quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm old-skool enough to agree with the observation that vestments serve a purpose in taking attention away from the person at the front and redirecting it to the liturgy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Do people really find it a distraction if the 'person at the front' is wearing unobtrusive, inoffensive regular clothes rather than vestments? I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if someone moving from a church where the priests etc. wear vestments to one where civvies are worn does find it distracting for a while, but I'd have thought that would just be due to the unfamiliarity.

---

I was at my snake belly low church of origin a while back. Some time into the singing of songs about Jesus a bloke in blue trousers and a sweat-soaked blue shirt wandered out and said some words about Jesus doing something at the last Supper. The sweat patches under the dude's arms were about half a square metre each (he wasn't small). How I wish he'd at least worn an alb to cover up his Thermodynamic Failures.

 

---

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
The sweat patches under the dude's arms were about half a square metre each (he wasn't small). How I wish he'd at least worn an alb to cover up his Thermodynamic Failures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cosmic dance:
You don't have to choose matching shoes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
OK. I wasn't there. Maybe I wouldn't have been there. But I can't see the theological objection? Just an "I don't want to hang around people who sweat" objection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
But I can't see the theological objection? Just an "I don't want to hang around people who sweat" objection.

---

Zappa's saying that if this guy was wearing vestments then his 'thermodynamic failure' ( ) wouldn't have been so visible and, thus, so distracting. I take the point but presumably people can still look sweaty while wearing vestments; you just won't be able to see the under-arm sweat patches!

quote:

---

Originally posted by cosmic dance:
For women priests it is particularly liberating to wear an alb. No-one is going to comment on your choice of outfit that day and how flattering - or not - it may be. No-one can criticise your dress-sense. You don't have to choose matching shoes. (That just leaves your hair, your make-up, your figure...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
In fact, I wonder if it's possible to reverse this entire argument - when Jackie is at the front giving a talk, I kind of want to be reminded that it's Jackie, with her experiences and talents. I don't want her to be wearing special vestments that seek to obscure the fact that she is Jackie, turning her into a generic, anonymous bringer of God's message. God works through real people, each of whom have their own style of speaking, tone of voice, dress sense etc., and I think we should celebrate that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olaf:
It can become a cult of personality so fast...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olaf:
It can become a cult of personality so fast...

---

I wholly agree that the cult of personality is a horrible thing, and I cringe at those comments you noted! Do vestments mitigate against this, though? You might well be right to say that there's more risk of the cult of personality with non-vestmented (so to speak) churches but I wonder if this is merely a correlation, with some other factor lying behind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I suppose if one's concept of a church service is that there's a script to be followed (I don't mean that offensively, honest!) - the liturgy, Eucharist etc. - then the identity of the person / people carrying out the prescribed actions doesn't matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Context is everything. I know of clergy from other traditions who only wear a dog collar so as NOT to be 'anonymous', e.g. when they're out and about, and want to be visible to strangers who might need their help or advice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Most if not quite all evangelicals now seem to wear something in the vestment line when celebrating Communion, often cassock, surplice, and stole; and at least some wear albs which would have been anathema to their spiritual ancestors a generation ago

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cosmic dance:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I suppose if one's concept of a church service is that there's a script to be followed (I don't mean that offensively, honest!) - the liturgy, Eucharist etc. - then the identity of the person / people carrying out the prescribed actions doesn't matter.

---

Its about more than "following a script" SCK. It is about anonymity and humility, putting aside your personal preferences and style in order to be able to point to something greater than yourself without the distraction of "my identity" with which everyone is so besotted these days. Even when preaching and sharing personal experiences, it's still about pointing to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cosmic dance:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
/qb]

---

Briefly, I see a church service as a community of Christians coming together to share from their recent experience of God, bringing an encouragement, a prophecy, an insight from the Bible, a song, a prayer etc. As such, we are all equals and so I wouldn't want any of the people to be marked out as different by the wearing of vestments.

*Even if your robed people are the most welcoming, kind, unassuming, collaborative people in the world, the very fact that they are wearing special clothes marks them out as different, and that fundamentally cuts across my concept of church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Most if not quite all evangelicals now seem to wear something in the vestment line when celebrating Communion, often cassock, surplice, and stole; and at least some wear albs which would have been anathema to their spiritual ancestors a generation ago

---

Whereas in this hemisphere they are jettisoning them as fast as they can

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy:
I do wonder if those churches that are more congregational, if you come to our church you know that our minister is Ben so he doesn't have to dress differently, are the ones that are happier to ditch vestments. Or maybe that is a complete red herring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liturgylover:
Dispensing with vesture for the Eucharist implies a casualness which jars with the great mystery and gift from God.

---

All I can say is that I don't get this implication. For me, vestments imply something different, something special about those serving and in my concept of church anyone can serve because we all have the same status before God and with one another.

On the 'vestments have always been part of the Church's norms', if you mean the Church of England then fine but so what? Maybe the C of E has been doing something unnecessary all this time. If you meant the Church in the wider sense, then my question is how far back in time do we have evidence for vestments? I've read stuff claiming they were introduced in the (I think) late second or third centuries as Christian practice became more formalised and ritualised, rather than from the beginning of the Christian faith. Of course, this wouldn't mean wearing vestments is wrong but it would weaken the continuity argument.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Two thoughts:

1. Until this year, I was an NHS Trust Ambulance-person, and so I wore the standard green uniform whilst on duty. This, of course, clearly identified me and my profession to The Public, but also helped me to act professionally, IYSWIM (the patients saw the reassuring uniform, rather than the person wearing it!). In a church setting where there is a script (as SCK puts it - rather well, IMHO), and people acting in professional roles, then vestments identify those roles - quite apart from helping to lift us into the realm of the numinous, as Zappa points out.

2. I gather that the idea of those in Synod who would like vestments to be optional is to give the clergy/worship leaders more street cred. Our Vicar was given a zebra-striped Onesie (sp.?) - complete with tail - for Christmas, and such garments are popular in this corner of The Lord's Vineyard. I have therefore urged him to wear it at our next Family Mass.....

Ian J.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Two more thoughts:

3. We now have a monthly Mass in the lounge of a large sheltered housing development (newly-built) in our parish. This is celebrated alternately by our Vicar wearing cassock-alb and stole (no maniple or chasuble), or by our retired PTO priest in collar and clerical shirt (he is of the Evangelical persuasion). Horses for courses - it's an informal setting, although we use the basic Common Worship Order 1 - and, given that those attending are from various denominations, seems to me to fit the bill. In our more formal and traditional parish church setting, however, the lack of vestments would seem (IMHO) to look odd.

4. The Lutheran churches in Sweden and Denmark, for instance, seem to manage quite well without cohorts of servers in alb/cassock/cotta/surplice or whatever, even though the priest might wear alb/stole/chasuble (including some nice fiddlebacks in Denmark). Their Sunday Eucharists appear to be quite formal - with a script - but with minimalist ritual.

Ian J.


Ian J.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

Even with the limited vesting we usually do, it is easy to see who is the president, who the deacons and sub-deacon, the liturgical assistants and the servers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Briefly, I see a church service as a community of Christians coming together to share from their recent experience of God, bringing an encouragement, a prophecy, an insight from the Bible, a song, a prayer etc. As such, we are all equals and so I wouldn't want any of the people to be marked out as different by the wearing of vestments.

I thoroughly agree that the church service is about humbly pointing one another towards God, but I think whatever help vestments give towards this is outweighed by the 'them and us' division* and the contribution vestments make towards church being seen as something old-fashioned and irrelevant.
[/QB]

---

Well, that presupposes that we see some kind of 'division' and are putting leaders on a pedestal. That doesn't tend to happen in more liturgical, sacramental traditions, it seems to me. It's more in the eye of the beholder - 'That guy/gal is wearing a cope or robe - they must think that they're better than everyone else ...'

As for 'recent experience of God' - what the heck does that mean? We're all different in how we might 'experience' or apprehend God and some of us and some traditions aren't that fixated with experiences ...

I'm not particularly interested in 'experiences' per se, still less shouting them from the housetops and telling everyone else about them ...

Sure, I've had a very vatic and experiential/affective approach to my faith in times past and I wouldn't write all these things off ... but I don't see why these things should be the focus of what we do when we gather for worship. Sure, they build the sense of community, but whether they necessarily put the focus in the right place ie. Godward - isn't always easy to determine.

'Bringing an encouragement ...' We can do that in all kinds of ways. Why build it into the liturgy so formally ...


'A prophecy' - which presupposes that what's being said or shared IS actually a prophecy. Nine times out of 10 in my experience it's anything but. Anyone can fling a few pious thoughts together and claim divine imprimatur for it.

'An insight from the Bible' - sure, providing it's not some daft tangent or subjective interpretation.

'A song' - we've got hymn books for that ...

'A prayer' - sure, you may do that extemporarily if that's your bag or you can pray along with the set prayers in the liturgy. What's the big deal?
 

---

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :
 
As some one inclined to wear vestments in a Methodist context, I tend to keep them at present for best - as in part they are outside the tradition of many of the places I have care of. However I do find that they help remind me that I am doing something out of the ordinary.

One of the folks at church, when another person was checking about something I was wearing came out with a very true line for me: "It's just a fancy boiler suit"

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Context is everything. I know of clergy from other traditions who only wear a dog collar so as NOT to be 'anonymous', e.g. when they're out and about, and want to be visible to strangers who might need their help or advice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corvo:
If you don't wear robes of some kind what do you wear?

And whatever you choose will identify you with some of the laity and set you apart from others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liturgylover:
SCK, your concept of church then is different from the CofE because only ordained priests may preside at the Eucharist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One problem for a traveller or a visitor in places where the celebrant is in civvies is to a) identify them and b) figure out what is going on. One of the few times I have encountered this in TEC churches, it was far from clear. If one is a regular worshipper with the congregation, this is clear, but if one is a visitor, it is far from the case and just confirms to one that one is not an insider.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Gamaliel, may I humbly suggest we don't derail this thread with another back-and-forth about the merits or otherwise of those church service activities I mentioned? It's not the main point of the thread; I was just trying to illustrate where I'm coming from with my comments about vestments undermining my conception of everyone in the church being equal. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Adjust the wording to suit and, hey presto, people know at least the basics of what's going on and who's who. Surely this is childishly simple, and removes the need for vestments to identify who's leading / presiding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corvo:
If you don't wear robes of some kind what do you wear?

And whatever you choose will identify you with some of the laity and set you apart from others.

---

What happens when my church meets together is that (as far as I can tell) everyone wears more or less their normal clothes. So if the person leading the service normally wears jeans and a casual shirt / blouse, that's what they'll be wearing. If a floral print dress is their usual style, then that'll probably be their Sunday morning outfit.

I don't really get your point about the leader / minister's clothes identifying them with some people and separating them from others. We all have our own clothing preferences; it's just part of being human. . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
What you are missing Corvo is in SCK's church it is not always the vicar leading worship... The change in person means that class plays a far lower level. If it is genuinely so diverse that all in the congregation at some stage are involved in leading then it is doing lots better at non-exclusionary leadership than any congregation I have ever been in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

It seems pretty obvious that if most members of a congregation are wearing normal clothes but one person, or even two or three are dressed up in shiny robes, then those robed ones are far from anonymous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
It underscores the idea of liturgy as a "work of the people" where everyone has a role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
At the risk of sounding cheeky, as an outsider to traditions with less structured worship, it seems to me that in nontraditional circles there are implicitly expected "uniforms" to be worn by clergy/worship leaders, whether those be stiff dark suits and ties, Italian suits and blingy cufflinks, cabana shirts and goatees or whatever hipster wear is considered the pastoring/leading norm in a particular faith community. So to me the idea that only liturgical types wear special garments for worship is a bit disingenuous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This doesn't fit, for example, SCK's view of church at all. For him (and please correct me, SCK, if I've misinterpreted), church is a group of people sharing their personal experiences - for him, the fact that the person speaking is Alison, and is inviting the assembly to learn from her personal experience, is pretty central. If anyone who was going to have a "speaking role" at SCK's church on a particular day robed up, it would probably detract from his experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
It underscores the idea of liturgy as a "work of the people" where everyone has a role.

---

That's not what leitourgia means. It became a very fashionable translation when such demotic notions were first being lionised but the work actually originally meant a "public work" - as in some work done for the benefit of the public, such as building a fountain for clean water or a ship for the defence of the city. It later - and certainly by the time the term was adopted for Christian worship - came to be applied to ritual actions carried out for the benefit of the people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Does this issue whether you use or do not use vestments,not come down to the theology and ecclesiology of the Church either Catholic or Protestant/Evangelical ?

---

quote:

---

I think that a Catholic minded Anglican,not necessary an Anglo-Catholic has a different approach to Worship and Liturgy than an Evangelical Anglican.The Catholic sticks to the ordered liturgy and will be using vestments,candles,incense and the sign of the Cross.
I know that many Evangelicals in the C.of.E.stick to the liturgy as printed in C.W.however in a more simpler way,surplice/alb with stole.

---

quote:

---

However I am wondering what will Evangelical confirmands feel when they are attending a Diocesan Confirmation Eucharist,where vestments and other liturgical symbols are being used,?
They might think that they are in a completely different church than their own local parish-church,unless they are familiar with the liturgy.

---

It varies. I know some evangelical Anglican clergy who quite like to experience 'higher' forms of worship at times. Others hate it. It depends how puritanical or anally-retentive they are.

I think the puritanical thing has a lot to do with it. After all, it was the apparently 'Popish' ceremonial of Archbishop William Laud that set many of the Puritans on a collision course with King Charles I ... although there were plenty of other factors too, of course.

Nevertheless, there were many on the Parliamentarian side who saw the Civil Wars as primarily a war against idolatry and a struggle to preserve and maintain the 'purity' of the church against such 'misleading and dangerous' practices.

I think we can see this tendency across much of UK Protestantism ... from the Baptists through to the more evangelical end of the CofE.

Our local evangelical vicar practically tears his dog-collar off between the 9am and 11am services as though it's burning his neck ...

He also got completely the wrong end of the stick when attending an ordination service at the Cathedral a few years ago. He told me afterwards, in disgust, that there was no way he was going to sing, to 'Mother Earth'. I had to point out to him that 'Dear Mother Earth who day by day ...' comes from a prayer of St Francis set to music in the 19th century ... he'd assumed it was some dodgy, modern New-Agey hymn ...



This is what happens when people find themselves increasingly separated from the grand tradition ...

They get all sorts of cookoo ideas.

[fixed code]

[ 31. December 2013, 10:02: Message edited by: seasick ]
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's only 'misleading and dangerous', South Coast Kevin, if you believe this to be the case. The misleading-ness and danger is purely in the eye of the beholder.

---

Erm, what? I think it's misleading and dangerous because, IMO, it sends an incorrect message of what a church service should be about. This is only my opinion and others are, of course, absolutely welcome to disagree.

However,something being a matter of opinion is not the same as it being in the eye of the beholder, ISTM. The former is about differences of views over objective things, the latter is about subjective things within which there is no objective standard or scale. IMO.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, you think it's misleading and dangerous because you think it's misleading and dangerous. It's a circular argument.

You assume it's sending out an 'incorrect message of what a church service should be about' because you have a purely subjective view of what you believe a church service to be about ie. the opportunity to share equally subjective opinions.

