced on leaving the church. Similarly, the military guests can don theirs at the end ready for the Guard of Honour at the door.

A sword is never worn in the mess (or at the reception). In the Army, medals are also removed on entering the mess. This does not apply to miniatures word with mess kit in the evening (when swords are never worn).

If a sword is permitted, great care has to be taken when kneeling as they are liable to get in the way.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I don't think it's appropriate to wear a sword in church. It's also quite clear that there's a long tradition of removing them, for very good practical and symbolic reasons.

This isn't an issue round here, but for the same reasons, I don't think it's appropriate to wear a handgun in church. I'd be very suspicious of the validity of someone's faith if they can't see why.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Anyone remember if Prince William, or any other royal groom, wore his sword with his military uniform at his wedding?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Anyone remember if Prince William, or any other royal groom, wore his sword with his military uniform at his wedding?

I just did a Google image search -- lots of pictures of the Prince from every angle possible, and I didn't see one.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Prince William did not wear one, and there are good reasons for not doing so - both out of respect for a house of Worship, and for polite reasons. It is a matter of choice for the individuals and local church authorities.

As for the comment 'I would question the validity...' that is just a little silly.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

In many areas these days, if you left your sword in the porch it will have been nicked by the end of the service. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Is it appropriate for a man in the forces who is entitled to wear a sword as part of his uniform to wear it in church, if he wears his uniform to the service?

I feel obliged to point out that this dilemma could also apply to a female officer.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
"Swords" in Rifle regiments are sword-bayonets, bayonets which are longer than average. The original Baker Rifle of the Napoleonic Wars was shorter than a musket and so had a longer bayonet issued to make up the difference.

I'm a Sharpe fan.

Ah yes, you're right. Now I think of it, it wasn't teh 53rd, who became Light Infantry and then Rifles. 29th Foot- later the Worcestershire Regiment is the one I think I mean- now part of the Mercians.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

The post is somewhat timely for me because my parish is, in a few hours, going to celebrate a requiem Eucharist for all the first responders (police, fire, and EMT) in our community who have died in the line of duty. I think that this is a wonderful and appropriate gesture. However, the processional will be led by a police honor guard armed with ceremonial swords and (deactivated) rifles (the honor guard duty alternates between police and firefighters from year to year). The color guard will then present the flags for the Pledge of Allegiance from just outside of the chancel. While I think that for a civic service of this nature having a color guard is wonderful and appropriate, I would like to have the color guard ceremony take place in the narthex, and require the weapons to remain outside of the consecrated ground. However, there are two reasons, one practical and one pastoral, that prevent this from happening. First, our nave has a sloped floor, so people in the front pews cannot see the narthex. Second, the color guard has to remain near the colors and are not allowed to put down their weapons, but they want to take Communion. Thus, we have swords and guns in the nave. I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over it, and I think the service is a wonderful idea in general.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Prince William did not wear one, and there are good reasons for not doing so - both out of respect for a house of Worship, and for polite reasons. It is a matter of choice for the individuals and local church authorities.

As for the comment 'I would question the validity...' that is just a little silly.

When in Full Dress, as William was, there are various options available with respect to the details. For instance, the Irish Guards wear bearskins, but William wore the undress peaked cap. My cousin served in the band of the Governor General's Food Guards for two summers here in Canada, and the uniform is the same. The GGFG wear bearskins on parade and when mounting guard on Parliament Hill, but wear peaked caps when playing band gigs in the ballroom at Rideau Hall, the Governor General's residence.

It is entirely appropriate the leave off certain items of dress if they are clearly impractical or uncalled for by the rules of polite company.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
In many areas these days, if you left your sword in the porch it will have been nicked by the end of the service.

I note from the RC Royal Navy chaplaincy page that it is suggested that swords be left in the charge of one of the party. I suspect that the laws of most places will require that this be done for firearms, loaded or not.

One of my mother's golfing buddies in Florida kept her (loaded) sidearm in her purse using that state's conceal and carry procedures, but I do not know if any of the clergy would dare challenge or regulate this. However, that is a different pastoral situation.

