Ship of Fools: Meaning of vestment features?

Thread: Meaning of vestment features? 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=025744

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Especially lace. Coming from the Congregational tradition (black suit, dog collar, Geneva bands during service), and Quakers (aging hippy or respectable intellectual), vestments are almost a closed book to me. I did get hold of a child's Catholic missal once which had a picture of a priest, labelled, and it did imply meanings for each garment, with what the process of putting them on was supposed to remind the priest of.

So is there any spiritual meaning in lace? I ask because of the interesting photograph of the Cardinals in council just after having been told of the Pope's retirement. Some plain, some very fancy indeed. I have been known, in disrespect of a group of Anglican clergy at Folkestone, to mutter about doilies, but I'd rather know if there is any reason why it is a part of clerical dress.

It's not like dressing altars in beautiful embroidery relevant to the season, with vestments to match which carry messages about the celebration, local saints, whatever. Those either draw my mind to the meaning of what is going on, or, if wandering a bit, to the dedication and skills of the seamstresses, who were clearly working to glorify God. They don't draw my mind to the wearer.

[ 13. February 2013, 19:55: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Some lace patterns might have meaningful symbols incorporated into their designs, but for the most part lace is there to look pretty.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Indeed - but IMHO it merely looks effeminate, un-English, and makes the Baby Jesus cry.

Ian J.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

As Saint Dearmer saith: "Fuss is nothing less than irreverence."

Or Wren. "Ladies think nothing well without an edging."

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Here in the Northern Territory it would be useful protection from mosquitoes, and probably reasonably cool if worn without other clobber, but on the whole, yup, effeminate and twitty.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

I was at somebody's house once and they showed me something their great grandmother had made in the 19th century: an enormous lace work of our Lady of Guadalupe. Everything was there, (or not, it was lace). Must have been priceless. It is said that the woman started on it before she got married and only finished it in her elderly widowhood, having worked on it all her life.

Sometimes the making of lace can be a prayerful, stress relieving hobby, an offering to God. I think that's where lace came into the church-as an offering of somebody's time and effort for God.

But when they started lacing the edges of palls and so on, and there are STILL altar guild ladies who think a stole is not a stole if it lacks an antimacassar...

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Sheesh, a bit of misogyny on this thread...

Lace requires great skill to make and is time-consuming (if it's done by hand and not machine), and so it's precious; it would be like any other precious item on a vestment, then - gold thread, jewels, etc. Lace is usually (IME) on cottas, surplices, and albs, none of which tend to ever have any color, gold, etc., so lace is really the only precious thing that can go on those vestments.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I think that the only time I've seen anyone get away with lace was Sir Alan Bates when he played Canon Urbain Grandier in The Devils of Loudun. I'm not certain if I would recommend that clerical shipmates emulate him in his pastoral concern for young women or in his unfortunate end at the stake.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed - but IMHO it merely looks effeminate, un-English, and makes the Baby Jesus cry.

Ian J.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

Lace was a mark of male formal wear in the 17th and 18th centuries. That is the reason it became used in vestments.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thank you.

A friend has pointed out that it is obviously because it is holey.

I agree that made by hand it is immensely valuable (some of the cardinals' versions did look suspiciously machine made, though). However, on the garments it does look more like dressing the person than making an offering to God. I do feel, perhaps illogically, that copes make the person disappear into the liturgy in a way which the lacey garments do not.

Being part of male elite wear in the 17th century does not give lace a spiritual meaning, does it? And lace is pretty. That's why I would wear it. Not because it is costly and I'm showing it off. Possibly because it is part of my grandmother's wedding dress, should the occasion arise.

The cardinals' lace does not look as if it carries that sort of meaning.

There is a very Puritanical part of me that wants to say that the work entailed in producing it could be better spent on giving garments to the babies of the poor, for example. And another which says there is Biblical support for the opposite idea.

The image of Our Lady is a different class of thing. It was designed to draw the mind to contemplation of her, and the working of it would have been an act of worship like painting an icon.

It was not decorating a frock, which was decorating a man.

Mind you, if some devout lady worked a piece to give to such a man, refusing it might be a difficulty.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Vestments are almost never a matter of a vain priest playing dress up. They are usually the property of the parish, and are given in the spirit of making the Lord's Service beautiful.

In a sense, beautiful vestments do bring attention to the priest- but the focus is the office he or she is performing, not his or her personality. As theologians put it, the priest is only acting in persona Christi. Vestments are rather like a police officer's uniform. While on duty, a police officer is representing the rule of law. The clothes are about justice and the authority of the State, not the officer. It's why a corrupt cop is said to be "a disgrace to the uniform."