I'm exaggerating to make a point, of course - I'm using hyperbole - but it's as if you think that there's some inherent 'danger' in using set-forms of worship and so on in just in case people are somehow denied the dubious freedom of being able to share whatever random thoughts dropped into their minds during the week.

Because what possible objective frame of reference do you have to judge or weigh whatever someone wants to share at one of your services?

There's no objective form of evaluation there at all other than what 'feels good'.

At least with the more liturgical churches there's a weight of tradition and practice that can be brought to bear.

Don't get me wrong, I can see what you're saying.

But what's more dangerous? A priest, vicar or minister/church leader going 'by the book' - however that's done in their particular tradition - or some kind of subjective 'sharing time' where someone shares something that is potentially misleading or dangerous.

I've shared with you before an instance I know of where someone from a Vineyard church felt 'led' to go and pray over the dead body of someone in the congregation's still-born baby.

She took it upon herself to go round to the bereaved couple's house and pray over the corpse before the funeral and the baby would miraculously be raised from the dead. Why? Because she felt 'led' to do so during the worship.

The parents allowed her to do so, for some reason best known to themselves.

Then they went to their own baby's funeral.

Imagine the upset this could have caused? It hardly bears thinking about.

If it's a choice between someone leading a liturgical service in robes, vestments or a clown's nose and funny hat, boiler suit or whatever else and that kind of over-the-top charismatic pietism ... then I know which one I'd choose.

There are good reasons for these traditions. I'm more likely to be 'misled' or taken into 'dangerous' waters by the unregulated stuff that's spouted at independent charismatic evangelical churches than anything that's likely to take place at my local RC, Methodist or Anglican church ... I can tell you that for free.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Does this issue whether you use or do not use vestments,not come down to the theology and ecclesiology of the Church either Catholic or Protestant/Evangelical ? ...

---

quote:

---

The Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture permitted by this Canon, and the vesture worn by the minister in accordance with the provision of this Canon is not to be understood as implying any doctrines other than those now contained in the formularies of the Church of England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, you think it's misleading and dangerous because you think it's misleading and dangerous. It's a circular argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You assume it's sending out an 'incorrect message of what a church service should be about' because you have a purely subjective view of what you believe a church service to be about ie. the opportunity to share equally subjective opinions.

---

Again, I think not. My view of what I believe a church service should be about is primarily based on my interpretation of the New Testament. Again, folks are welcome to disagree, but to say my view is purely subjective is doing my argument a disservice, I believe.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's based on your subjective interpretation of the New Testament ...

More seriously, and I am winding you up and being hyperbolic to a certain extent ...

I can see what you're getting at, but my view would probably differ from Trisagion's in that whilst I would agree that liturgy is a 'public work' - ie. performed for the benefit of the people, as it were - it doesn't preclude it being delivered by and from the people ...

I'm not sure Trisagion is claiming what you might think he's claiming, but he'll have to answer for himself on that one.

I'm not RC so I don't go in for the notion of 'private masses' and so on. As far as I know, no other Christian tradition does that - not the Orthodox, nor any of the various Protestant churches.

So, my own understanding of the function of liturgy is that its something participative and involves everyone ... even if they don't have a 'formal' part to play in it - such as a prayer, reading or whatever else it might be.

Coming back to the vestments thing ...

My understanding of the origin of the wearing of particular garments is that they're based on Roman legal and court practice. Ministers/leaders and so on didn't wear particularly distinctive dress in the first few centuries of the Christian Church - but that doesn't invalidate the custom necessarily.

My wife sometimes sings with a choir in a rural parish church a few miles north of here. Some of the choir members are farmers. They come in still wearing their gumboots from mucking out the cows or milking. Then they fling on their choir robe and voila ... no-one is any the wiser.

As for priestly/clerical vestments ... my own view on that one is that it's a purely aesthetic thing. It adds colour and a certain sense of occasion ... it 'says' that there's something important going on.

That doesn't mean that I don't think there's anything missing or lacking where vestments aren't worn ... but how I see things now (and I'd have been highly Puritanical and anti-vestments at one time), they're part and parcel of the whole thing ... the way things are done decently and in order.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry to double-post ...

On the 'dangerous' thing - and it'd be interesting to hear Trisagion's views on this, do you believe that it's 'dangerous' to see Liturgy as something conducted for or on behalf of the people (rather than by the people) because it somehow jeopardises people's salvation ie. they may not understand and so not repent or appropriate themselves of what's on offer by faith ... ?

Or is it more a question of their opportunities to share or express themselves being curtailed in some way?

It could, of course, be both/and rather than either/or ...

I s'pose my own view would be that the priest/minister or leader - with or without vestments - is acting on behalf of but not instead of the people ... all they are doing is gathering up the prayers, if you like - or officiating in a different way to how everyone else is - we are collectively a royal priesthood etc ...

So it's not as if the guy or gal in the vestments is any 'better' or any more 'special' than anyone else ... certainly not ontologically or salvifically - they are simply doing a different 'job'.

That's the way the Rabbi is regarded across the various strands of Judaism, incidentally. The Rabbi is a member of the congregation in the same way as a Baptist minister is a member of the congregation ...

I've been a Baptist in the past and so retain a pretty 'high' view of the priesthood of all believers ... and I can certainly understand how such a concept can be seen to be compromised by the use of special vestments and so on.

I don't see how it need be - in and of itself.

But then, my appreciation of vestments and so on is more of an aesthetic one than a theological one ... if I can make that distinction. The two things go together as far as I can make out ... the decision to have a 'neutral' aesthetic is as much an aesthetic decision as a maximalist one with bells, smells, robes and iconography.

Intriguingly, I saw a post on another site by an English ex-pat living in Greece who attended his first Anglican service over Christmas. He converted to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism whilst he's been in Greece and his wife remains Roman Catholic.

He attended an Anglican service in Athens in 'some trepidation' and found it surprisingly conducive. He knew many of the carols and was surprised to see that some of the worshippers crossed themselves.

He later attended an RC High Mass and found it rather too overblown and 'operatic'.

Everyone's mileage varies on these things.

But you knew that anyway ...
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
You'll have to wait, Gamaliel. It's been a very busy day and I'm now developing a migraine. As a taster, I'd just say that the public work that is being carried out in Christian liturgy, is the anamnetic re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery and the person carrying it out is Christ Himself, the Totus Christus, Head and Body.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I'm with those that don't get this strange notion that vestments are needed to identify the celebrant. At the Eucharist the celebrant is the person standing at the table saying the words. What's the problem?

And at *non* Eucharistic services, or those parts of Eucharistic liturgies not reserved for a priest in the CofE, the person standing at the front and speaking to everyone else is often not ordained anyway. It causes no confusion. And even if it did, what would it matter?

And in high-churchy catholic Anglicanism all sorts of others wear vestments as well, so the possibility of confusion is if anything greater.

And as I said before most non-churchgoers have no idea what vestments are anyway. They are a rather esoteric insider thing in our secular culture. If you want to be recognised as ordained clergy, wear a dog collar.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I'm with those that don't get this strange notion that vestments are needed to identify the celebrant. At the Eucharist the celebrant is the person standing at the table saying the words. What's the problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You're not faceblind. The minute said celebrant steps AWAY from the altar (and I take my eyes off him, even for a moment), I will have no clue who he is and will doubtless go up, shake his hand, and say, "So, you new in town? Is this your first visit here?" Or even, God forbid, "So what did you think of the service?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
You'll have to wait, Gamaliel. It's been a very busy day and I'm now developing a migraine. As a taster, I'd just say that the public work that is being carried out in Christian liturgy, is the anamnetic re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery and the person carrying it out is Christ Himself, the Totus Christus, Head and Body.

---

If we accept this to be the case, and I see no reason not to (with the usual wishy-washy Anglican caveats ...


... Then why should this necessitate vestments necessarily?

Without getting all mystical about this - on two occasions - one during an Orthodox vespers, once during an Anglican communion - I 'sensed' that the officiating priest somehow 'represented' Christ - that he was, as it were, being 'Christ' to us ...

The candlelight on the vestments formed part of this but it wasn't a 'sensual' experience necessarily - more one where the penny dropped on a particular aspect of the faith.

In a different kind of way I once had a very striking 'apprehension' of the significance of communion and what we were 'proclaiming' through it during a very plain and unprepossessing communion service in a Baptist chapel in South Wales.

To which of those do I give more credence?

Or do I simply accept them all with gratitude?
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Then why should this necessitate vestments necessarily?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the 'dangerous' thing - and it'd be interesting to hear Trisagion's views on this, do you believe that it's 'dangerous' to see Liturgy as something conducted for or on behalf of the people (rather than by the people) because it somehow jeopardises people's salvation ie. they may not understand and so not repent or appropriate themselves of what's on offer by faith ... ?

Or is it more a question of their opportunities to share or express themselves being curtailed in some way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE] Liturgy as something being done for the people sets apart in some way those who are doing the work from those who are receiving the benefits (and disempowers the latter group). And that, for me, is the complete antithesis of how relationships should be among God's people; 'one another' should be the defining characteristic of such relationships, my reading of the New Testament tells me.

---

quote:

---

I don't see what is gained by having the presider (and perhaps any assistants) wearing stylised versions of clothes from the first couple of centuries AD (that's essentially what vestments are, right?).

---

quote:

---

They set certain people apart in some way when we're all supposed to be equals...

---

quote:

---

...they encourage a provider / receiver mentality...

---

quote:

---

...they make Christianity look desperately old-fashioned...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You're not faceblind. The minute said celebrant steps AWAY from the altar (and I take my eyes off him, even for a moment), I will have no clue who he is and will doubtless go up, shake his hand, and say, "So, you new in town? Is this your first visit here?" Or even, God forbid, "So what did you think of the service?"

---

I'm not sure that's good enough. Leaving aside the fact that, on that basis, whatever we do is going to leave someone in the lurch, why is it so much more important that you recognise the celebrant than someone who has been a member of the congregation for far longer but has never stood at the altar?

---

The differnce is, i don't have a hope in hell of getting old Mrs McGillicuddy into a name tag, vestments, or even a quirky hat that would help me identify her; if I could do that too, that'd be lovely. In real life I'll have to settle for the one or two I can get. Which means the ones there's precedent for.

Come to think of it, if YOU ever come though these parts and want to do a Shipmeet together, would you mind showing up in vestments,? Thanks ever so.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Apologies for my loquacity, South Coast Kevin.

The reason I go on and on and on is partly because I'm trying to work these things out in my own mind and these forums act as something of a catalyst for that.

So I'm partly debating with myself. Which doesn't mean that I'm indifferent to what you or others say, of course.

On the 'necessity' thing ... well, Trisagion, a Roman Catholic, says that vestments aren't a 'necessity'.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they are a 'necessity' in the sense that the Bible is a necessity or baptism is a necessity - and even those who make a big deal of both wouldn't go so far to suggest that it's impossible to 'manage' without them ... if I can put it that way.

The early Church didn't have vestments for the first four centuries, but it did have the eucharist. No-one is saying that they didn't have a valid eucharist until the 4th century when vestments came in.

No, I'm with Zach82 on this one. They add something to the sense of 'occasion' - of doing something 'set apart'.

If you moved into a new flat tomorrow and it had bare walls I suspect you'd soon decorate them in some way - either by painting them a colour of your choice or by hanging up posters, pictures, perhaps some textiles of some kind ... whatever would make it feel more homely and 'special' for you.

All I'm saying is that vestments and so on can be seen as a similar approach - they add beauty to our worship. In the more sacramental traditions worship is devised in a way that engages all the senses - sight, sound, hearing, touch, taste, smell ...

That's deliberate. It's 'saying' that all our being is involved. Not just the head but the 'soulish' elements of our make-up too.

These things operate on the 'soul' level but can be imbued with spiritual significance. It's not that there's any intrinsic spiritual power or radioactivity within the garments themselves - they are a means to an end. In the same way as a guitar or a set of drums are a means to an end.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As for whether any of that accords with scripture or with our reading of scripture (more to the point), then that obviously depends on the lenses we're using when we approach the scriptures.

You'll be aware, no doubt, South Coast Kevin that the way you approach and understand the scriptures is determined by, and filtered through, your own particular tradition/expression of the Christian faith.

In the same way that Zach82's is - in his case a Reformed tradition with a certain amount of 'High Church-ness' in there too ... or, more accurately perhaps, an older form of the Reformed tradition to the more evangelical forms we tend to be most familiar with.

In the same way that Trisagion's is, in his case the Roman Catholic tradition.

In the same way that mine is ... which is a kind of work-in-progress blend of influences ranging from evangelicalism to more sacramental influences ...

Without wishing to derail the thread or take the thing on a tangent away from vestments, I think it's worth pointing out that - despite our differences - I think we'd all agree that the way things were done in the NT were different to some extent than they are today.

Whether we can recover or replicate in some way is a moot point. I'd suggest that we can't and that we're better going with the way that things have developed across the piece since then ... in Trisagion's case this is with Roman Catholicism, with Zach82 it's a kind of 'reformed catholic' approach ...

With other Shipmates it'll be different again.

That's not to dismiss or disparage the 'togetherness' aspect. It's simply to acknowledge that this element can be achieved or realised in a different way to the manner to which any of us are accustomed.

On the vestments thing, coming back to that. I used to loathe the things. I thought they were wicked and evil and a sign of everything that was bad about the more 'traditional' churches. Then I grew to accept and tolerate them ... now I actually like them.

What's happened there? Am I on a 'dangerous' slippery slope?


 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

I don't see what is gained by having the presider (and perhaps any assistants) wearing stylised versions of clothes from the first couple of centuries AD (that's essentially what vestments are, right?).

---

I think they are beautiful and set the liturgy apart from ordinary life. Which is quite enough for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

They set certain people apart in some way when we're all supposed to be equals...

---

Seems to me that the Christian faith proposes that Jesus is everything and we are nothing without him. Nothing equal about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, I'm with Zach82 on this one. [Vestments] add something to the sense of 'occasion' - of doing something 'set apart'.

If you moved into a new flat tomorrow and it had bare walls I suspect you'd soon decorate them in some way - either by painting them a colour of your choice or by hanging up posters, pictures, perhaps some textiles of some kind ... whatever would make it feel more homely and 'special' for you.

All I'm saying is that vestments and so on can be seen as a similar approach - they add beauty to our worship. In the more sacramental traditions worship is devised in a way that engages all the senses - sight, sound, hearing, touch, taste, smell ...

---

Thanks for this, Gamaliel. I do appreciate that engaging all the senses when we meet together to praise God is important. But ISTM the disadvantages of vestments (as I've said upthread) mean we should look for other ways to engage the senses.

Also, we can connect with God through the senses in our everyday life. My home group recently worked through the book Sacred Pathways, which really helped me see how people engage with God and become more aware of him through different means. I deliberately volunteered to lead our discussion of the chapter on engaging with God through the senses because it's not something I do very much (or so I thought - I actually do feel God's presence quite strongly through music).

But this chapter left me a bit puzzled because, unlike all the other chapters, it was very much focused on our church services. The other chapters were largely about how we connect with God through different 'pathways' in the course of life generally - e.g. through studying, or through being amongst nature, or through helping others - but then in the chapter about the senses it was all about beautiful church buildings, the use of incense in services, wonderful music and so on. I felt this was an unnecessarily narrow focus, implying that the only (or best) way of engaging with God through the senses is at church services. I think this general approach can easily lead to an unhealthy separation between church services and the rest of life.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Of course there is a danger of that, South Coast Kevin. There's dangers with everything.