Perhaps a CoS or Presbyterian shipmate could clarify for us if a piper's skean dhu is removed during divine service.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One of my mother's golfing buddies in Florida kept her (loaded) sidearm in her purse using that state's conceal and carry procedures, but I do not know if any of the clergy would dare challenge or regulate this.

As far as I know, weapons are never permitted in an Orthodox Church, and if the clergy at an Orthodox Church were told that someone was carrying a weapon, they'd have to challenge it.

The subject has, in fact, come up at our parish.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

My authority is Nancy Mitford's book on the Sun King, where she refers to James II's wearing a sword to Mass, that being a privilege attaching to him as king, a Garter Knight, or some such. She notes how the sword clanked as he entered and left. It would have been very difficult to kneel, genuflect and so forth*.

At school, the colours are marched into chapel for the service preceding the passing-out parade. The swords for the flag party are left on a table in the porch, under guard.

*The limerick comes to mind (hope this is OK in Ecclesiantics):

There was a young fellow called Bates
Who danced the fandango on skates,
Til a fall n his cutlass
Rendered him nut less,
And practically useless on dates.

[ 24. September 2012, 03:52: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

A big pond difference is guns. The general feeling here is that guns are not acceptable in public and mum's golfing buddy is being criminal. (She may actually be criminal in UK: I've not checked the exact UK legal situation.)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

She would be very unlikely to meet any of the criteria to be permitted to own one, yet alone to remove it from its locked container and wander around with it.

This is very much what I was getting at when I said what I was criticised for saying by Sebby above.

I can see that an unarmed clergyperson might be a bit wary of taking issue with an armed lady golfer, but if she can't see why this calls into question whether she has grasped certain basic principles of Christianity, then she ought to be worried.

If the security situation in Florida is really that bad, and she's also worried about having her gun stolen, the least she could do would be to empty it before going into church.

I agree with Josephine and Orthodoxy on this.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Perhaps a CoS or Presbyterian shipmate could clarify for us if a piper's skean dhu is removed during divine service.

I have no idea! Pipers don't tend to come into the church anyway, mostly playing outside. But wedding parties, though - I have honestly never thought about it. I suspect skean dhus were properly banned back in the old days, when they were actually used as weapons, but in their dress role now they have been overlooked.

I seem to recall that legally, there was some court case about men in Highland Dress having the right to wear the skean dhu in public without being charged for carrying an offensive weapon. Sikhs can carry a kirpan for the same legal reasons, I think.

One of my bad ancestors killed the rightful King of Scotland in a church. Probably with a wee dagger. Oh well.

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :

A member of the church choir I sang with in the '60s was also a member of the police Diplomatic Protection squad. I was startled to see him putting a well-filled shoulder holster on after morning service. He explained he was going straight to work; I believe the gun and holster had been in the church safe during the service. And I saw it on only this one occasion; if it happened often he must've been very discrete. He was, I suppose, sensitive to the issue because it would've been invisible under his cassock.

My late FiL was an incumbent and a group scout master (as it was called in those days). He regularly wore a Swiss Army style knife hanging from his belt when in uniform. Nobody ever said anything, except a bold churchwarden who said he didn't like weapons in church: FiL said "that's all right then, [first name]; it's a tool."

Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :

This was something that came to mind at a local civic service I attended recently at the parish church. The deputy Lord Lieutenant, a big, burly, jolly looking man, wore a black uniform with spurs on his very shiny boots- and a sword!

He was presenting (I presume as the Queen's representative) various local worthies with little medals to celebrate their lives of service for the community. There was a retired headmaster, a non-conformist minister, that sort of thing. The liturgy had a British Shintoism feel: the hymns were All things Bright and Beautiful and I Vow to Thee, my Country, the town mayor wore his chain of office while the priest wore black scarf and surplice. And, movingly, there was a minute's silence for two members of the local regiment who had died recently in Afghanistan.

But I did raise an eyebrow at the sword being worn in the chancel of the church. I thought it might have been an effective theological statement to have laid it aside at the church porch (in addition to giving the opportunity for a nice bit of business at the start of the procession!). There could definitely have been a touch more counter-culturality: as it was, it rather felt like the C of E in its role as obedient chaplaincy to the Establishment.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I googled FiL and got, first, Federation of International Lacrosse, and second, Forum for Interlending and Information Delivery.