The fact that you are focusing on lace in particular seems rather strange and puritanical. Fine silk brocade vestments covered with embroidery and gold work can be immensely more valuable than mere lace.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The thing that made me think about this was the council of cardinals, not taking part in a liturgy. It, to my eyes, looked odd. It is not the value of the vestments. As I have said, the sort of ornate vestments which are worn in services can be seen as part of that service, as drawing the mind to heaven, and the making of them analogous to painting icons, part of worship itself.

Lace is different. If you think about where it is usually used - the shops have been full of lacey items associated with today, and not because it's a saint's day - it isn't something which is loud in proclaiming someone to be standing in for God. Which is why I initially asked if it did carry any liturgical meaning tha I was unaware of. I didn't want to form an opinion based on the accidents of something that seems purely decorative. It was clear that there was an element of choice in the way that different cardinals chose different styles - some had no lace. So it isn't a part of the uniform of their position.

And what's wrong with being puritan, anyway? Or Plain dressing?

I note that other people have expressed more extreme views than I have, anyway.

[ 14. February 2013, 18:22: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The views expressed here are that lace is aesthetically offensive, not morally so. Besides being fussy, I simply don't see why lace is any different from any other ornamentation.

The problem with Puritanism is that you are making the rather silly accusation that wearing lace is in itself immodest, and that "plain dressing" necessarily makes a person modest. I don't know what the context of this lace you are talking about was, but in Roman Catholicism a cardinal is always in the role of cardinal, even outside of liturgy. I would be more suspicious of a cardinal that made a point of wearing a track suit be found in the garbage at all times than a tasteless one wearing lace.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I'm surprised by the suggestion in the thread that effeminacy is a bad thing.

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

In the contemporary aethetic I would submit of lace that less is more. A bit of lace trim on a cotta or alb - or that sort of lace that is integrally worked into the hem of an alb - is more aesthetically pleasing to the modern eye (I would think) than those albs that are lace from the waist on down, cottas mostly of lace or with long lace appendages.

Lace also carries baggage for Anglo-Catholics. Excessive amounts of it suggest a particularly fussy, antiquarian-leaning iteration of self-consciously "catholic" Christianity that tends to be superficially Romier-than-thou in a camp way, and which is much in keeping with the whole stereotype of the gin, lace, and backbiting stream in Anglo-Catholicism.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A friend has pointed out that it is obviously because it is holey.

I would venture that lace is similar to the fiddleback: less cloth and therefore cooler to wear.

LsK's thesis about its negative connotations for Anglo-Catholics makes sense. I think there are similar reasons for its negative connotations in the RC Church - it suggests an old-fashioned or traditionalist wearer.

But I dare anyone to suggest
this bloke is effeminate, or even that he looks effeminate in the photograph!

I occasionally wear a lace cotta, and even a lace alb, and I am neither effeminate nor a recidivist. I just like the whole treasure trove of things that are part of our patrimony (it's not just Ordinariates which have a patrimony [Big Grin]

)

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

MY problem with excessive* lace is that it undermines the point of the an alb or cotta. The clue is on the name of the former - it is supposed to be white as per Revelation. If the garment is mostly holes, then the minister in question appears to be whatever colour they are wearing underneath.

A little broderie anglaise at the border if you must, but leave it at that.

*Mileage may differ

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Context: Cardinals in council

Which I gave, twice.

I asked for any liturgical meaning, in case I was missing something.

Thank you 3rdfooter for the meaning of the white garments.

And thank you, Triple Tiara, for the suggestion of feeling part of a continuity of tradition - that's like my grandmother's wedding lace, I suppose.

Sorry I strike Zach as silly, but as Sussex born, I know the root of that word, and will choose to ignore the intention. Maybe if he read what I wrote he would have gone beyond any flippancy - others were more so.

And cardinals have other vestments in which to look weighty, and I did not suggest the adoption of bin-swept track suits. Why did you imply that I did? No, don't answer. I don't want to know.

[ 14. February 2013, 22:30: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Context: Cardinals in council

Which I gave, twice.

I asked for any liturgical meaning, in case I was missing something.

Thank you 3rdfooter for the meaning of the white garments.

And thank you, Triple Tiara, for the suggestion of feeling part of a continuity of tradition - that's like my grandmother's wedding lace, I suppose.

Sorry I strike Zach as silly, but as Sussex born, I know the root of that word, and will choose to ignore the intention. Maybe if he read what I wrote he would have gone beyond any flippancy - others were more so.

And cardinals have other vestments in which to look weighty, and I did not suggest the adoption of bin-swept track suits. Why did you imply that I did? No, don't answer. I don't want to know.

I said a particular line of argument you were pedaling was silly. You strike me as pissy, self righteous, and easily offended.

[ 14. February 2013, 22:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Ouch Zach!

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

I asked for any liturgical meaning, in case I was missing something.