I can certainly see what you're getting at with reference to that particular chapter in that book - not that I've read it but I think you've raised a fair point.

However, I'd suggest that this particular chapter should be read alongside - and integrated with - all the others.

It needn't be both/and ... it can be either/or.

I've just finished reading a book by Thomas Merton and what struck me was how he regarded the work in the monastic cellars and kitchen as just as 'sacramental' in their own way as what went on in chapel.

Each infuses and illuminates the other.

Properly understood, I would suggest that a more sacramental understanding of things doesn't negate the sense of the sacredness of all of human life - rather it enhances it.

It's a bit like the phrase, 'Is nothing sacred?'

If nothing is sacred, it seems to me, then nothing is sacred.



I would have had massive, massive problems at one point with the idea of buildings being consecrated as 'sacred spaces' or with the idea of ordination, vestments, priesthood and all the rest of it.

I no longer have problems with that. My view these days is because 'that' is holy, then 'this' too can also be holy.

Sure, we can take it to extremes ... like those people who go loopy when they go to Jerusalem and develop what psychologists call 'Jerusalem Syndrome'.

Anything can act as a talisman or become some kind of wierd fetish.

Coming back to the 'doing things for ourselves' aspect ...

If we accept that it is Christ who is serving us Himself through the eucharist - that it in some way ritually 're-enacts' or 're-presents' Christ's one perfect oblation and sacrifice for all - then it isn't something that we can 'do' ourselves.

We don't 'do' anything. It's not about what we 'do'. Zach82 as a good Calvinist would affirm that point.

We simply 'receive', 'feed' and 'give thanks' ...

'Feed upon him in your hearts, through faith with thanksgiving,' as the Anglican prayer has it.

It seems to me that you believe that everything has to be capable of being done by everyone in order for it to be valid. If certain people 'can't have a go' then it's of no value.

I don't see any NT grounds for that at all. 'Are all apostles? Are all prophets? ... Do all work miracles? ... Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?'

I'd in no way feel sidelined, marginalised or disempowered because your senior pastor was the senior pastor. Why should I?

So why should I feel any more disempowered if there's someone wearing vestments doing a particular job in a church service?

Your senior pastor is doing his job, the guy or gal in vestments is doing theirs. I'm doing mine - whatever it might be.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
For me, wearing vestments marks some people out as special, as doing something which others are not permitted or not qualified to do. I'm fine with people having different roles, of course - all are indeed not apostles, all indeed don't speak in tongues - but vestments are divisive, IMO, and thus something to be avoided.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I know you think that and can understand why you think it because I used to think the same.

I no longer do so.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, simply stating where I'm at.

It seems to me, though, that there is no empirical way to test your hypothesis about these things being divisive, introducing unnecessary separations between the sacred and the secular, the sacred and the 'everyday' and so on - unless you were to go around to interview people on both sides of this debate.

You could draw up a chart with a score from 1-10 of a set of questions that determine whether that person has an unhealthy imbalance one way or another.

Then, having conducted a sample of such interviews you could tot up the scores and see whether the pro-vestment or anti-vestment people were more 'integrated' or led lives which amalgamated the sacred and profane - as it were - in balance and harmony.

Of course, I'm being ridiculous and exaggerating to make a point again.

But I'd no more expect Trisagion, say, or Zach82 or Jade Constable or Lamb Chopped or whoever else to have any more of an imbalanced approach to these things than your good self.

It seems to me that you're taking hold of one aspect and blowing it out of all proportion and exaggerating what you see as its potential negative effects.

The same thing can happen in reverse, of course.

Someone could suggest that your senior pastor is negligent or deficient in some way simply because he wears 'normal' clothes when he's in church. I'm not suggesting such a thing and I don't think anyone else here is either.

They might have other grounds for theological disagreement with your pastor but how he dresses or doesn't dress wouldn't be the big issue.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, wearing vestments marks some people out as special,

---

quote:

---

. . . as doing something which others are not permitted or not qualified to do.

---

quote:

---

I'm fine with people having different roles, of course - all are indeed not apostles, all indeed don't speak in tongues - but vestments are divisive, IMO, and thus something to be avoided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

And I have no problem with my not being permitted or qualified to preside over communion in some church settings, because in the church I'm part of I am permitted and qualified, simply by virtue of being a committed member of the church (which, for us, means being part of a home group, as that's where our accountability and oversight primarily happens).

---

Why do I say this?

Because, it seems to me, if we are talking about the eucharist as the primary focus and locus - among others of course - of the presence of the ascended Christ among his people, then surely things like house-groups pale into insignificance?

Otherwise, it seems to me, we are 'sacralising' the house-groups or other means of grace (if that's what they are) and promoting them to a position that rightly belongs to the eucharist ... and the preaching of the word too, Zach82 ...


South Coast Kevin has often asked what some of us mean when we say that the non-sacramental or less-sacramental traditions tend to 'sacralise' other things in a kind of 'nature abhors a vacuum' type way.

This, I suggest, is one example.

The house-groups become the prime focus and locus for accountability and so on because the eucharistic aspect has been down-graded ...

Or is that too simplistic?
 

---

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
I am curious to know what people think might happen if Synod agree to this change. The percentage of churches that don't follow current Canon Law vesture directives - at least for the Eucharist - are very small. Are there loads of others chomping at the bit to dispense with vestments or might any loosening simply consolidate and make licit existing practice?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My own view on this one, Liturgylover, is that it won't make that much difference. At least, not initially.

Those parishes which sit loosely by the rubrics or ignore them altogether will simply continue as they have been doing.

Those which like vestments and ceremonial will continue to have them.

Gradually, in some areas, the practice will fizzle out completely.

It's rare to see Anglican clergy wearing distinctive dress (other than dog collars) outside of church services these days. I suspect that some of these clergy will begin dispensing with it during services too.

Those that prefer a sense of mystery and the aesthetic aspects will continue to gown up. Those that don't, won't.

It won't make a happ'orth of difference either way to how effective/ineffective the respective parishes are in their particular communities.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The house-groups become the prime focus and locus for accountability and so on because the eucharistic aspect has been down-graded ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I actually don't think much of the language of "qualification" for the sacramental priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I actually don't think much of the language of "qualification" for the sacramental priesthood.

---

Neither do I but it was the language SCK chose to use, so I thought I'd use it in response to him, since he clearly sees it in those terms.

---

Heh, I suspect you know enough real life priests to not be fooled by a fancy frock, nu?
 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Just a question about Anglican canons:

Does TEC or ACCAN regulate clerical dress? Can a priest celebrate Mass in civies in church in the US or Canada?
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Just a question about Anglican canons:

Does TEC or ACCAN regulate clerical dress? Can a priest celebrate Mass in civies in church in the US or Canada?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Just a question about Anglican canons:

Does TEC or ACCAN regulate clerical dress? Can a priest celebrate Mass in civies in church in the US or Canada?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I am curious to know what people think might happen if Synod agree to this change.

---

Nothing at all. Everyone will carry on doing what they already do.
 

---

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
When did Chasubles and Maniples actually stop being used in the C of E? I assume they were brought back under Mary I, but with the Elizabethan Settlement were they quickly swept away and replaced with surplices and copes only? Or was there argument about what was worn in the second year of Edward VI's reign even then? When did the surplice (and cope in some places) become the norm? I know Puritans were refusing to wear vestments the whole time but I am more interested in when the "higher" vestments stopped being used. Did miters, croziers, stoles, etc., disappear at the same time?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Pretty much none of that survived the reign of Elizabeth. There were some odd goings-on on one or two cathedrals, and in royal chapels, but on the whole it was all out of the window for four hundred years, Neil the second (or third) phase of the Anglo Catholic movement at the end of the 19th century.

The rule about doing things as in the time of Edward was used permisssively, to argue that such vestments were not in fact illegal. It was not used prescriptively - in practice almost no Anglican clergy wore anything like catholic Eucharistic vestments for four centuries.

FWIW I think croziers may have survived as a symbol of a bishop. But then shepherds crooks were ordinary tools of a secular trade in those days.

I don't know when surpluses came in. They may never have gone completely out. Though I guess their near universality would have been a late 19th century thing. Not sure. Am not at home now - I have some books there that might have clues to that question.

[ 31. December 2013, 00:15: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Surplices never really died out-- I have seen them in engravings and images of clergy from the Elizabethan period, 17c and 18c, as well as from the late Hanoverian period. Often cassocks were not worn undenearth them, and the cleric simply put his surplice on over his apron.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The Puritans were actually opposed to surplices and copes—chasubles were long gone by the time they became their own group.

Surplice, tippet, and cap were the "official" uniform from Elizabeth on, with a cope when the priest was feeling fancy dancy. Bishops wore a rochet and chimere.

[ 31. December 2013, 01:44: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I oughtter add that, at some point, Geneva gowns with bands became the norm for preaching. The surplice was for communion. Especially when the archdeacon was looking.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

Even without said canons, it's almost unheard of for a priest to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday without vestments, if our friends in the CoE were wondering what would happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, there isn't necessarily a causal link. You can have a 'high' view of the eucharist and still have home-groups.

I understood the point you were making, but I'm not sure you've understood the one that Trisagion was making.

He's effectively saying that Christ is offering Himself to us through the eucharist and that is something of an entirely different order to what may or may not go on in house-groups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Okay, I get that. But I still don't understand why vestments are necessary, even with this understanding of what's going on at the Eucharist. And I say if one's theology doesn't require vestments at the Eucharist (or, for that matter, at any other church service / gathering / event) then let's do away with them because they send unhelpful messages - that church and faith are anachronistic, and that church services are about some people doing things for the rest of us, with those others being more or less passive recipients.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Perhaps it is best considering this as an issue of "causing your brother to stumble". If the lack of vestments is inducing your fellow Christians to be irreverent and casual about the Eucharist, then perhaps you need them. If, on the other hand, the use of vestments is encouraging an idolising of the priesthood then they need to be dialled back.

---

Perhaps my brother is stumbling because he refuses to pick his feet up when he walks, or to look where he's going: perhaps the cause has nothing to do with the vestments and everything to do with something else altogether.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In fairness, Trisagion, I think SCK's objections are deeper than purely grounds of personal taste ... and are based on personal conviction.

I can sympathise because, and I don't mean this to be patronising, they are convictions I would once have shared.

It isn't for me to tell SCK what to do, but a suggestion I would make and humbly punt in his direction would be for him to judge different Christian traditions and practices on their own merits ... rather than necessarily filtering them through his own perceptions and second-guesses.

We all do that to a certain extent.

I'm not saying I'm any 'better' at this than he is, but it helps to bear context and tradition and theology in mind whenever we encounter groups outside our own tradition or comfort-zones.

I attended the RC Easter Vigil this year. Having been to Orthodox Easter Vigils I was able to make comparisons with that, but I didn't sit there making comparisons with, say, a Pentecostal service or a Reformed Baptist service or a Vineyard service ...

Why not?

Because that wouldn't have been to compare like with like.

If I were 'assessing' or 'evaluating' it then it would have been on its own terms to the extent that I understand or apprehend them.

I didn't go in and see the priest and the deacon and others robed up and think, 'Look at those bastards ... they think they're better than me because they've got vestments on ...'

Nor did I think, 'Look at this, it's terrible, they have introduced a clergy/laity divide and it's impossible for anyone else to participate in the service other than in a passive way ...'

As it happened, plenty of people were involved in the service in some way or other - giving readings, helping with the distribution of the elements etc. There was even a quite touching moment when they paused to congratulate a couple who were celebrating a remarkably impressive wedding anniversary as they'd been married a gazillion years.

Equally, if I were to attend a service at SCK's church I wouldn't look at his senior pastor and think, 'Look at that bastard ... who does he think he is? I bet he hasn't even been to a 'proper' seminary and he's so laid-back he's wearing a polo-shirt and chinos instead of surplice and cope ...'

No, I'd assess what went on in its terms insofar as I understood them.

We need another thread on the anthropology aspect.

And the accusation that churches like SCK's take a one-dimensional approach ...

I know we're straying off the question of vestments but I do have a question for SCK to finish this tangent ...

Part of the value of the eucharist for me (however we administer these things) is that it 'grounds' us in someway in the wider Christian narrative - it focusses us on the central core of the 'Christ event' - in those terms there is an objectivity about it that remains and conveys grace effectively irrespective of how good, bad, naff or embarrassing anything else that takes place in the service may happen to be.

My question for Kevin is, how does your church maintain that sense of objectivity if the prime focus is on small groups where people are encouraged to share testimonies, experiences and so on that may vary considerably in quality and may lack that objective standard?
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Perhaps my brother is stumbling because he refuses to pick his feet up when he walks, or to look where he's going: perhaps the cause has nothing to do with the vestments and everything to do with something else altogether.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
As for anachronism: Christianity is anachronistic. The Church is both synchronic and diachronic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, there isn't necessarily a causal link. You can have a 'high' view of the eucharist and still have home-groups.

I understood the point you were making, but I'm not sure you've understood the one that Trisagion was making.

He's effectively saying that Christ is offering Himself to us through the eucharist and that is something of an entirely different order to what may or may not go on in house-groups.

---

Okay, I get that. But I still don't understand why vestments are necessary ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Most Anglicans probably wouldn't recognise a subdeacon if one bit them on the bum.

---

One can tell when a subdeacon bites one on the bum as they will be wearing a tunicle.
 

---

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Or a humeral veil.
 

---

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
For me, the whole point of robing is that, like an actor getting dressed in costume, one is assuming a role. I am a Reader (Licensed Lay Minister) and I find it helps one to be able to 'Speak with authority'.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
When the ritualists reintroduced eucharistic vestments, they were making a statement which has already been made by the Oxford Movement - that the C of E is the continuation of the Catholic Church in this land and that its priests intend to do what the church intends to do when offering the Holy Sacrifice.

The chasuble has been the vestment for offering mass for 16 centuries.

I am wary when the chasuble is not worn - when alb and stole seem to suffice.

I shall be even more wary if vestments, robes even, become optional.

I have been only once to a mass celebrated in lounge suit (apart from house masses) and know a bishop who takes confirmations in a lounge suit. Both people concerned do not believe that the C of E is catholic (except in the wider sense as meant in the creeds).

If synod votes to make robes optional, it is yet one more example of creeping protestantism.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, ken and others would argue that since the Oxford Movement, it's been a case of 'creeping Catholicism', Leo.


 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Yes and no.

We (catholic types) perceive that the evangelicals are taking over.

The 'old style' evangelicals of the 1950s obeyed the rubrics and canons, were steeped in scripture and followed the prayer book.

The 'new breed' don't seem to have Holy Communion every Sunday, only use short quotations from scripture on PowerPoint.... O, I won't go on about it as it is still Christmas!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, you'd only get me started if you did ...


 

---

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
And not getting started on that would be a very good idea... *hint hint*
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
For me, the whole point of robing is that, like an actor getting dressed in costume, one is assuming a role. I am a Reader (Licensed Lay Minister) and I find it helps one to be able to 'Speak with authority'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
For me, the whole point of robing is that, like an actor getting dressed in costume, one is assuming a role. I am a Reader (Licensed Lay Minister) and I find it helps one to be able to 'Speak with authority'.