But maybe it's Cornish.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I googled FiL and got, first, Federation of International Lacrosse, and second, Forum for Interlending and Information Delivery.

But maybe it's Cornish.

Father-in-Law was my guess.

I can't say we encounter many armed churchgoers in New England—and especially not at my college chaplaincy, average attendance ten! But I especially agree with Laurence regarding counter-culturality. There's certainly no need to be proclaiming a kingdom other than God's in the church.

But I suppose that after all I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor guys with swords in the pew will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

For information:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
A big pond difference is guns. The general feeling here is that guns are not acceptable in public and mum's golfing buddy is being criminal. (She may actually be criminal in UK: I've not checked the exact UK legal situation.)

All handguns are illegal in the UK (other than used by the police or military), and cannot be legally owned or used by any civilian for any purpose whatsoever. IIRC the UK Olympic shooting team practice in France because of this.

Also, I suspect that Morlader's use of FiL is referring to Father-in-Law
Angus

ETA x-post with Bostonman

[ 24. September 2012, 12:29: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I once did some supply preaching at a country church. Just as the service was starting, a man in kilt and armour, including a helmet with visor covering most of his face, wandered into the church and sat at the back. He joined fully in all the hymns and worship. At the door, he wished me good morning as I shook his hand, then picked up his broadsword from the porch and left without explanation.

When I asked the locals about him, they confirmed that he was a regular, and that he always dressed like that. "But we did have to ask him to leave his sword at the door," they informed me cheerfully.

Suspect I have worshipped at that very church and seen that individual. It must have been over a decade ago now. So yes a regular, irc there is some colourful past but I can't quite recall what. It is near a major walking route which is why I happened to be there.

Jengie

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :

Tangent/

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
...
But maybe it's Cornish.

Nyns yw Kernewek! [It is not Cornish!] I would've done a translation.

I first saw FiL for Father in Law on these boards soon after I registered.

[ But I suspect you're just winding me up, vb.] /tangent

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Honest, I hadn't come across FiL before. I was trying to be playful.

One person's playfulness, is another's wind-up, I fear.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
A big pond difference is guns. The general feeling here is that guns are not acceptable in public and mum's golfing buddy is being criminal. (She may actually be criminal in UK: I've not checked the exact UK legal situation.)

Indeed, in many countries. In Canada, unless she be one of the rare people allowed a handgun permit (IIRC there are about 30 in Ontario, with a population of 13 million), it would be a serious offence-- indeed, aside from my military or constabulary acquaintances, I know of nobody who has ever held or used one, even in practice (an ex of mine, in her spare time a reserve captain of dragoons, tells me that they are useless, a knife being more practical if one's C7 did not get them first). However, the State of Florida has few restrictions on handguns, other than one may not carry them openly (Jack Hagler Self-Defence Act) although one needs a concealed-carry permit, available from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (I hesitate to mention this, as perhaps some of Mr Harper's staff may be reading and would grow excited in their desire to bring US standards into the True North).

After some innocent enquiry, I discovered that almost 1 of 4 of my mother's golf club and Episcopalian buddies heft sidearms with them, usually in their car's glove compartment, or in an optional lockbox by the driver's side. I do not know how many of them bring their weapons into church but I would think that the abovementioned detective's approach of placing the weapon in a locked safe would be preferable (perhaps a parish would have lockboxes inserted in empty niches in the columbarium as a revenue source). I think that the Orthodox approach is worthy of emulation in this, as in some other matters.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

We've had pipers in a few times, most recently for a very dear friend's funeral. They usually wear garters but not skean dhu's. They probably don't want to be hassled by the police. I don't know what the Criminal Code says about it, but most probably think it's not worth a court case.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Is it that golf courses particularly dangerous places? Is the main danger from ones fellow players, criminals or alligators? Or is it that trigger happy Episcopalians are a well known risk that churchgoing golfers need to protect themselves against?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
We've had pipers in a few times, most recently for a very dear friend's funeral. They usually wear garters but not skean dhu's. They probably don't want to be hassled by the police. I don't know what the Criminal Code says about it, but most probably think it's not worth a court case.