No, there is no liturgical meaning - it's just a matter of style. The lacy garments are rochets (a bishop's surplice) and the level of decoration is at the choice of the wearer. You can see an array of styles here. Lace has made a bit of a comeback in recent years. During Pope John Paul's pontificate the dominant style was this: bands of lace inserts rather than yards of lace.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I kinda lose patience with people who complain "How dare you accuse me of arguing that thing I am arguing!"

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

On a practical note, when observing the college of cardinals together, really fancy lace is to me an indicator that the person is very likely either a)Italian, or b)Tridentine-friendly. I've found this holds true more often than not.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

OK, a long standing member finds my presence a pain, so I'm going. I was not arguing, but inquiring. I was not being personal. I can put up with a lot, but not personal abuse, and I don't stay around to endure it. This is the second time I have offended Zach. Last time I observed a self denying ordinance for a while, Advent I think. I'm doing the same in Lent. I'm not sure I'm coming back. so if he thinks I am easily offended, let him think that. He doesn't know me.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

SITTING IN MY HOSTLY CHAIR

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You strike me as pissy, self righteous, and easily offended.

This is a personal attack, Zach82, contrary to Commandment 3. You know perfectly well that those are not permitted outside hell.

Penny S: Can I draw your attention to commandment 5? "Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended." I nearly made a hostly direction in response to your post last evening (the one beginning "Context: Cardinals in council"). The OPer has no right or ability to require particular responses to a thread. In general, this thread up to that point had been perfectly reasonable.

seasick

RISING FROM MY HOSTLY CHAIR

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

I wouldn't say that lace is problematic, but it is not my cup of tea. It makes me think of a live porcelain doll, and not in a good way (if a live porcelain doll could ever be a good thing).

[ 15. February 2013, 08:42: Message edited by: k-mann ]

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

Even though the Tudor and Stuart monarchs wore lace in abundance, in an ecclesiastical context it can seem "un-English" because its wide use in albs and cottas post-dates the Reformation. For the same reason, lace vestments can seem out of place in Gothic or Neo-Gothic churches.

To those who are free of xenophobia, lace, along with chasubles of Roman or French shape, can seem right at home in Renaissance and Baroque churches. In Anglo-Catholic circles, lace reached the zenith of its popularity in the 1920's, when "Back to Baroque" was the watchword of those who favored the "Modern Western Use" over the revival of Sarum customs.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I don't mind the fuller fiddleback chasubles for the simple reason that I think they look good. My sense of aesthetics has little to do with pre/post-reformation or continental/sarum habits.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
On a practical note, when observing the college of cardinals together, really fancy lace is to me an indicator that the person is very likely either a)Italian, or b)Tridentine-friendly. I've found this holds true more often than not.

This is the impression that that photograph in the Catholic Herald makes on me.
The lace doesn't have a religious symbolism, but like the width of a clerical collar, it says something about the priest who wears it. Here it seems to be saying, 'We are traditionalist, Tridentine-friendly, Cardinals in our best clothes.'

[Roll Eyes]

at all those chaps who think wearing lace is effeminate. I bet you think the rose chasuble is for Mother Mary too. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I don't mind lace. It's a bit like putting a hankie in your pocket - makes you look, and feel, a bit dapper. Like you've made an effort.

However, people who wear huge, flowing, spotty, spangly hankies in their pockets don't look dapper; they look like plonkers.

Similarly, a bit of lace on alb looks alright. A trim of lace on a cotta looks alright. Those monstrous, almost completely see through cottas that are nothing but lace look bloody ridiculous.

Edited to say that, under a mozzetta, the lacy affairs look a bit better. I suppose it dilutes the effect.

Thurible

[ 16. February 2013, 16:11: Message edited by: Thurible ]

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

Well said, Thurible. [Axe murder]

Posted by Divine Praises (# 11955) on :

I have to say I like seeing lace in church, both on the altar cloths and on the clergy. But, given that the lace, along with everything else in church is for the glory of God, it has to be of the best quality. And so much of what we see now is very nasty indeed, fit only for the dustbin.

My particular dislike is for the kind of net (of the sort which used to adorn the windows of 1970s houses) with only a tiny amount of ornamentation, which means that the overwhelming impression is of the colour of the cassock underneath, rather than the white which an alb or surplice is meant to convey. I was struck by the photo Triple Tiara posted of Cardinal Pell (I think it was he!). The lace is of a rich and intricate design but it is substantial enough to show the white dominating the scarlet of his cassock.

My grandmother was Irish and was taught by the sisters in her parochial school to make lace. Obviously this wasn't the yard-deep lace often to be seen on clergy albs but she and her classmates would often make lace to trim the altar cloths and the priests' surplices. Everybody would have been amazed to have heard that this denoted effeminacy, including my grandfather who was very careful to show off the tray cloths and napkins trimmed with the lace my grandmother made (when she wasn't ruining her eyesight in the service of God's altar [Biased]

).