---

What makes the role? The person or the "costume"? Am I less of a preacher because I preach with a jacket and tie I n a Baptist church? What would change if I became an Anglican minister who preached wearing vestments? (By the way, I'm really the only person who wears a jacket and tie here so all the arguments on vestments marking "difference" do apply!)

beware too that it might help to assume a role for some but be the end (not the means) for others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
beware too that it might help to assume a role for some but be the end (not the means) for others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
This repeated claim that [vestments] send unhelpful messages needs to be justified. You can't simply assert it as fact without some supporting evidence - particularly since the differentiation they symbolise seems to be accepted without creating a manifest feeling of exclusion in those parts of Christianity which make up fully three-quarters of Christians worldwide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Face it, SCK: this is about your personal taste. You don't like vestments because you believe that they are divisive, can't see the difference between a differentiated community expressing that differentiation in visible symbol and an exclusive caste system propping-up its oppression with sumptuary laws and think that generally these things evoke the same effect on others as they do on you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
And so SCK and his happy band march off towards the Kingdom, blissfully aware that among the whole host of Heaven, they are the only ones marching in step ....

---

One could have said the same about the first anti-slavery campaigners (again, I don't mean to imply equivalence between slavery and vestment-wearing). The majority view on any particular issue is not automatically the correct view.

As for damning with faint praise, that really wasn't my intention so I'm sorry that's how it came across. How would you prefer I rephrased my praise of clergy-folk?
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
You're actually going to pitch the idea that wearing a fourth century poncho at mass is a moral evil condemned by the Holy Scriptures?
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
OK, SCK, I drop what i said about damning with faint praise- that was just a bit of gratuitous snarkiness, I'm afraid. But by bringing up the slavery thing again, implying a moral equivalence is exactly what you are doing. I believe that vestments/ robes matter because they say something about the status of the minister (that is, that what they do, sacramentally and in leading worship, they do by the authority vested - useful dual meaning there, now I think of it- in them, not because they necessarily have any particular virtues of their own - which is what Article XXVI of the 39 Articles is about). But I don't doubt that everything would be there in the essentials if the minister were stark bollock naked. In that sense, vestments are important but they are not a first order issue. Now, you might of course argue that slavery is also not necessarily a first order issue if the most important thing is our status in the eyes of God and of our fellow Christians, but most would agree that it is a good deal more important than what the minister wears. In fact, you are, paradoxically, making the wearing of vestments/ robes out to be much mnore important than many of those who disagree with you would say that it is.

[ 01. January 2014, 14:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
You're actually going to pitch the idea that wearing a fourth century poncho at mass is a moral evil condemned by the Holy Scriptures?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
It's not hard to find the idea in Scripture that wearing bling that makes you look more important than other people is a Bad Thing.

The argument here is not that posh ponchos are dated. It is whether or not they mark the wearer as set aside for some elite status. Expensive suits could be just as bad. Or gold braid, or military uniforms, or ermine robes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's also not hard to find extremely detailed descriptions of priestly garments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm not expecting you to agree with me,

---

quote:

---

but can you at least see the basis for my view?

---

quote:

---

In the Old Testament, of course. I think that's a significant point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
You're actually going to pitch the idea that wearing a fourth century poncho at mass is a moral evil condemned by the Holy Scriptures?

---

It's not hard to find the idea in Scripture that wearing bling that makes you look more important than other people is a Bad Thing.

The argument here is not that posh ponchos are dated. It is whether or not they mark the wearer as set aside for some elite status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm not expecting you to agree with me,

---

Why not? Don't you think believing in the will of God is important?

---

I just meant that you'd already expressed strong disagreement with my view so I wasn't expecting you to change your mind just based on a few sentences from some guy on the internet. That's all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It can hardly be against God's will to wear vestments when he commanded Moses to deck out Aaron with a bejeweled ephod with a curious girdle.

---

quote:

---

But there are loads of things God apparently commanded in the Old Testament that Christians no longer think apply. For a start, there are many elements of OT practice that Jesus, Paul etc. explicitly repudiated. We Christians can't use solely 'it's in the Old Testament' as a basis for anything, can we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

But there are loads of things God apparently commanded in the Old Testament that Christians no longer think apply. For a start, there are many elements of OT practice that Jesus, Paul etc. explicitly repudiated. We Christians can't use solely 'it's in the Old Testament' as a basis for anything, can we?

---

I am not arguing that the commandments on priestly attire apply to Christians. I am arguing that those passage are evidence that there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing priestly vestments.

Do you think God commanded Aaron and his sons, and all Israelite priests thereafter, to sin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, the sheer extent of the detail in the OT regarding the high priestly garments does rather baffle me! Anyway, in the OT the priests clearly were some kind of intermediary between God and the people as a whole. But that arrangement is set aside in the NT, God now interacting with all people directly (although with the community of God's people still being immensely important; I'm no individualist).

The birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus all signalled a change in how God deals with people, so some things (many things, ISTM) which God formerly commanded are now outside of his will. I'd put wearing vestments down as one of these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, the sheer extent of the detail in the OT regarding the high priestly garments does rather baffle me! Anyway, in the OT the priests clearly were some kind of intermediary between God and the people as a whole. But that arrangement is set aside in the NT, God now interacting with all people directly (although with the community of God's people still being immensely important; I'm no individualist).

The birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus all signalled a change in how God deals with people, so some things (many things, ISTM) which God formerly commanded are now outside of his will. I'd put wearing vestments down as one of these things.

---

If you only want to argue that vestments do not properly symbolize the relationship between God and humankind, then whatever. Your completely subjective opinion is duly noted, but frankly I don't much care.

But you've argued that it is clearly against the moral law to wear vestments. So go for it. Where does Jesus forbid wearing vestments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
... But you've argued that it is clearly against the moral law to wear vestments. So go for it. Where does Jesus forbid wearing vestments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Nowhere. He wore the talith wherever he went; you'd think if was against it he would have made a point of not wearing it as a witness to its non-necessity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rev per Minute:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Nowhere. He wore the talith wherever he went; you'd think if was against it he would have made a point of not wearing it as a witness to its non-necessity.

---

References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".

---

"Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years; and though she had spent all she had on physicians, no one could cure her. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his clothes, and immediately her haemorrhage stopped. Then Jesus asked, ‘Who touched me?’ When all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you.'" Luke 8:43-45

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".

---

"Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years; and though she had spent all she had on physicians, no one could cure her. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his clothes, and immediately her haemorrhage stopped. Then Jesus asked, ‘Who touched me?’ When all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you.'" Luke 8:43-45

---

Yes indeed: 'fringe' - better than 'hem'.

Must remember that Jesus wore 'Jewish clothes'

---

Thank you to all who contributed to this comment. I love learning new things.


 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If you only want to argue that vestments do not properly symbolize the relationship between God and humankind, then whatever. Your completely subjective opinion is duly noted, but frankly I don't much care.

But you've argued that it is clearly against the moral law to wear vestments. So go for it. Where does Jesus forbid wearing vestments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So I do think all churches should avoid using vestments, but I'm smart enough to realise that suddenly getting rid of vestments would cause much confusion and hurt for people (clergy and non-clergy) who are very used to them.

---

quote:

---

I'm trying to argue something more than simply a subjective view (I hope my argument is sturdier than simply 'I don't find vestments necessary or appealing'), but I would hesitate to use such language as 'clearly against the moral law'.

---

quote:

---

As I've said, I think the New Testament shows vestments to be

---

quote:

---

(a) unnecessary,

---

quote:

---

and (b) an impediment to an accurate understanding of the nature of the community of new covenant people.

---

quote:

---

EDIT - And as for Jesus wearing vestments of a sort, he was simply wearing what rabbis would be expected to wear, no? Jesus followed Jewish ceremonial procedure (well, most of it!) but the early Christians decided that wasn't necessary for people wishing to follow Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's also not hard to find extremely detailed descriptions of priestly garments.

---

In the Old Testament, of course. I think that's a significant point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

EDIT - And as for Jesus wearing vestments of a sort, he was simply wearing what rabbis would be expected to wear, no? Jesus followed Jewish ceremonial procedure

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".

---

"Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years; and though she had spent all she had on physicians, no one could cure her. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his clothes, and immediately her haemorrhage stopped. Then Jesus asked, ‘Who touched me?’ When all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you.'" Luke 8:43-45

---

Yes indeed: 'fringe' - better than 'hem'.

Must remember that Jesus wore 'Jewish clothes'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
South Coast Kevin, please don't take your bat and ball home. I, for one, am interested in your comments - even if I don't always agree with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All these things are 'human' constructs - but we are human beings. We are sensory and physical beings so it's no surprise that there are going to be sensory aspects to our worship - be it change-ringing church bells at a village parish, a Salvation Army brass-band, guitars and tambourines or robes and vestments or whatever else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
EDIT - And as for Jesus wearing vestments of a sort, he was simply wearing what rabbis would be expected to wear, no? Jesus followed Jewish ceremonial procedure

---

So what's the difference between that and Anglican priests wearing what they are expected to wear? They are following Anglican ceremonial procedure.

---

Hmm, good question. I suppose Jesus was a rabbi so he did what rabbis did. But then he also did some rather un-rabbi-ish things like letting (probably) a prostitute wash his feet... I don't know, really! But Anglican ceremonial procedure has changed over the years, in some minor ways and occasionally some rather more major ways. So I guess the vestments thing could change, either to make them more simple (or more ornate!) or even to abolish them altogether.

Utrecht Catholic - thanks for the recommendation but I don't have ready access to lots of theological books. Is there something online you could point me towards, perhaps? I'm particularly interested in how early the adoption of ceremonial vestments was, as I've read that they only came into use in (from memory) the 3rd or 4th century.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thing is, whatever Jesus did or didn't wear, that's neither a justification for vestments nor a preclusion of them.

Jesus never rode a bike. Nor ate a pizza.

Everyone accepts that a distinctive clerical garb didn't come in until around the 4th century.

In some minds this is associated with what they see as the Constantinian captivity of the Church ... ie. increasing worldliness, material power and nominalism.

So anything that apparently crept it at that time - sacerdotalism etc - is bound to be viewed with suspicion.

Our views on that, whether the developments from the 4th century onwards were good, bad or indifferent - or a mixture of all - will depend on our theology, tradition and churchmanship.

In South Coast Kevin's case, he clearly believes that vestments are a tangible and visible sign of almost everything he believes to be wrong with the Christian church ... not that he's singling individual clergy or congregations out for censure.

He really does believe that if church could be reconfigured in some way that fits with his particular understanding of the NT - a highly romanticised one IMHO but there we are - then it would be far more effective than it apparently is.

Whether he's right or wrong on this point, I respect his right to hold these views ... but I'd be lying if I didn't say I believed them to be touchingly naive.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Again, I can see what you're getting at, South Coast Kevin but having worshipped in churches where they don't have vestments and in churches where they do, I don't have a big issue about the whole thing.

I neither feel more 'empowered' or less empowered whether I attend a service where vestments are worn or one where they aren't. I try to assess each on their own merits, as I've said above.

Of course, I don't always succeed as I'm inevitably going to have criteria that is informed by whatever tradition I belong to or have imbibed.

You've imbibed from a radical Anabaptist style tradition with some Quaker input a wee while back ... so it's inevitable that you're going to be suspicious of things that the rest of us aren't fazed about.

If all churches suddenly agreed tomorrow to ditch the use of vestments - or the concept of a sacramental priesthood (where that exists) - I don't see how that would automatically, in and of itself, make the world a better place.

There are people doing good stuff who belong to churches with priests and vestments and so on and there are people doing good stuff who don't.

You're the one who - rightly - makes the point about worship being a daily/weekly activity and not just something for Sundays. I don't see the presence of absence of vestments making any great deal of difference to the way people do or don't behave for the rest of the week.

I can't speak for Mudfrog, but I suspect that when he meets up with other church leaders in Newcastle he'll see aspects he admires and aspects he deplores. The same with the rest of us.

What I don't see is how Mudfrog would perform his duties as a Salvation Army officer any more effectively or differently if he decided to wear a polo shirt and chinos rather than a Salvation Army officers uniform. Given the high regard in which the Salvation Army is popularly held, I'm sure he receives many positive comments - as well as many opportunities to share his faith - as he goes about his business dressed the way he does.

The same might equally apply to a clergy person from a denomination where they go in for vestments.

I really don't think it's an issue to get hung up over. People aren't going to hell because of it.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
So Kevin, would your ideal encompass a cloakroom by the entrance to whatever space you are using for worship, in which every (baptised) person would slip on over their day clothes a nice white floor-length garment (rather like a Laudian surplice, but let's not call it that because surplices are (shudder) vestments)?

That would roughly be consonent with some of the ideas and, I think, some of the practices, of the early church, and would perfectly embody the theology you've just described. The advantage over letting people wear their day clothes is that wearing day clothes means you can tell they're different, roughly who has money and who doesn't (unless someone is deliberately dressing down, which is both condescending and a bit deceitful), who does what and so on -- all of them divisive in the worst case.

And it is the worst case you seem to be assuming for those who care about vestments.

In any case, I distrust those who want to get back to the simplicity of the first century church -- those people were no better than we are, and no closer to what God wants, if we believe that the Holy SPirit continued active in God's people after, say 90 AD (why not 150? why not 33? Why not 324? etc.) The idea that the earlier the better and if we could only get back to the way it was then all would be well has always struck me as a romantic fable or nonsence, akin to the folly of those in the 19th century who believed that gothic architecture was more holy than any other, because they believed the middle ages were the apex of christianity.

John (definitely not posting as a Host)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that we all of us 'read back' into the pages of the NT whatever we want to see ... to a certain extent.

So, for instance - and I'm not knocking iconography - the Orthodox and RCs will have pious legends about St Luke painting the first icon of the Virgin Mary in order to bolster the later practice of iconography. You can defend iconography, it seems to me, on other grounds than having to 'invent' (if that's the right word) some kind of extra-1st century precedent.

On the other hand, those of a more 'restorationist' or Anabaptist persuasion will read into the pages of the NT their idealised version of church. Anyone who read Arthur Wallis's polemical 'The Radical Christian' back in the day will remember how his imagined time-machine visit to 1st century Corinth or Ephesus read rather like his own particular fellowship in togas.

They even had worship-choruses led by lyres rather than guitars ...



The whole thing bore no resemblance to what 1st century worship would have looked like.

It's difficult to reconstruct exactly what a church service would have looked like in the 1st century, but there are some clues. It certainly wouldn't have been the lovely, laid-back Californian style event that Vineyard types fondly imagine it to have been.

I'm all for small groups, experimentation and the kind of things that SCK is interested in exploring - there's room for that. I can see how those small group things that Viola and others are talking about could work - but within existing or developing structures ... not in some kind of blissful and glorious isolation from 2,000 years of Christianity.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I've 'presided' at communion services in both 'restorationist' house-group and Baptist settings and I'm not ordained, nor was I an 'official' leader of any kind. I didn't wear vestments.

I'm no longer in a setting where I would be allowed to 'preside' at communion. Do I feel disempowered by that? No, I don't.