Where's PD when you need him? His missus is, I believe, big in bagpiping.

Here is a picture of Military Knights of Windsor on their way to the annual Garter service. I don't know what they do with their swords when they get to the Chapel.

This is what RAF dress regulations say:

quote:
A member of a
church congregation, attending the service only and not taking part in any parade or ceremony before, during, or after the service, should not
wear a sword unless specifically requested to do so

although swords are to be worn at the grander kind of funerals, by pallbearers, and may, it seems, be worn at weddings.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Some golf courses certainly seem to be dangerous. I recall an episode of LOST when Sayed, being Ben's hit-man at the time, shot his fellow golfer at point blank range. There again, being on Ben's list, the golfer must have been a Bad Person.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Prince William did not wear one, and there are good reasons for not doing so - both out of respect for a house of Worship, and for polite reasons. It is a matter of choice for the individuals and local church authorities.

Looking back over photos, though, I find that Prince Charles did wear one in St. Paul's at his wedding to Lady Diana Spencer.
Also, a photo I have of the wedding of Prince Rainier to Grace Kelly, shows the prince wearing a sword, though it is unclear if the pic was taken in the church.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
After some innocent enquiry, I discovered that almost 1 of 4 of my mother's golf club and Episcopalian buddies heft sidearms with them, usually in their car's glove compartment, or in an optional lockbox by the driver's side. I do not know how many of them bring their weapons into church but I would think that the abovementioned detective's approach of placing the weapon in a locked safe would be preferable (perhaps a parish would have lockboxes inserted in empty niches in the columbarium as a revenue source). I think that the Orthodox approach is worthy of emulation in this, as in some other matters.

I know several RCMP who are plainclothes. They may not leave the handguns anywhere, and have what you might consider a "man bag" which holds it. I have never seen a person in uniform with a weapon at a Canadian Anglican church. I expect if a police officer attended in uniform, no-one would think anything of it as the gun is part of the uniform. Anyone else carrying a gun to church would undoubtedly result in a 911 call.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
The post is somewhat timely for me because my parish is, in a few hours, going to celebrate a requiem Eucharist for all the first responders (police, fire, and EMT) in our community who have died in the line of duty. I think that this is a wonderful and appropriate gesture. However, the processional will be led by a police honor guard armed with ceremonial swords and (deactivated) rifles (the honor guard duty alternates between police and firefighters from year to year). The color guard will then present the flags for the Pledge of Allegiance from just outside of the chancel. While I think that for a civic service of this nature having a color guard is wonderful and appropriate, I would like to have the color guard ceremony take place in the narthex, and require the weapons to remain outside of the consecrated ground. However, there are two reasons, one practical and one pastoral, that prevent this from happening. First, our nave has a sloped floor, so people in the front pews cannot see the narthex. Second, the color guard has to remain near the colors and are not allowed to put down their weapons, but they want to take Communion. Thus, we have swords and guns in the nave. I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over it, and I think the service is a wonderful idea in general.

I intend no offense toward you, Try, and no doubt mine is a perverse opinion, but I find the presence of the American Battle Pennant, er...American Flag, within the church to be a vastly greater danger than the presence of actual weapons.

The Symbol being more powerful than the sword—or firearm.

Speaking of Symbols, it would be a more potent one for the entire assembly to gather outside the church and perform whatever civil and martial religion need tending to.

Then the entire company could process into the sacred ground of the Church behind the processional cross, the ensign of our salvation!, with all the symbols of Mars (flags, swords, firearms) left outside the church in a locked and guarded shed, or even in the narthex if one must.

But, Modern American Christians must deposit their Weighty Behinds comfortably in their churchy-theatre seats ("sloped floor"!), so a gathering outside and a processing in are off the menu in most places.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Prince William did not wear one, and there are good reasons for not doing so - both out of respect for a house of Worship, and for polite reasons.

I think there is a strong tendency on this thread (OK, Enoch and I) that wishes other military gents and ladies entitled to wear ceremonial swords would follow the tact and good taste of our church's future Supreme Governor.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

I can only recall one instance in which we had someone with a weapon at services. It was a local police detective who had just finished his shift and was attending to partake of the L.S.. I didn't realize it until after services.