I was once given a Polish surplice made entirely of nylon lace - 'twas in my Anglican vicaring days so such a gift wasn't as bizarre as it might seem to the disinterested observer. Oddly enough, I found myself beating the bounds or leading a rogation procession, or some outdoor function, wearing said abomination when the Almighty sent a mini typhoon which tore the offending garment from me and onto the bonfire which the rectory gardener had lit. While it was a burden lifted from my shoulders, I am not sure it sent forth an odour pleasing to the Lord.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Here it seems to be saying, 'We are traditionalist, Tridentine-friendly, Cardinals in our best clothes.'

As a general matter, you're quite right: often priestly vesture says quite a bit about the person wearing it. When I see a Catholic priest in a cassock, I have a pretty good idea what kind of priest he is.

I'm not sure that really applies to the cardinals, though. They all wear lace, and precious few of the current cardinals are 'traditionalists' or 'trad-friendly', at least not in the way that those terms tend to be used among Catholics. When it comes to cardinals, it really is just a part of how they dress.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
....to the cardinals, though. They all wear lace, and precious few of the current cardinals are 'traditionalists' or 'trad-friendly', at least not in the way that those terms tend to be used among Catholics. When it comes to cardinals, it really is just a part of how they dress.

I thought Benedict had packed the college of cardinals full of traditionalists.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
....to the cardinals, though. They all wear lace, and precious few of the current cardinals are 'traditionalists' or 'trad-friendly', at least not in the way that those terms tend to be used among Catholics. When it comes to cardinals, it really is just a part of how they dress.
I thought Benedict had packed the college of cardinals full of traditionalists.

Well, yes and no. With popes and cardinals, as with many vocations, a person who is selected is not necessarily the person one ends up with.

Cardinal Dolan's Manly lace demonstrates his Spirit of Vatican 2 formation and mentality. He has been able to "talk the talk" of traditional social teaching, but in terms of liturgics, he is definitely a Vat 2 man. Although the Vatican may have heard him speak loudly and proficiently on the "party line" issues of Catholicism today, they may not have seen his Vat 2 sensibilities in practice.

Cardinal Burke's Lacey lace demonstrates his traditional-mindedness. He has espoused traditional liturgics and social teaching, and this has helped him to rise through the ranks. If any American is "papabile," I think he is one of only two possibilities.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
I thought Benedict had packed the college of cardinals full of traditionalists.

Not really. Conservatives, probably. Orthodox, almost certainly. Traditionalist, not so much. They are not the same thing.

As Olaf is getting at, being a 'Traditionalist,' (as the word is used in Catholic circles) says more about one's liturgical sensibilities than anything else; traditionalists are attached to the pre-Vatican II liturgical forms. If they celebrate the Mass of Paul VI at all, it is likely to be done in Latin and eastward facing. They also prefer the preconciliar Divine Office and other forms of traditional Catholic spirituality, vesture, and architecture. They take a dim view of Vatican II generally.

The current Cardinals are by-and-large orthodox, but they are not traditionalists. Of the American cardinals, Burke is the only one who even comes close; Dolan, DiNardo and Wuerl (among others) wouldn't touch the preconciliar Mass with a 10-foot pole.

[ 18. February 2013, 03:12: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thank you for the very interesting answers, which have been enlightening - mostly. Especially the bit about the changes in vestments coming after the English Reformation and so seeming unfamiliar, and the appropriateness in Post-Tridentine architecture. And the "manly" lace images. I was sure I had seen some hemstitching somewhere, possibly combined with pintucks, which had not moved me to curiousity in the same way.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

The current Cardinals are by-and-large orthodox, but they are not traditionalists. Of the American cardinals, Burke is the only one who even comes close; Dolan, DiNardo and Wuerl (among others) wouldn't touch the preconciliar Mass with a 10-foot pole.

I'm not saying they're traditionalists but I think it's unfair to say those last 3 wouldn't touch the preconciliar Mass with a 10-foot pole, no matter how little lace they wear. They and the other cardinals are smart men and they know the importance of engaging with traditionalism whether or not they self-identify as traditionalists. There are exceptions, of course, but I'd say those exceptions are becoming fewer.

This is the danger with all the hyperbole that gets thrown around online and in real life: if one isn't immediately 100% gung-ho about something then it means one is against it. And it's not like some traditonalists out there aren't making life harder for themselves as well.

I suspect Cardinal Pell of Australia is sympathetic to traditionalists. I think Cardinal Ranjith of Colombo could be deemed a traditionalist.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0