There might be other things that bug me or feel that I'm not listened to - but that's different and I'd suggest that wherever I was - whether in SCK's church, Mudfrog's Salvation Army Corps, a cathedral, an RC parish or a Coptic one ... or a Quaker Meeting House ... wherever I was there'd be issues or problems of some kind or other. That's inevitable. That's because we are human.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
So Kevin, would your ideal encompass a cloakroom by the entrance to whatever space you are using for worship, in which every (baptised) person would slip on over their day clothes a nice white floor-length garment (rather like a Laudian surplice, but let's not call it that because surplices are (shudder) vestments)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
In any case, I distrust those who want to get back to the simplicity of the first century church -- those people were no better than we are, and no closer to what God wants, if we believe that the Holy SPirit continued active in God's people after, say 90 AD (why not 150? why not 33? Why not 324? etc.) The idea that the earlier the better and if we could only get back to the way it was then all would be well has always struck me as a romantic fable or nonsence, akin to the folly of those in the 19th century who believed that gothic architecture was more holy than any other, because they believed the middle ages were the apex of christianity.

John (definitely not posting as a Host)

---

quote:

---

Thanks , Gamaliel. I just meant I give up with Zach82, who (ISTM) keeps asking me to explain things I've already been trying hard to explain. The dialogue between him and me doesn't seem to be going anywhere constructive.

---

For starters, you could cite the biblical passage where Jesus forbids the wearing of vestments, which you insist is in the New Testament somewhere. I entirely understand your views, I assure you. I want you to back them up.

[ 01. January 2014, 19:00: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Other people take the NT just as seriously as you do, South Coast Kevin.

Are you telling us that the Ananias and Sapphira incident in Acts 4 is some kind of blue-print we should follow?

It's the principles, of course. We should treat each other as equals and as people made in the image of God.

I don't see how the use or non-use of vestments affects that.

Some people wearing vestments might act bastardly. Some people who don't wear vestments might do the same.

Throughout this debate, those Christians who do employ vestments of one form or other have said over and over and over again that they don't see it as a badge of worthiness, holiness or special status - but some see it as a mark of 'differentiation' in functional terms.

Yet, for reasons best known to yourself you have refused to believe them or take what they're saying at face-value.

The 'status' thing is in the eye of the beholder, here, it seems to me. You are embuing these things with divisive significance in a way that the practitioners themselves aren't.

Can't you see that?

It's as if the conversation is going like this:

Vestment wearer: I don't see these vestments as introducing any divisiveness at all. They denote function and add to the sense of 'colour' and 'occasion' in our worship.

South Coast Kevin (hands over ears): La la la lah ... I'm not listening. Vestments aren't in the NT and are wicked and divisive. I don't care what you or anyone else says, that's what the NT teaches ...

Vestment wearer: Can you give me chapter and verse for that?

South Coast Kevin: La la la lah ... I can't hear you. The NT teaches that we should meet for mutual encouragement and edification. Vestments cut across that. They suggest that certain people are special ...

Vestment wearer: But I'm not special, I'm the same as everyone else ...

South Coast Kevin: No you're not ... you're wearing vestments. Therefore you are being divisive and think you're special ...


 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Throughout this debate, those Christians who do employ vestments of one form or other have said over and over and over again that they don't see it as a badge of worthiness, holiness or special status - but some see it as a mark of 'differentiation' in functional terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
My problem is twofold: firstly, I don't think some people should be allowed to do certain things in a church service while others are not (at least in the automatic sense of 'You're ordained, therefore you can do this thing; you're not so you can't').

---

quote:

---

And secondly, even if one accepts the ordination thing, I don't see the need for those people to wear vestments. They are an ancient relic that sets some people apart as different, whereas the New Testament says Jesus' followers should relate to each other as equals, with 'one another' being the defining notion of how the community of believers should operate.

---

quote:

---

I'm not intending to attack the specific people who wear vestments.

---

quote:

---

It's the system and the messages that system sends. And no, I don't think Christians would suddenly be transformed and empowered if vestments were abolished overnight. Any change in attitude would surely be slow and gradual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Like most things in worship, some people obviously find the more formal worship helpful as a way of getting nearer to God and/or finding a way into faith and others don't. Trying to insist that something is wrong when obviously a number of worshippers find it helpful and a way of finding Christianity is as helpful as others insisting that all churches have to hold their worship in a certain way.

Surely the whole point of worship and churches is to enable people to learn about God and to support their faith. Putting obstacles in the way of that aim by insisting on the one right way and shutting down other ways in is surely unhelpful to your fellow Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
South Coast Kevin, why not exercise the charitable option? ie. take what people say at face value?

If I see vestments these days I think, 'Ah, right, something 'holy' is happening and these coloured vestments are one way of helping me focus on that.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roselyn:
Dear South Coasst Kevin try a Myers Briggs or some other personality chart. You may realise that things that convey meaning to you are different from things that mean something to others. The things are not important as long as they provide a method of communication. I believe God is clever enough to use many different channels, sounds, pictures, words etc. All you need do is make sure your "things" are open to Him.

---

quote:

---

And I think the wearing of vestments sends messages that are contrary to the teaching in the New Testament about what churches - communities of Jesus-followers - should be like and how they should gather together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roselyn:


Dear South Coasst Kevin try a Myers Briggs or some other personality chart.

---

quote:

---

You may realise that things that convey meaning to you are different from things that mean something to others

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
In any case, I distrust those who want to get back to the simplicity of the first century church -- those people were no better than we are, and no closer to what God wants, if we believe that the Holy SPirit continued active in God's people after, say 90 AD (why not 150? why not 33? Why not 324? etc.) The idea that the earlier the better and if we could only get back to the way it was then all would be well has always struck me as a romantic fable or nonsence, akin to the folly of those in the 19th century who believed that gothic architecture was more holy than any other, because they believed the middle ages were the apex of christianity.

John (definitely not posting as a Host)

---

But hold on. We take the New Testament as the basis for how we should behave towards one another, don't we? 'Love your neighbour as yourself... love your enemies' and so on. Tradition (and all churches have tradition, I'll readily acknowledge that) then builds on the Biblical material, but it all starts with the Bible, doesn't it? If that's the case, why shouldn't it be the same with how we meet together as communities of Christians? That's why I keep banging on about the New Testament, because it's our source guide for the new covenant between God and people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But ken, against that argument is the increase in cathedral worship. If cathedral worship wasn't increasing, you and Kevin would have a point, but that fact suggests that more people than you think find vestments and that imagery a helpful way to worship, both insiders and outsiders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
South Coast Kevin, descriptions of the very formal services with vestments and all are that they highlight the numinous and divine. And many people find that deeply moving and helpful.

You sound as if you're concentrating on incarnational theology and insisting that everyone else has to do this, and that because you don't like vestments you're saying they are unhelpful for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
But the New Testament says precious little about worship, and much of what it does say is contradicted by other things it says.

Even if it were true that there is a single picture of blessed simplicity -- and it is not true -- doesn't the fact that we're 1,950 years further along, that a lot of water has passed under the bridge and that people have radically shifted in their assumpstions and cultural reality from what the New Testament says about the worshipping community mean anything?

---

I just think we should let what the New Testament says about Christian community and relationships inform the way we do our church services / gatherings. ISTM the NT is very strong on all Christians being equal before God and one another (no slave or Greek etc., love one another, consider others' needs more highly than your own, the Son of Man came to serve... and so it should be among you, etc. etc.) so how we meet together as church should reflect that.

AFAICT there's no suggestion in the NT that special clothes were worn when Christians met together, and it seems vestments were only introduced in maybe the 3rd century. What prompted this innovation? Did it reflect new cultural / societal realities in a way which is true to the NT principles of equality and mutuality? I don't think it does, and because there's no NT suggestion of vestments I think we need a very strong justification for having them now.

I'm not saying our church services should precisely mirror the NT examples (two problems with that - there is indeed pretty scanty evidence in the NT of what actually happened in church services; and, like with all the behavioural instructions, we need to distinguish between cultural, for-the-time instructions and those given for all time). But I am saying we should introduce novelties with caution, always keeping in mind what the NT does say about the purpose of church services and the kind of things that might take place at them.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Kevin, for the millionth time, no-one here is saying that vestments are 'necessary' - any more than they are saying that flowers are necessary or a particular type of altar cloth (or even an altar) is necessary.

What people who go in for these things are saying is that they're nice to have for a variety of reasons - aesthetic, symbolic, etc etc.

You seem to suggesting that it's ok for churches to have symbolic elements, physical features and gestures of various kinds - candles, art, whatever else - just so long as they don't have vestments.

You seem to suggest that almost anything and everything is permissible apart from vestments.

Just because you misunderstand their use doesn't mean that everyone else does.


 

---

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Speaking entirely for myself, when eating out at somewhere posh, I prefer to be able to identify the Head Waiter/Maitre d'. At a pub, this doesnt't matter so much - the person behind the bar is in charge. Restaurant or pub for a celebration is a matter of choice - neither is ;right' or wrong. Does it really matter to God?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think guitars should be banned. They are unhelpful. The fact that someone is playing a guitar in worship disenfranchises me, it is divisive.

I can't play the guitar therefore I feel excluded and disempowered from that particular aspect of worship.

Not only do I find guitars unhelpful but I strongly believe that they are unhelpful for everyone else. If we are going to use guitars then we should have a strong NT warrant for doing so.

We don't find guitars in the NT. Therefore we shouldn't use guitars.

Bongo drums are less divisive. Anyone can bang a bongo drum without having to learn complicated chord structures. Therefore bongo drums are more in keeping with the NT and are acceptable for use in worship.

In fact, any other form of musical instrument is fine for use in worship apart from guitars because I say so ...



C'mon, SCK, this parody echoes your argument quite accurately I think.

@Ken - so the proportion of people attending cathedral services is small compared with the UK population as a whole. Sure. The proportion of people attending any form of church service is small compared to the population as a whole.

So what?

That neither contradicts nor affirms Curiosity Killed's observation which is purely that some people find vestments and so on helpful and others don't.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You seem to suggesting that it's ok for churches to have symbolic elements, physical features and gestures of various kinds - candles, art, whatever else - just so long as they don't have vestments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
Speaking entirely for myself, when eating out at somewhere posh, I prefer to be able to identify the Head Waiter/Maitre d'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
Speaking entirely for myself, when eating out at somewhere posh, I prefer to be able to identify the Head Waiter/Maitre d'. At a pub, this doesnt't matter so much - the person behind the bar is in charge. Restaurant or pub for a celebration is a matter of choice - neither is ;right' or wrong. Does it really matter to God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think guitars should be banned. They are unhelpful. The fact that someone is playing a guitar in worship disenfranchises me, it is divisive.

I can't play the guitar therefore I feel excluded and disempowered from that particular aspect of worship.

Not only do I find guitars unhelpful but I strongly believe that they are unhelpful for everyone else. If we are going to use guitars then we should have a strong NT warrant for doing so.

We don't find guitars in the NT. Therefore we shouldn't use guitars.

Bongo drums are less divisive. Anyone can bang a bongo drum without having to learn complicated chord structures. Therefore bongo drums are more in keeping with the NT and are acceptable for use in worship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm saying that I'm not against symbolic elements, physical features etc. in and of themselves, but specifically with vestments there are problems which IMO mean their use is more hindrance than help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


C'mon, SCK, this parody echoes your argument quite accurately I think.

---

quote:

---

That neither contradicts nor affirms Curiosity Killed's observation which is purely that some people find vestments and so on helpful and others don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Your services would send me screaming to the hills and stop me attending church. When the CU at university told me church was Holy Trinity Brompton with no alternatives I didn't go for 13 years. But I defend your right to worship in a way you find helpful. I just find it a bit distressing that you're not giving me that option.

---

Hmm, okay... *Tries to take a step or two back from dogmatic position*

In this discussion, I'm trying to remain focused on the specific question of vestments rather than on all the wider points about what church services should / might be like. And I've tried to explain above why I think vestments are a bad idea.

I know plenty of people like them, and a few even consider them necessary (i.e. that a service without vestments is lacking in some significant way). I'm not saying I'd ban vestments - that would rather cut across my concept of how church should operate, that anyone would have the power on their own to do such a thing! - but I do think they are unhelpful and problematic. As I've been trying to explain. I know you and many others disagree, though, so carry on. Obviously - you're not going to change what you do because of what some bloke on the internet is saying!

EDIT - Cross-posted with Ken. Thanks, man...

[ 02. January 2014, 10:34: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The problem is, SCK, that we can all look at other church services and find something that isn't in the NT and point to it has having no Biblical* or NT justification. Picking on vestments, which have a long history in the church and date from when many of the early Eucharistic services and their features were formalised is possibly not one of the best ones to choose. The NT is very sketchy. Some of the ideas as to how early services were run come from traditional observances in the Orthodox church believed to be earlier than the written histories and to date back to the early church.

Some of the earliest features of services were the very early hymns - there are a number around from the 3rd and 4th centuries that can be found translated into English in NEH (New English Hymnal) which I like singing as they help me feel rooted in a faith that goes back millennia. But I have had my ear bent after a service where they feature by any number of people who hate them - and give different reasons why.

HTB which I gave as an example doesn't use vestments for normal services. I'm not sure what happens for the Eucharist. And I know it's not the lack of vestments that means I struggle to find any worship in the services I've attended at HTB whilst I get something from mass at the Brompton Oratory† but a whole lot of other factors.

* And as you know, vestments are even dodgier to prove no Biblical justification as there's OT justification.
† RC and next door, and being CofE I can't receive the sacrament
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem is, SCK, that we can all look at other church services and find something that isn't in the NT and point to it has having no Biblical* or NT justification. Picking on vestments, which have a long history in the church and date from when many of the early Eucharistic services and their features were formalised is possibly not one of the best ones to choose. The NT is very sketchy. Some of the ideas as to how early services were run come from traditional observances in the Orthodox church believed to be earlier than the written histories and to date back to the early church.


* And as you know, vestments are even dodgier to prove no Biblical justification as there's OT justification.
† RC and next door, and being CofE I can't receive the sacrament

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
As for the Old Testament use of vestments, I've deliberately been going on about the New Testament because there's clearly a radical change from OT to NT when it comes to right worship of Yahweh. OT - temple, animal sacrifice, Levitical priesthood. NT - no specific place, the sacrifice is of our lives in service to God and people, we are all a royal priesthood. I don't think the OT use of vestments tells us anything about what we should do nowadays, to be honest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:
To believe that the Christian church should be unchanging from say 33 AD to today, is not taking into account changing circumstances (modern technology for one), or revelation from the Holy Spirit (for another).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
When I attend a Communion Service/Eucharist/Lord's Supper, I hope that God will provide something for me to feed upon. How the person serving that food is dressed will depend upon the nature of the eating place. My preference is, surely, a matter between me and God; it is not necessary for all to be the same. God, after all, made us all different. Whether we prefer posh or plain, surely God is still there. Get over it.

---

I'm not talking about posh or plain, I'm saying that your fundamental view of church services differs from mine. Sorry... IMO we gather together to receive from God and from one another, while your view seems to be that (at least in part) you are going specifically to receive from the vestmented person, or from God via the vestmented person, I should probably say.

Anyhow, given your view, I see why you're happy with vestments; they indicate the function of the person with the special responsibility. Whereas I think we should all have a similar responsibility (to encourage, challenge and strengthen one another in our faith), albeit one which gets expressed in different ways according to the skills, gifts and character of each person.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Reference to vaguely Christian sounding principles does not constitute substantiation, SCK. The only communication difficulty we're having is your inability to give a solid argument.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
There is another thread on which discussion is had about whether Jesus 'chatted' or even smiled.

I don't think we should be allowed to chat before or after the service.
Neither should we smile.

well, we don't know if Jesus did and if we do we run the risk of people misunderstanding what we're smiling about and even marginalising those who don't get to know what you're smiling about - it could be rude!