In my corner of Restorationism there are no flags, no processions and only the briefest of verbal acknowledgements of the civic calendar.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I intend no offense toward you, Try, and no doubt mine is a perverse opinion, but I find the presence of the American Battle Pennant, er...American Flag, within the church to be a vastly greater danger than the presence of actual weapons.

The Symbol being more powerful than the sword—or firearm.

Speaking of Symbols, it would be a more potent one for the entire assembly to gather outside the church and perform whatever civil and martial religion need tending to.

Then the entire company could process into the sacred ground of the Church behind the processional cross, the ensign of our salvation!, with all the symbols of Mars (flags, swords, firearms) left outside the church in a locked and guarded shed, or even in the narthex if one must.

[ 24. September 2012, 21:29: Message edited by: Josephine ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

I once was at a mass where there was some special thing involving the Knights of Columbus. It was quite a long while ago and I don't remember all the details, but not only did they wear swords but at one point when they were in the central aisle of the church, in unison they whipped them out and raised them in some sort of salute. (put your preferred emoticon here).

PS, (tangent alert) Augustine the Aleut, how i envy you living in a place where there are 30 people legally permitted to have a handgun out of 13 million people. Civilization must be a wonderful thing.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I once was at a mass where there was some special thing involving the Knights of Columbus. It was quite a long while ago and I don't remember all the details, but not only did they wear swords but at one point when they were in the central aisle of the church, in unison they whipped them out and raised them in some sort of salute. (put your preferred emoticon here).

PS, (tangent alert) Augustine the Aleut, how i envy you living in a place where there are 30 people legally permitted to have a handgun out of 13 million people. Civilization must be a wonderful thing.

Zouaves, originally recruited in francophone Canada to assist in the defence of the Holy See during the unification of Italy, featured in RC parish life until very recently and the viewer of this interesting film will find the presence of rifles during services to be of interest.

@malik3000. I did not point out that well over 30 individuals have handguns. The thirty (a figure I have once seen and I hope I did not mistake) are simply the ones who carry them legally. I am reliably informed that hot irons will set you back between $700 and $1000 and clergy should not assume that they will obtain a discount.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The RCMP has statistics and numbers about restricted weapons licences. Link here. There are more than 30, the neighbourhood of 740,000. It doesn't look like handguns are separated from other restricted guns. I'm not really up on what other weaponry is included.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

My apologies to one and all. Sixty-four hundred posts into the project and I still cannot restrain myself.

After a tightly written four-paragraph denunciation of weapons in church, I had to go off-topic and further than necessary to hit below the belt, denouncing big bottoms, too.

It was the sloped floor I couldn't resist, but I'm still guilty, guilty, guilty. [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 25. September 2012, 00:23: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

I should note that our sloped floor is not a new feature. Our current building was built in the 1890s by a low-church congregation who borrowed a lot of ideas from the Akron-plan sanctuaries used by the local Methodists.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

There, there, TSA, I was going gently demolish your post, and still am, but never mind about the big bottoms comment.

What really gets me is your take on flags. Not that they don't belong in sanctuaries, they don't, but American Battle Pennant? [Disappointed]

I know many United Churches who have Canadian flags perched above the pulpit and Lord's Table, I wish they wouldn't, but still. Guns are much more dangerous. No guns in the building! If you put forth that motion at General Council it'd probably get more support than our Official Doctrine.

On civic religion, my church is the rain-out location for the Royal Canadian Legion's Remembrance Day service. The vets have used the Auditorium, but the heat one day caused a vet to pass out. Now we encourage them, nay beg them to use the Sanctuary (includes nave) for their own comfort and well-being. It has pews for the aged vets to sit on, a full sound system, aisles to parade the Colours.... No, we don't make a fuss about the Colours. Sometimes a church is a community building, and this is one of those times.