Best to cut it out altogether in case of misunderstanding.
Just face the front, shut up and show no emotion, no interest and certainly nothing that might suggest you know something they don't!
 

---

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
What is the history of the rochet and chimere worn by Anglican bishops? Were they part of Choir dress before the Reformation? If not, where did they come from? Secular dress? Academic or legal dress? How did they become asociated with bishops?

I could ask the same questions about the tippett/preaching scarf, preaching bands, and the Canterbury cap. Were they ecclesiastical vestments before the Reformation? If so, how were they used? If not, where did they come from?

Was the tippett related to the stole at all? Were preaching bands related to the tab that in later centuries would be in clerical collars?

[ 02. January 2014, 15:39: Message edited by: stonespring ]
 

---

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
What is the history of the rochet and chimere worn by Anglican bishops? Were they part of Choir dress before the Reformation? If not, where did they come from? Secular dress? Academic or legal dress? How did they become asociated with bishops?

I could ask the same questions about the tippett/preaching scarf, preaching bands, and the Canterbury cap. Were they ecclesiastical vestments before the Reformation? If so, how were they used? If not, where did they come from?

Was the tippett related to the stole at all? Were preaching bands related to the tab that in later centuries would be in clerical collars?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
Thanks for that - but doesn't this depend on translation, 'fringe' vs 'hem'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
As for the first Christians gathering at the Temple, presumably that's because they saw themselves as Jews and wanted to convince their fellow Jews that Jesus was the longed-for messiah. Once it became clear that many Jews didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah and didn't want anything to do with the Jesus-followers, the latter stopped meeting at the Temple.

---

quote:

---

Since, therefore, these things are now clear to us and we have searched into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do, in order, everything that the Master has commanded us to perform at the appointed times. Now he commanded the offerings and services to be performed diligently, and not to be done carelessly or in disorder, but at designated times and occasions. Both where and by whom he wants them to be performed, he himself has determined by his supreme will, so that all things, being done devoutly according to his good pleasure, may be acceptable to his will. Those, therefore, who make their offerings at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed, for those who follow the instructions of the Master cannot go wrong. For to the high priest the proper services have been given, and to the priests the proper office has been assigned, and upon the Levites the proper ministries have been imposed. The layman is bound by the layman’s rules...Let each of you, brothers, give thanks to God with your own group, maintaining a good conscience, not overstepping the designated rule of his ministry, but acting with reverence. Not just anywhere, brothers, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the offerings for sin and trespasses, but only in Jerusalem. And even there the offering is not made in any place, but in front of the sanctuary at the altar, the offering having been first inspected for blemishes by the high priest and the previously mentioned ministers.
- 1 Clement 40:1-41:2

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Either Clement is writing about Jewish worship in the Temple, which makes this very early (pre-70-CE), and which indicates a very strong involvement of the early Christian church in the Temple worship, not simply as a way to make "converts," but as a way to worship; or Clement is writing after the destruction of the Temple using it as a metaphor for Christian worship. Note, in either case, the distinctions between the roles of the high priest, priests, Levites, and laity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Either Clement is writing about Jewish worship in the Temple, which makes this very early (pre-70-CE), and which indicates a very strong involvement of the early Christian church in the Temple worship, not simply as a way to make "converts," but as a way to worship; or Clement is writing after the destruction of the Temple using it as a metaphor for Christian worship. Note, in either case, the distinctions between the roles of the high priest, priests, Levites, and laity.

---

You're right, this text is a challenge to my interpretation of what the NT says about church practice. I know basically nothing about 1 Clement so I thought I'd do some quick research. I found something (here and the comments below) suggesting the part you quoted is an interpolation of some sort, perhaps from when Clement himself was still a Jew. Is this a remotely mainstream theory or just outlandish speculation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

That's got nothing to do with the presence or absence of vestments.

He doesn't wear them because he believes that they put up a 'barrier'. Well, I don't feel any less or a barrier or better disposed to him because he doesn't wear vestments. I can't see how it any way makes him better or worse at what he does.

In fact, by not wearing them he's putting a barrier up to people who do like to see clergy wearing vestments ...

These things cut both ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
If vestments are a uniform then this suggests to me that the person leading worship in vestments is performing a different role to a person leading worship in normal dress. A person leading worship vested is proclaiming themselves as a servant of "God" or "the Church" and as such leads worship. The person dressed in everyday clothes is leading worship primarily as one of the congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:


Frankly,is it not somewhat odd,that people who do not belong to the Anglican communion, or whose church is not in full communion with Canterbury advocate that Anglican priests should have the freedom not to use vestments ?
Anglican ministers do not like vestments,whether
chasuble or surplice/alb and are unwilling to wear them should do better by leaving Canterbury and find a new home with a non liturgical church,since it is not only the vestiture isssue that matters but equally their unwillingness to use the liturgy ordered by the Church.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm old-skool enough to agree with the observation that vestments serve a purpose in taking attention away from the person at the front and redirecting it to the liturgy.

---

I've come across this argument a fair bit (on the Ship and in real life) and, while it's the argument used in favour of vestments that makes most sense to me, I still don't really get it.

Do people really find it a distraction if the 'person at the front' is wearing unobtrusive, inoffensive regular clothes rather than vestments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
What is the history of the rochet and chimere worn by Anglican bishops? Were they part of Choir dress before the Reformation? If not, where did they come from? Secular dress? Academic or legal dress? How did they become asociated with bishops?

I could ask the same questions about the tippett/preaching scarf, preaching bands, and the Canterbury cap. Were they ecclesiastical vestments before the Reformation? If so, how were they used? If not, where did they come from?

Was the tippett related to the stole at all? Were preaching bands related to the tab that in later centuries would be in clerical collars?

---

The chimere is really a sort of cassock: the cote-hardy of the 16thC in its academic form (i.e a tabard, like the present DD convocation dress at Oxford). The rochet is analogous to the alb or surplice, cut for greater mobility, and was worn as street dress in the same way as priests would wear a rochet, later a cotta/surplice. Neither is "choir dress" for a bishop: in choir he would wear surplice and cope over both rochet and chimere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:


Frankly,is it not somewhat odd,that people who do not belong to the Anglican communion, or whose church is not in full communion with Canterbury advocate that Anglican priests should have the freedom not to use vestments ?
Anglican ministers do not like vestments,whether
chasuble or surplice/alb and are unwilling to wear them should do better by leaving Canterbury and find a new home with a non liturgical church,since it is not only the vestiture isssue that matters but equally their unwillingness to use the liturgy ordered by the Church.

.

---

What nonsense. Anglican priests are already free to choose to use vestments or not, and many thousands choose not to. Maybe tens of thousands worldwide, there are provinces where such things are all but unknown. And in England at any rate it wasn't the evangelicals who abandoned the liturgy of their denomination for that of another over a century ago.

One of the most irritating things about factionalism in the Anglican communion is this absurd tendency for some of the factions to pretend that their own habits and preferences are somehow normative

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Frankly,is it not somewhat odd,that people who do not belong to the Anglican communion, or whose church is not in full communion with Canterbury advocate that Anglican priests should have the freedom not to use vestments ?
Anglican ministers do not like vestments,whether
chasuble or surplice/alb and are unwilling to wear them should do better by leaving Canterbury and find a new home with a non liturgical church,since it is not only the vestiture isssue that matters but equally their unwillingness to use the liturgy ordered by the Church.

---

That is to misunderstand something that is fundamental to the Church of England. It makes it completely different from the various churches elsewhere that have the word 'Episcopalian' in their name.

This irritates members of other ecclesial communities, but in England, the Church of England is 'the Church', 'our church', the one that is descended from those who first evangelised these islands, and through them the apostles. It is also the one for those who just identify themselves as Christians, rather than as Christian + Roman Catholic, Calvinist, Believers' Baptism only or whatever.

This also means that the things that go with denominational self-identification, rather than just with being Christian are secondary, not fundamental.

So saying to a member of the Church of England, 'if you don't like the way we do things, you can always go and join another denomination' doesn't wash. This is particularly so if it is about something that isn't just secondary, but probably tertiary, rather than something primary to Christianity itself like the truth of the resurrection or whether Jesus is the Son of God.


Also, if you think it's a bit odd that people in England who are not members of the CofE are sticking their oars into this debate, is it not equally odd that a member of a church elsewhere which is, thankfully, in communion with us but not descended from the local root stock, also feels they have a stake in it?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've tweaked SCK's ear a few times on this thread, but I can - honestly - see what he's getting at.

His issue isn't with vestments per se - but what they symbolise - for him and others like him - in terms of the kind of authority structures that Jengie Jon is alluding to.

SCK doesn't believe in a priesthood - other in the priesthood of all believers sense - so anything that appears as if it might be diluting that is inevitably going to worry or annoy him.

I think Jengie's raised a good point on the authority thing ... and, of course, in her denomination and tradition there are distinctive clothes too ... I've seen plenty of Geneva gowns and dog-collars and so on on the Reformed side of things and Jengie will be well aware of all of that.

Which is why I keep coming back to the context thing. No liturgy police are going to go around to SCK's Vineyard church to compel them to wear albs, surplices, Geneva gowns, cowboy outfits, pirate gear or anything else ...

Which is as it should be.

But equally, SCK can't expect everyone else to start behaving as his church does - and he certainly doesn't appear to entertain that idea - at least not in the short term ...

Incidentally, I've seen boards online where the Orthodox in the US are having all kinds of fits and tussles about the clergy in some jurisdictions going around in mufti or wearing lounge suits and so on - and thereby becoming indistinguishable from RC or Protestant clergy ...

Whether that represents the thin end of a very large wedge, I don't know ...

I can see what SCK is driving at but to all practical intents and purposes I don't see how people are treated any better or worse in churches that go in for vestments than those which don't ...
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
What Enoch just said.

And:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liturgylover:


In the Church of England priests have little discretion. The vesture at Holy Communion, and for the occasional offices is regulated by Canon Law, any departure from established practice requires the agreement of the PCC, and the Bishop decides in the event of any dispute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What Enoch just said.

And:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liturgylover:


In the Church of England priests have little discretion. The vesture at Holy Communion, and for the occasional offices is regulated by Canon Law, any departure from established practice requires the agreement of the PCC, and the Bishop decides in the event of any dispute.

---

What planet is this on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Which is why I keep coming back to the context thing. No liturgy police are going to go around to SCK's Vineyard church to compel them to wear albs, surplices, Geneva gowns, cowboy outfits, pirate gear or anything else ...

Which is as it should be.

But equally, SCK can't expect everyone else to start behaving as his church does - and he certainly doesn't appear to entertain that idea - at least not in the short term ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...to all practical intents and purposes I don't see how people are treated any better or worse in churches that go in for vestments than those which don't ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s not being discussed wether the Church should eliminate vestments, but only allow ministers who do not want to wear them to do so. I think it´s a right move.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
If vestments are a uniform then this suggests to me that the person leading worship in vestments is performing a different role to a person leading worship in normal dress. A person leading worship vested is proclaiming themselves as a servant of "God" or "the Church" and as such leads worship. The person dressed in everyday clothes is leading worship primarily as one of the congregation.

---

Dead on, but I'd amend a bit: it's not about the priest declaring herself a servant of God (so's the rest of the congregation) or of the Church (ditto, but with a different sort of contract...) It's about the priest declaring herself to be the priest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
By whose authority are they a priest?

A soldier when he puts on uniform declares himself a soldier but it is only because that that is the uniform of a regiment authorised by the state that makes him genuinely a soldier. So he carries the authority/is a servant of the state when he wears the uniform.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Be it a Baptist minister being 'called' by the congregation or a priest whose vocation is 'recognised' the Bishop on behalf of the wider Church ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... In my experience, "yer avrage non-churchgoer" doesn't actually care two hoots about whether the priest wears vestments or not. They are certainly NOT the turn-off that the anti-vestment brigade sometimes claim. In fact, the opposite is often equally true - that NOT wearing vestments confuses and even disappoints non-churchgoers. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
In fact, what is being proposed is not actually going to make any difference at all. All it will do is legitimate what some Anglican priests already do - not wear vestments. As always, Canon Law struggles to keep up with reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
the officiating minister (the curate, I believe) took the service in a sports jacket and open-necked shirt, which they thought showed disrespect to the family, who had attended in their best clothes. This was about 15 years ago.
Comments, anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:



But that was then and this is now. What we see now are evangelical clergy adopting the patterns and practices of other denominations

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
An evangelical of my acquaintance felt similarly when the bishop wore a lounge suit to confirm her granddaughter

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken
Loads of evangelicals didn't wear vestments forty years ago. At least some of them because they thought they were evil papist innovations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Karl,

One good advice,please remain Always polite and do not use ugly words.
It must have been a wonderful view, a priest in jeans and t-shirt celebrating the Eucharist.
The recent Christmas Midnight Eucharist from Westminster Abbey produced a much better picture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Karl,

One good advice,please remain Always polite and do not use ugly words.
It must have been a wonderful view, a priest in jeans and t-shirt celebrating the Eucharist.
The recent Christmas Midnight Eucharist from Westminster Abbey produced a much better picture.

---

Swearing has always been acceptable on the Ship. It's fine not to like it but not fine to tell grown adults off for it.

---

/Hosting
 

---

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
Anyone care to blog "A Year Without Vestments"?!
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Nevah!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Ken - I'm not thinking purely of vestments when I said that evangelical and charismatic Anglican clergy are borrowing things from other denominations ... although my thoughts did include that.

I'm suggesting that they're borrowing a whole load of other things besides and that some of them are suffering from Vineyard envy and think that if they dress casually and try to look 'cool' they'll grow their congregations.

That might be true to a certain extent but it makes a lot of them look like prats.

I think there are regional differences, though. Up here it seems that many evangelical clergy sit loosely by vestments and so on. In London, where you are, it sounds different.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Charismatic-lite worship-band-led services existed in the CofE at least as long ago as the mid 70s. I know, because I went to some. I even strummed my guitar in some. They were probably very rare, and almost certainly almost never the main Sunday worship of a parish (though I'd not be surprised if there were a handful somewhere). So that sort of thing was not a borrowing from Vineyard or NFI or anywhere else, because they were also developing it at the same time, it was part of a general move towards that way of doing worship across many evangelical churches. It never went as far in the CofE as other denominations, it remained and remains a minority pattern of worship in the CofE, but it probably became the majority style among the Baptists and I'd guess 100% in some other denominations. But it's something that was developing on both sides of the Atlantic and in many denominations at the same time. Not invented in one place and borrowed elsewhere. But its as authentically Anglican as any other kind of liturgy is.

And remember that is the second wave of the Charismatic Movement in non-Pentecostal churches. There was a previous wave in the 1950s and 1960s with historical roots within Anglicanism going back to the 20s and 30s.

Also back then there was a significant minority of Anglican evangelicals who never wore vestments (and never used candles or incense or seasonal colours) because they thought those things were evil Popish deviations. That's almost died out now. (Though even back then most such Anglican evangelicals probably used cassock and surplice and scarf, or just possibly Geneva gown and preaching tabs, for all main services, Communion or not). I've know ordinands and curates who had arguments with the Bishop because they wanted to refuse to wear vestments at their ordination. I think that is rarer than to used to be.

My memory of these things only goes back to the early 70s. But at that time there were already outdoor summer meetings and weeks where the worship was moving towards what we then called "Jesus Rock". And there were travelling multimedia shows like Jimmy and Carol Owens "come together". And there were the "rock operas" like Godspell and Superstar. So younger Christians at any rate were already used to that kind of music with Christian lyrics.

And maybe more importantly the sit-round-in-a-circle and strum-guitars-and-sing-choruses kind of after church youth group or CU meeting was already decades old, so many Anglican priests and Baptist ministers alike were familiar with it. So it was quite natural that such things would start to appear in Sunday morning public worship. It developed in parallel across all sorts of denominations, it wasn't invented in one place and borrowed by others. The Anglicans and Methodists were probably minor players compared with the Baptists, at least in England, but it happened everywhere. Even a few Roman Catholic parishes.

That is no weirder than robed choirs and pianos turning up in the 19th century, or wind bands in the 18th, or madrigals and motets in the 16th.
 

---

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :
 
As I understand it vestments are relatively new in the Church of England / Anglican communion, part of their increasing popularity probably came about with a growing higher view of priesthood.

As I understand it it was only in the 19th century that the surplice became more common. (But I may be wrong on that - sorry!). Whatever didnt clergy remove the surplice top preach?

Now that is slightly in decline it seems inevitable how the clergy dress will also change.

I take it the requirements by church law apply only to official liturgy of the Church of England (thats what I'm, thinking of, not other Anglcian churches).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I broadly agree, Ken. I'm not saying these things were 'invented' elsewhere and imported - there were equivalents developing across the board at roughly the same time - and yes, I'm completely with you on the existence of an almost pre-charismatic movement charismatic movement in the 1950s ...

I also agree that, broadly speaking, opposition to liturgical colours and so on has waned in evangelical Anglican circles ...

However, our vicar insists on having plain white candles for the Advent candles because the coloured versions 'aren't in the Bible' - and Advent candles per se ARE?!



I'd also suggest that the influence of some of the newer groups has increased in CofE circles in recent years - although thanks to New Wine, HTB and Alpha I think the Anglican charismatics have recovered a sense of purpose and feel that they're back in the driving seat to some extent ...

For instance, when I came into evangelical Anglican circles from an increasingly post-evangelical/emergent style of Baptist church (with some Vineyard leanings) I was horrified to find how prevalent Bethel influence was. I wasn't expecting that at all.

I was slightly less surprised to find dodgy Zionist and pre-millenialist style beliefs - partly because the local evangelical Anglicans have scooped up fundies from failed independent churches - and partly because my own mum-in-law has all manner of whacky views in that direction and she's been Anglican all her life ... with involvement in the early days of the Anglican charismatic renewal.

I can only speak as I find and I find that a lot of evangelical Anglicans are not as 'Anglican' as they should be ... or I'd like them to be ...

The same applies at the more Catholic end of the Anglican spectrum, of course.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clotilde:
As I understand it vestments are relatively new in the Church of England / Anglican communion, part of their increasing popularity probably came about with a growing higher view of priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Charismatic-lite worship-band-led services existed in the CofE at least as long ago as the mid 70s. I know, because I went to some. I even strummed my guitar in some. They were probably very rare, and almost certainly almost never the main Sunday worship of a parish (though I'd not be surprised if there were a handful somewhere). So that sort of thing was not a borrowing from Vineyard or NFI or anywhere else, because they were also developing it at the same time, it was part of a general move towards that way of doing worship across many evangelical churches. It never went as far in the CofE as other denominations, it remained and remains a minority pattern of worship in the CofE, but it probably became the majority style among the Baptists and I'd guess 100% in some other denominations. But it's something that was developing on both sides of the Atlantic and in many denominations at the same time. Not invented in one place and borrowed elsewhere. But its as authentically Anglican as any other kind of liturgy is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... However, our vicar insists on having plain white candles for the Advent candles because the coloured versions 'aren't in the Bible' - and Advent candles per se ARE?!

---

That gets a

 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ken will have to excuse me, because I'm becoming a born-again liturgist.

After three decades of charismatic and charismatic-lite worship - and about 15 to 17 years of an increasingly liturgical/sacramental approach to worship that's been running alongside that - I'm losing all patience with the former in favour of the latter.

Not that I'd seek to deny anyone else their worship songs and choruses, their small groups and pietistic practices - but I'm increasingly only comfortable with a worship pattern that focuses around the eucharist and liturgical calendar with a daily offices and so on leading up and away from that central action ...

Vestments aren't essential, of course, but they make sense in that kind of context. As do liturgical colours and all the rest of it.

Here I stand, I can do no other ...


 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
That's all wonderful - my real moan is with those who are saying that evangelicals are No True Anglicans and want to kick them out and send them to some other denomination.
 

---

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :
 
The question of identifying the person responsibe is made easier by vestment wearing. The priest or lay person sitting in the pews at a communion service are not responsible for the service in the way the person officiating and clearly identified is, will there be enough wine? are people able to partake if they want to? are the children part of the service? etc?? I know analogies can be difficult but when I get in a bus I assume the girl in the uniform knows where to go, how to drive etc, and that others have checked her out.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And remember that is the second wave of the Charismatic Movement in non-Pentecostal churches. There was a previous wave in the 1950s and 1960s with historical roots within Anglicanism going back to the 20s and 30s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's all wonderful - my real moan is with those who are saying that evangelicals are No True Anglicans and want to kick them out and send them to some other denomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roselyn:
The question of identifying the person responsibe is made easier by vestment wearing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roselyn:
This "Hello I'm ABC is stated at the beginning of a service by a service leader who may or may not be the celebrant of the Eucharist. it's a sacramental responsibility not just a meeting running one,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Common sense and respect for different traditions should prevail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- It looks old-fashioned and may put people off so let's wear 'normal clothes' which may put some people off and not others (in which case you;re back to square one).

- It drives a wedge between the leaders and the laity and promotes clericalism (but then, it's not as if these aspects are unknown in circles which don't go in for vestments ... I've come across far more 'authoritarian' forms of doing church in some non-vested circles).

---

quote:

---

I wonder if there's any research looking at what people who aren't involved in a church think of vestments. I ask because I clearly am guilty of making assertions here; that vestments are obviously a turn-off for un-churched people. It seems obvious to me that they must be, but I could be wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, vestments send the message that there are two different groups of people in a church service - those providing and those receiving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:


For me, vestments send the message that there are two different groups of people in a church service - those providing and those receiving. Which, of course, totally jars with my concept of what church gatherings should be like. But for those people whose idea of a church service is that one goes primarily to receive from God via other people, and not to help those others receive from God, then I understand how vestments sit well with that.

---

No, no, no, no ...

Ken accused me of not properly reading what you'd been writing on this thread when I teased you earlier with the parody based on the use of guitars.

Have you not read what Trisagion and others have been trying to say?

Trisgion doesn't believe that people primarily go to church to receive from God through other people but that it is Christ who is offering himself to us through the Eucharist. There's a subtle different. Sure 'other people' are involved - they're the medium, if you like, through which Christ is ministering Himself to us and through us.

The same principle applies in a house-group or any other context ... if someone shares a 'word' or a testimony or helpful remarks based on their study of the Bible then I presume you would say that Christ is ministering to you through those people? Yes?

Fine. So how is this any different? If Christ can minister to you in some way through someone's testimony then why is it such a leap to believe that he might also do that through someone administering the sacrament .... ?



It's as if you're saying that it's ok if it's informal and laid-back but somehow it immediately becomes compromised if it isn't.

How does that follow?

As for 'helping others to receive from God' - isn't that what however is administering the sacrament is doing? Or the person helping with the car park or brewing the tea, cleaning the toilets, handing out hymn books or operating the PowerPoint projector (if that's what happens) or whatever else is done?

I went to a communion service this morning. People were, presumably, receiving from God through the sacrament. How could I 'help them to receive from God' in that context when it was already being done ... if I can put it that way?

You're making it sound as if the only valid form of church gathering or meeting is one where there's some kind of informal sharing of ideas and encouragement. I'm all for that, but that's only viable, it seems to me, in a small group context.

Are all our gatherings meant to be of groups of up to a dozen people at most?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Angloid said it more effectively and concisely than I did.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's all wonderful - my real moan is with those who are saying that evangelicals are No True Anglicans and want to kick them out and send them to some other denomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
SCK posts:

quote:

---

I wonder if there's any research looking at what people who aren't involved in a church think of vestments. I ask because I clearly am guilty of making assertions here; that vestments are obviously a turn-off for un-churched people. It seems obvious to me that they must be, but I could be wrong

---

I provided some anecdotological research above-- I have encountered nothing which suggests that it makes any difference to unchurched people (but it does seem to for some of the churched). The idea that there is anything at all happening at worship which speaks to them in any way is perhaps the greatest stumbling block.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
But when an unrobed preacher is proclaiming the Word of God, or a reader is reading it, or a solo musician is performing, at that time they are providing and others are receiving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Our vicar once cited the instance of a teenage lad who comes to our church who told him that he wouldn't come if 'there was a man in a frock' there. Conversely, I've spoken to people here who hardly ever darken the door of a church who think it's reprehensible that this vicar doesn't go in for clerical dress. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Anecdotes are helpful, but I'm wondering how one could do a proper sociological investigation into the difference vestments make regarding the 'weirdness' of how a church experience comes across to a complete newcomer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
But when an unrobed preacher is proclaiming the Word of God, or a reader is reading it, or a solo musician is performing, at that time they are providing and others are receiving.

---

That's true, but is it as simple as that? I mean, at a typical formal service does everyone with a serving role wear vestments? Readers, all the musicians, ushers, people serving any refreshments there might be? My guess would be 'No', which means vestments aren't simply about who is providing. Anyway, why is it even important or useful to distinguish between those providing at a given service and those who aren't? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Not that I'd seek to deny anyone else their worship songs and choruses, their small groups and pietistic practices - but I'm increasingly only comfortable with a worship pattern that focuses around the eucharist and liturgical calendar with a daily offices and so on leading up and away from that central action ...
[/QB]

---

Well, but just because you started to like this type of service at this point in your life, doesn´t mean you´d probably liked it when you were younger.

IMO, evangelical "hands in the air" worship is more atractive to younger people and people who are new to the church. However, it gets boring after sometime, so its quite natural that many evangelicals "move up the candle" after some years.

The thing is, there are thousands of people who have become christian via evangelical/charismatic churchers, who probably wouldn´t if they had been presented only to traditional churches. Maybe they are not "the best" christians out there, but it still means more people in the church (which is desparately needed if the church doesn´t want to die).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Oh yes, don't get me wrong, I agree with that Gorpo.

I've said all along that I didn't 'get' liturgical or sacramental style services when I was younger - which is why I was drawn into more charismatic style 'hands-in-the-air' services.

If you'd have met me 30 to 25 years ago, that's what you'd have found. An evangelical charismatic who was suspicious of vestments and so on and who would have probably sounded rather like South Coast Kevin does now.

I'm sure I sounded a lot more like that when I first started posting aboard Ship. Some Shippies might remember that. Others will have successfully erased it from their memory banks ...

I certainly remember finding Carys's posts puzzlingly liturgical and sacramental in tone - whereas now I don't consider them at all exotic.

Not because I'm worshipping anywhere that goes in for as much ceremonial as she describes, but simply because I'm more comfortable with the ceremonial and the symbolism than I would have been back in the day.

I don't know how old South Coast Kevin is, but in my mind's eye I have someone aged between 25 and 35 ... single and without a family. When I was in that bracket I thought along very similar lines.

Which is why I keep saying that context is everything and that the reason South Coast Kevin thinks it's so 'obvious' that the non-churched are going to find vestments off-putting is purely and simply because he's judging it from his own criteria - ie. his own faith tradition and emphasis, his particular demographic and so on.

Working class Afro-Caribbeans don't find vestments off-putting. Neither, by and large, would they respond to the kind of 'organic' church style that Viola and others have proposed.

White working class people, I submit, would have mixed views on vestments. Don't forget that in Anglo-Catholic parishes in the East End of London, vestments, colour and spectacle were justified on missiological grounds because their proponents believed they would attract people whose life were lacking in colour, glamour and brightness ...

I've known a few rather left-wing and almost Communist type blokes who grew up in the East End between the Wars. They had a surprisingly positive view of the influence of the church in those areas - both for the Salvation Army and for the slum-priest Anglo-Catholic parishes. Sure, their influence has been romanticised to some extent but what these guys remembered wasn't the robes and the vestments but that they were genuinely trying to help people, teaching people to read, encouraging kids to do well at school, visiting widows and orphans in their distress ...

Rather than worrying what 'messages' we may or may not be conveying through our public worship, perhaps we ought to be concentrating on what we do for our fellow human beings the rest of the time ...

I don't see how vestments of the lack of them influences that one way or another.
 

---

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
It all seems to depend on what we think 'worship' is and what (or who) we think it is for.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmmm ... hence the other threads in Purgatory and Kerygmania about worship and its purpose ...

I suppose my take is that worship is 'for us' insofar as it trains us to have a godward aspect to our lives that should influence how we behave and relate to one another 24/7.

But it should also be Godward and not overly anthropocentric. I think one of the issues I have with an over-emphasis on the mutual encouragement and support aspects (not that they are unimportant) is that they can easily become very anthropocentric and 'needs' orientated.

I've noticed in churches which have regular 'altar calls' and so on for people to go to the 'front' and be prayed for/ministered to etc etc that it ends up with the same people responding over and over again and a kind of dependency culture developing.

That can happen with or without vestments.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Working class Afro-Caribbeans don't find vestments off-putting. Neither, by and large, would they respond to the kind of 'organic' church style that Viola and others have proposed.

---

Some of the Afro-Caribbean churches have vestments and some don't, so it's perhaps not possible to generalise. It might be more common in the African churches.* However, among the mainstream churches the Baptist Church has the highest percentage of black attenders, and that's hardly the most vestment-friendly denomination.

Regarding 'organic church', most of the ones in the UK seem to be founded in in well-heeled, homogenous areas, so it's obvious that they won't be very multicultural. Yet many Afro-Caribbean Pentecostals of the Windrush generation will have experienced house church worship, because that was how most of the black-led Pentecostal churches started life in the UK. (I think this is also true for the African churches started later.) There is also some nostalgia about this era among people of a certain age. So although the theology of organic church won't be familiar, some its practices may well be.

Organic churches apparently exist all over the world but in their western incarnations they do seem quite culture and class bound. I've come across a couple of American websites that highlight the challenges of race and culture in their organic church and small group set-ups. It's a topic that surely deserves more attention.

*For those who are interested, there are some interesting and colourful photographs of black (and some white) ministers in vestments in Roy Kerridge's book 'The Storm is Passing Over: A Look at Black Churches in Britain'.
 

---

Posted by Wesley S Chappell (# 4186) on :
 
Absolutely spot on that some people who think vestments are off-putting for newcomers don't seem to realise that gabbling in tongues, off beat banging of tambourines and waving arms in the air might be even more off putting.

There was a palpable sigh of relief at one christening I attended when the congregation was finally able to sing a hymn they knew ('All Things Bright and Beautiful') instead of the succession of guitar dirges that preceded it. The vicar was wearing a cassock and surplice but the service had the full charismatic trimmings.

Overall I don't think dress matters as much as liturgy. My own limited observation suggests that many people expect a vicar to 'look like a vicar'; - usually in cassock and surplice - something that the slum parsons of old understood well. I don't think this style of dress is perceived as odd or offputting; it's just 'what those religous blokes wear' and marks out the wearer as having at least some sort of official capacity.