Second, on handguns, Augustine somewhat exaggerates. Many people own handguns in Ontario (and Canada, all criminal law is federal here), but they are very, very tightly controlled. You have to keep them in locker at home, and you can take them to the range. Before you do, you have to call a 1-800 number to tell the police you are moving your handgun, you have to keep it locked in the trunk and tell them the precise route, which you can't deviate from. I have family members who own guns. Handguns are more trouble than they're worth.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I was imprecise in my phrasing. My mind lept from Florida's concealed-carry provisions to the Ontario concealed-carry figures under Canadian law without specifying that. I had also misheard the number: it is not 30, but 13. Licensed handguns (known as "prohibited weapons" under the law) can be held under the restrictions outlined by SPK.

A quick run through ACoC canon law says nothing about weapons, however. I can't find my Dearmer right now, but will check tomorrow to see if S Percy says anything about them.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
... the processional will be led by a police honor guard armed with ceremonial swords and (deactivated) rifles ...

Dear me, it is most inappropriate, not to say strictly against US military regulations for a color guard to carry rifles, "deactivated" or not, inside a church building, much less in the context of a worship service. I'm sure the military regulations of other countries must have similar restrictions for the display of arms in church.

Here is a link the video of the recent memorial service for astronaut Neil Armstrong which took place Sept 13, at Washington Cathedral. First, a piper enters leading the Armstrong family up the nave toward the choir. Then the piper retires, and the USA and US Navy colors are carried forward down the nave at slow march. There are four ratings in the party, two bearers and two supporters. Note that no arms are carried.

At the head of the nave, before the choir steps, the color guard, stops, pivots and stands without salute to present. They turn and leave into the north transept.

US Navy color guard at Washington Cathedral Armstrong Memorial Service
*

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you for that link, Mr Rob. To again hear Kennedy speak was very moving.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

In the UK anyway, uniform regulations for servicemen & women are fairly strict & swords are rarely worn except for formal parades. There are rules for when uniforms/medals may be worn in isolated (as in civilian) contexts.

Apart from this, it would be considered a faux pas for an officer to turn up in uniform to something completely unmilitary, unless specifically invited to do so by the host. Eg, bride's parents might well invite wedding guests to wear uniform/medals for whatever reason.

Generally, officers sent to church to represent somebody formally would wear medals without sword, 1Bs as the RN calls it. If they do then Army officers anyway, who can't sit without detaching sword, would I'm sure be glad to stack in a corner.

I really can't see many occasions when officers would arrive with a sword unless invited.

Having said this, a sword is badge of an officer's rank, not so much a weapon. And anyway the reason the groom has the bride on his left is because that's his non-sword arm.

I think, without looking, that the Prince of Wales was married with his sword. Certainly Prince Philip tends to have his sword for the big family weddings.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Certainly Prince Philip tends to have his sword for the big family weddings.

I wouldn't have thought he needed it, with that tongue. [Biased]

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

I rather doubt this was during a service, but this plate from Dom Bedos has always tickled me. I think the sword is just propped next to the organist, instead of actually worn. It can't make pedaling easy, though.

Posted by moveabletype (# 10919) on :

They are symbolic weapons in a modern context; don't know if that changes the logic or not.

I've wore a sword in church, respectably, a couple of times, when I was a Canadian army reserve officer, at the Anglican cathedral in Toronto on Remembrance Day.

I remember thinking that a sword is an awkward thing in a pew, both theologically and practically - they get in the way endlessly. Getting into the pew without tripping is awkward, getting out is awkward, standing and sitting are awkward, and everything involves a lot of clanking. I don't think we attempted kneeling.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
I think, without looking, that the Prince of Wales was married with his sword.

It appears you are correct.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

There's certainly a church in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, which dates from the Victorian era and has notches in the pews for the easy positioning of rifles. A regiment would march into the church (fully equipped), have a service and then march straight off to the North West Frontier.

I have also heard tell that other military churches in the UK have similar features. Next time I'm near the Garrison Church in Aldershot, I'll try and have a look.

So in some circumstances, bringing weapons into churches is not completely infra dig. We're just starting to plan for the Remembrance Sunday service (this year actually falling on 11/11). If someone from one of the armed forces wanted to bring a ceremonial sword into the church, I'm really not sure what my answer would be.

I would, of course, point out the practical problems. But if the person still insisted..... hmmmm.

We've had a few weddings in recent years where one of the couple has been in the armed forces. In one situation, the groom was in full dress uniform, but thankfully he didn't mention swords. Come to think of it, my wife's cousin got married years ago to someone in the Fleet Air Arm. I can remember his comrades making an arch with their swords outside the church afterwards. But I can't remember if they had their swords INSIDE the church. Now where did all those old photos go......

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
I think, without looking, that the Prince of Wales was married with his sword.
It appears you are correct.

Except that picture shows him leaving Church, not in it. Sorry to be pedantic [Hot and Hormonal]

However, this picture shows all we need to know: Prince Charles is clutching the top of his sword, and both Princes Philip and Andrew are clearly wearing theirs.

And while Prince William did not wear a sword at his wedding, his gradfather and father did sport theirs.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Yes, perhaps because it's easier to wear a Naval sword in church, as they're worn slung loose & not hooked up as are Army swords.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Except that at Prince William and Catherine's wedding the Duke of Edinburgh is not in naval uniform.

[ 27. September 2012, 18:55: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Ah yes, can't explain that one. Probably decision of William and Harry not to bother.

The Queen's wedding was No1Cs, so no medals therefore no swords, most likely because WW2 campaign medals were still being issued gradually.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

One of the weirdest bits of quasi-liturgy I have ever witnessed was an RC benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in which the Sanctissimum was saluted with raised swords by two Knights of Columbus. Very distracting: my thoughts were like " En guarde - we shall defend Thee to the death" and "Peter, put away thy sword..."

Not sure if most shippies from the right side of the pond know what the Knights of Columbus are. I'd provide a link but I'm on my iPhone. They wear uniforms with old fashioned Admiral Nelson sort of naval hats adorned with a big plume. They carry ceremonial swords.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Here are two photos of some K of C wearing ceremonial regalia. It looks like they are carrying a baton instead of a sword. (Not meaning to contradict you, as I have no direct experience with this organization. Perhaps the baton is a substitute for a sword if they're in church?)

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

The swords IME were displayed at the RC cathedral in Fort Worth around 1980. Definitely swords.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

I've seen the K of C at Mass with swords, plumes and capes. I doubt the swords could cut anything firmer than butter, but they are definitely swords.

I had a hard time not giggling, but I'm always tickled by costume parties.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Here are two photos of some K of C wearing ceremonial regalia. It looks like they are carrying a baton instead of a sword.

Those would be sabers, which are a long, thin sword. Also very easy to blunt. More information on the KofC sword than you probably ever wanted to know.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Ah. So the thing I thought was a baton was really a sabre ensconced in its scabbard. (They have little bitty busts of Columbus on the grip. Nice touch.) Thanks, Spiffy!

The final page of the document gives instructions for how to properly handle the sabre during a church service:

quote:
[...] it will occasionally be necessary for Knights of Columbus to be seated. This is particularly true in church.[...] The Sir Knight must keep control over the scabbard to prevent the scabbard from striking the seats or pews to not be distracting.

So there we have a member not of the military but of a fraternal organization wearing a ceremonial weapon in a church service.

Shifting gears only slightly, I have been wondering throughout this thread about what types of services a person would attend while wearing a sword. Military weddings and remembrance day services were mentioned upthread. To be honest, I'm with those who opine that weaponry -- even ceremonial ones -- are not appropriate in church, and yet I realize these views run up against Tradition™ (of the civil variety) in some respects. Am I correct in assuming these services do not include communion? I can't get my head around the idea of someone carrying a weapon of any kind up to the Table. I would really draw a line at that!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Those would be sabers, which are a long, thin sword. Also very easy to blunt. More information on the KofC sword than you probably ever wanted to know.

I thought a sabre is a fairly short sword, with a wider curved blade and designed for slashing.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Those would be sabers, which are a long, thin sword. Also very easy to blunt. More information on the KofC sword than you probably ever wanted to know.
I thought a sabre is a fairly short sword, with a wider curved blade and designed for slashing.

That's a type of saber. Here is a photo of an attractive young man showing off the saber he used in the Olympics. Note that it is curved because he is pulling on it. Here's some Olympian women standing around holding their sabers.

If you're swinging it around with the intent to harm, then yes, there is a great difference in the fighting styles (I learned western one-and-a-half hand broadsword fighting in my misspent youth, which is a whole 'nother 18lb animal).

However, when you're just standing around with a bluntedtheoreticallystabby instrument to look pretty, these days the difference between a physical sword and a saber is whomever is naming it.

The KofC refer to their bluntedtheoreticalstabby instrument as a saber, therefore I kindly refer to it as a saber, also. US West Point has the same problem with naming bluntedtheoreticallystabby instruments.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

I am a fourth degree Knight of Columbus. When wearing full regalia, we carry swords when serving as an honor guard at Mass or liturgical functions, including funerals and Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. There is nothing odd about this.

The sword is carried in its sheath when in the pew, at the shoulder when in procession or standing watch, and raised in salute to the Blessed Sacrament during the elevation or Benediction. It is also raised to a processing bishop or to the deceased in a casket as it exits the church after a funeral Mass.

Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on :

Some years ago, one member of our Canadian Anglican congregation was an Ontario Provincial Police member. If he was going on duty right after church, he was wearing his bulletproof vest and his firearm was on his belt, in church. I don't recall anyone making a fuss.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HenryT:
Some years ago, one member of our Canadian Anglican congregation was an Ontario Provincial Police member. If he was going on duty right after church, he was wearing his bulletproof vest and his firearm was on his belt, in church. I don't recall anyone making a fuss.

Agreed. I think such fusses are often knee-jerk reactions.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Yes. I understand the knee-jerk reaction, but where is the line drawn? Mass is routinely celebrated among soldiers in battlefield conditions. Weapons are not necessarily offensive.

I understand Christian passivism too, but its not the last word. Rome is increasingly passivist (then again, the Vatican state is defended by other nations with armed forces, so it can afford the luxury!) but even the Pope is defended by armed guards, in church & out.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Help, I can't spell!

Posted by moveabletype (# 10919) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HenryT:
Some years ago, one member of our Canadian Anglican congregation was an Ontario Provincial Police member. If he was going on duty right after church, he was wearing his bulletproof vest and his firearm was on his belt, in church. I don't recall anyone making a fuss.

It's a tenable argument to say that sidearms unavoidably carried by people as part of their duties can be allowed in church as a regrettable concession to man's fallen nature. Though preferably they should be discreet. The RCMP bodyguards who were seen at SMM when Adrienne Clarkson showed up would be examples - it's unfortunate in principle, but the least of the available evils.

Posted by Walsingham Tilde (# 17311) on :

At the (real) wedding of some Sealed Knot (English Civil War re-enactment society) members, I insisted that they all piled their swords, muskets and pikes in the tower; and also that Quakers removed their hats.
At the end of the service, the Bride and Groom went out of church through an arch of musketeers, who fired goose feathers: most effective.
The musketeers were also useful in keeping the Ranters away. I could do with them every Sunday.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Walsingham Tilde:
At the (real) wedding of some Sealed Knot (English Civil War re-enactment society) members, I insisted that they all piled their swords, muskets and pikes in the tower; and also that Quakers removed their hats.
At the end of the service, the Bride and Groom went out of church through an arch of musketeers, who fired goose feathers: most effective.
The musketeers were also useful in keeping the Ranters away. I could do with them every Sunday.

Tangent Alert
What form did it take. I don't think the 1604 book form of marriage would still be valid. The Directory definitely would not be. 1662 would be the nearest, but that is too late for the Civil War. And which side were the couple on? If they were Puritans, they should have resolutely refused to use a ring.

I hope they sang Sternhold and Hopkins's version of Psalm 128, unaccompanied and very slowly.

"Like fruitful vines, on thy house side
so doth thy wife spring out:
Thy children stand like olive plants
thy table round about."

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Perhaps a CoS or Presbyterian shipmate could clarify for us if a piper's skean dhu is removed during divine service.

My husband has one of the increasingly popular "skean dhus" which has the standard decorative hilt but a plastic blade. It looks like a proper skean dhu while in the sock, but isn't. He's worn it in church. In my church, I'm sure no-one ever queries whether a skean dhu worn in church is real or not.

My husband was usher at a wedding where the bride exited the church through a guard of honour of men holding broadswords. Husband had his broadsword next to him in church throughout the ceremony.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0