A question for traditionalists - until 1838 (I think) it was compulsory for a parson to preach in a wig, like a barrister. Did anyone bemoan the abolition of clerical wigs and when did they finally disappear? Nobody would seriously propose bringing them back, yet at the time I believe it was a burning issue much as clerical dress is today.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Gamaliel, remember that myself and S Bacchus are in our early twenties - but then I think some of us are 'born old', I think I was
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley S Chappell:
Absolutely spot on that some people who think vestments are off-putting for newcomers don't seem to realise that gabbling in tongues, off beat banging of tambourines and waving arms in the air might be even more off putting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then there's a provider/receiver relationship or transaction going on in any church gathering - however people are dressed.

If someone in your church 'provided' a testimony or a 'word from God' - however that is understood - then they are in provision mode and everyone else who isn't currently 'providing' is in receiver mode.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:


ISTM this is different to the typical vestmented service (and of course many services where vestments aren't worn), with the people wearing the vestments being in the role of provider (or channel of God's provision) and those not wearing vestments being in the role of receiver.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then there's a provider/receiver relationship or transaction going on in any church gathering - however people are dressed.

If someone in your church 'provided' a testimony or a 'word from God' - however that is understood - then they are in provision mode and everyone else who isn't currently 'providing' is in receiver mode.

---

I'm glad I'm making myself a bit clearer now but it seems I'm still not managing all that well! If someone provides a 'word from God' then, yes, they are providing (God is providing through them...) and others are receiving. But my point is that two minutes later, someone else will be providing (God will be providing through someone else...) and they will be receiving. All can - should - provide, all can receive.

ISTM this is different to the typical vestmented service (and of course many services where vestments aren't worn), with the people wearing the vestments being in the role of provider (or channel of God's provision) and those not wearing vestments being in the role of receiver.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Seekingsister, in my experience casual dress is more common right across the board these days, apart from people who might be robed up for whatever reason ... because they're serving in some way or in the choir etc ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@Jade Constable - yes, as a crusty and grumpy old git, I am aware of your tender years. If I'm not mistaken, Carys is pretty youthful too and she's always liked liturgy and vestments and so on..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes - I remember that, Carys. Was it really that long ago?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Incidentally, your comments back then helped me shift from the kind of Pharisaical position I was emerging from ...

---

quote:

---

What the general catholic (small c) tradition emphasises is that the eucharistic gathering is a representative gathering of the whole church, not just the local congregation. Hence there is a president (not a provider) who by his/her ordination represents the wider church. Special vestments are a traditional way of indicating this but no-one would claim that they are essential.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
South Coast Kevin,

One good advice,please start reading
LITURGICAL VESTITURE,ITS ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT
by Fr.C.E.Pocknee.Buy it or borrow it from a library.
This very interesting publication will provide you with the information,you need.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Otherwise, get in touch with the clergy of St.Paul's cathedral or Westminster Abbey.
I am sure that they are willing to answer your questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
The president's vestments emphasise his/her role as representative of the wider church. This is where the anonymising effect of vestments comes in: the sacrament is being validly administered not because of any personal virtue or talent or holiness that Fr Tim or Rev Julie may have- there have been a lot of unvirtuous people in Holy Orders, and a fair few downright wicked ones- buit because they are commissioned, and goiven authority, by the Church to do so. The individual priest is merely a channel of God's grace.

---

Okay, thanks. I do see the point (and it makes sense to me, on its own terms) but it doesn't convert me to the idea of vestments because that's not how I think of church unity. I suppose I don't see the need for there to be a specific 'representative of the wider church'. But I can see the theological consistency; this view of church structure / institution leads to the practice of wearing vestments.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't think anyone is trying to convert you to the idea of using vestments, Kevin, but to help you understand why they are used in particular traditions. The above exchange sheds light on that.

I s'pose I've been on both sides of this argument and can see both sides ... but that's Gamaliel for you - cursed with the ability to see both sides of every question ...

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, simply how I'm wired and it does mean I get a sore bum from fence-sitting at times.
 

---

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
I think here that the difficulty is 'authority' in the Church.Most Christians accept that they are not just part of their own small group,be it a house group,parish,diocese or even a'church' like the 'Church of England'Most Christians,particularly those who identify with the historic mainstream'churches,accept that like mankind in general the 'Church' has a history in the world.These mainstream churches have inherited a tradition of some Christians being set apart,commissioned,ordained for specific service within the community.Christ,himself,had his special followers and particularly from Peter the idea of authority in some way to define what is orthodox stems -otherwise the wider church has no meaning.
If we accept that there are people 'set apart',commissioned or 'ordained' to a specific role then the idea of some sort of special garment to show that role becomes less strange.
If by 'vestments' are meant particularly the special garments worn at the eucharist by those
who are commissioned to preside then they are a link with the history of the Church in the world.
In the course of centuries the chasuble has a number of different forms e.g Gothic,Roman and the different form used by Orthodox priests,but still undoubtedly the same garment.
Until recently even those mainstream Christian who eschewed 'vestments' would have had something which showed that they were set apart.
In a time when most of the population had a connection with the 'Church' this was helpful to establish who was who within the community.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure ... on the aesthetic thing, though, that does come into it, surely? Otherwise the person representing the 'authority' of the wider church would do so wearing a plain white sheet or a piece of hessian cloth or something ...

I'm not suggesting that aesthetics is the only or even the primary aspect - far from it - but it is a factor. In extremis, of course, priests in countries where persecution has been rife have dressed in mufti or used string instead of stoles or dispensed with any form of vestment ...

It strikes me that both/and is the appropriate response to any of this. To suggest otherwise - that there's only one dimension involved and that it is this, that or the other one - seems terribly reductionist to me.
 

---

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
This assertion of vestments' utility in re priestly authority is strange: surely, as Gamaliel says, that justifies the principle but not the form.

Vestments are as they are because to adorn the service of the altar is right and proper, an outward and earthly beauty to point to the great and strange beauty that is the Mass, an earthly mirroring of the Heavenly liturgy; a fitting material sacrifice which reminds us that this world will pass away and that treasures stored up (or even used to the most beneficent ends charity can devise) are worthless compared to this great act of our salvation; because the priest is in persona Christi at the altar and it is right that the sacrificial Lamb (and His attendants) be beautifully adorned, that Christ be clothed in fine array as a sign of His heavenly authority.

Compared to this, pointing out who the priest is is a tiny consideration, surely? It's never impressed itself on me in the years I've been an Anglo-Catholic, however true it is.

It also bears being reminded that the alb is technically the proper 'vestment' of the laos: so if one were so minded, the entire congregation could be 'robed' quite properly.

Naturally in all this it is not a case of being 'converted to vestments'. One would have to have the right ('right'TM) conception of the Church first, and then enact that as fittingly as possible.
 

---

Posted by Meerkat (# 16117) on :
 
I have read this thread from the beginning and my brain hurts now. It seems to be a 'getting nowhere' discussion between South Coast Kevin and Gamaliel, with the odd comment from others thrown in along the way. I will now add mine!

I have to say that from my perspective, I find vestments (either 'simple' such as cassock or alb, or more 'formal' such as Chasuble) almost essential and in some ways comforting.

I am from a 'halfway up the candle' C of E Church. I am Churchwarden; Server and Chalice Administrator. I wear my cassock and cotta for the second and third duties (but not generally for the first) as do the others performing the similar duties at Church.

Our Lay Reader wears his cassock, surplice and scarf whenever he is 'officiating'. Our Rector wears his cassock-alb (with stole) at less formal services, including the Eucharist when not on 'feast days'. On those days, he wears his formal cassock, surplice and stole... and sometimes his 'hoodie' (as we like to call it) from days at college / ordination. Nary a Chasuble in sight, unless the Bishop is visiting... when even the Churchwarden (me) has been known to wear his cassock! I then get roped in as Crucifer as well.

We feel that the vestment, however simple, serves several purposes:
It focuses our minds on the task which we are performing.
It clearly identifies the persons 'leading' the service (our Welcomers could, for example, say "Ask the Server about gluten-free wafers... he's the one in the red cassock").
It shows respect in God's house for the solemnity of the Eucharist. I believe - and someone can probably prove me wrong - that the Server should only don their cassock / cotta during the service. I believe that this is to preserve the purity of the Sanctuary during the service: preparation and 'clearing away' are performed in cassock alone (well, no cotta or surplice!)

I have never heard any member of the congregation, regular or just visiting, make any negative comments regarding vestments. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. I have often had compliments about the dignified appearance of the persons who are robed.

When 'out and about', the Rector usually wears an appropriate suit and dog-collar

I would agree that the 'validity' of the service would be just the same without robes, but the dignity would not be the same, IMHO.

Just my threepence worth.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not sure the thread is going nowhere, Meerkat. There have been points of agreement and South Coast Kevin had conceded that he can see how vestments fit with particular theological viewpoints and practices - even if he doesn't agree with those practices himself.

I'm not sure I've budged much though ...


 

---

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
I take vestments to mean those garments which are worn by the sacred ministers during the liturgy and not robes which might be worn by choristers or vergers. In the Christian churches which use them they link the religious rite with the early days of the Church.In the West the chasuble (casula = little house) and in the East phelonion
both go back to the outer garment worn over the white tunic (alb).With the development and spread of Christianity the chasuble would change slightly in shape to facilitate the actions of the priest,leading to the form of the fiddleback or Roman chasuble.In the Byzantine rites,again to facilitate manual actions the garment was cut away at the front..
The cope was a rain mantle and is still called in Italian 'piviale' and in German 'Pluviale'.
In the West particularly the chasuble was also a teaching garment.The sequence of colours told about the season of the year and especially on the so called Roman chasuble there would be scenes from the life of Christ embroidered.
St John Vianney,the 'cure d'Ars' said that a priest could wear a shabby cassock,but only the very best available should be used for service of God in the liturgy .
In the world where we live fashions change and nowadays perhaps the very best would not be considered as cloth of gold but rather something simpler.Certainly in the Catholic church vestments have in the last 50 years become much simpler and we have seen that lately in the vestments preferred by pope Francis.
For Catholics anyway they fulfil a vital function in the liturgy but their absence in no way invalidates the rite.
 

---

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :
 
As the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican church is scared of the chasuble many priests celebrate the Eucharist in a Cope, necessitating helpers at either side!! PS I do not like choirs in robes and was startled to discover that a distant ancestor had reintroduced robed choirs into C of E many decades after the Reformation!! IRONIC??
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
The "helpers either side" are the deacon and sub-deacon, who don't help with the cope. At our church, if ordained, they wear the vestments suitable to their ordination. If not, a plain white cassock-alb, with dalmatic or tunicle on great feasts. Servers, being the crucifer and torchbearers (thurifer and boat carrier on feasts), wear plain albs. Assistants wear cassock and surplice; assistants help with the distribution and are approved for this purpose by the Abp as required by the ordinance.
 

---

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :
 
helpers have been seen holding the cope out of the way so the celebrant can move his arms freely
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I have ever only seen an assistant help remove the cope before the sermon and a server help restore it after. Perhaps you saw an elderly priest with an exceptionally heavy cope?
 

---

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :
 
Sorry no, it was a regular event, i e every Sunday, The copes in question seemed to be well lined and not as light as others I have seen elsewhere.

i am not justifying the practice merely commenting how the Diocesan fear of the chasuble led to a Eucharistic celebration looking more elaborate than it might otherwise have been,
 

---

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
Copes are always held out of the way when the priest wearing it is doing something which requires his arms to be free: censing the altar, aspersing the church, &c &c, either by deacon and subdeacon, or deacon and MC, or plain servers. It's a practicality thing.
 

---

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roselyn:
[...] I am not justifying the practice merely commenting how the Diocesan fear of the chasuble led to a Eucharistic celebration looking more elaborate than it might otherwise have been,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I have never seen the practice at any of several churches here, beyond the level I've described.

---

A pity: it's both very beautiful and makes the celebrant's life easier. And it's the sort of thing which would piss off the Moore college lot, which has to be a bonus...
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I'm not talking about wearing copes, but of assistance beyond the level I've described.
 

---

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm not talking about wearing copes, but of assistance beyond the level I've described.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roselyn:
[...] I am not justifying the practice merely commenting how the Diocesan fear of the chasuble led to a Eucharistic celebration looking more elaborate than it might otherwise have been,

---

Well, the chasuble is also traditionally held out of the way by deacon and subdeacon when the priest censes the altar, and lifted by deacon (and MC) at the elevation, so there's no reason chasubles need occasion greater simplicity per se.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roselyn:
[...] I am not justifying the practice merely commenting how the Diocesan fear of the chasuble led to a Eucharistic celebration looking more elaborate than it might otherwise have been,

---

Well, the chasuble is also traditionally held out of the way by deacon and subdeacon when the priest censes the altar, and lifted by deacon (and MC) at the elevation, so there's no reason chasubles need occasion greater simplicity per se.

---

Strange that some of the places which make the most fuss about this are also those that use fiddlebacks, which make such palava unnecessary. It's perfectly possible to perform these actions with dignity while wearing a full chasuble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The "helpers either side" are the deacon and sub-deacon, who don't help with the cope. At our church, if ordained, they wear the vestments suitable to their ordination. If not, a plain white cassock-alb, with dalmatic or tunicle on great feasts. Servers, being the crucifer and torchbearers (thurifer and boat carrier on feasts), wear plain albs. Assistants wear cassock and surplice; assistants help with the distribution and are approved for this purpose by the Abp as required by the ordinance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The "helpers either side" are the deacon and sub-deacon, who don't help with the cope. At our church, if ordained, they wear the vestments suitable to their ordination. If not, a plain white cassock-alb, with dalmatic or tunicle on great feasts. Servers, being the crucifer and torchbearers (thurifer and boat carrier on feasts), wear plain albs. Assistants wear cassock and surplice; assistants help with the distribution and are approved for this purpose by the Abp as required by the ordinance.

---

Wait, the Anglican Archdiocese of Sidney allows dalmatics and tunicles but not chasubles?

Has any priestin Sidney tried trotting out vested like an Orthodox priest? He could say that he is in an Alb and Stole (or a fancy tippet), and he could call the Phelonion a fancy Cope. He could also distinguish the Phelonion from the chasuble by saying that Orthodox priests wear it at non-Eucharistic celebrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestment#Eastern_Church_vestments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phelonion

I would love to see the hair-splitting over this!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The "helpers either side" are the deacon and sub-deacon, who don't help with the cope. At our church, if ordained, they wear the vestments suitable to their ordination. If not, a plain white cassock-alb, with dalmatic or tunicle on great feasts. Servers, being the crucifer and torchbearers (thurifer and boat carrier on feasts), wear plain albs. Assistants wear cassock and surplice; assistants help with the distribution and are approved for this purpose by the Abp as required by the ordinance.

---

Wait, the Anglican Archdiocese of Sidney allows dalmatics and tunicles but not chasubles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I would think that a double cope would be excessively hot even by mid-Spring. Apart from that, both it and the Orthodox vestments would be against the spirit of the canon, if not the letter. Our new Abp is a tolerant man, and provoking a row would not be a good idea.

From my perspective, it would also be playing games and the Eucharist is not really a time for that.

---

Though in fact, as copes are permitted, they have been used in a sort of Chasublesque kind of way for decades at St James King St and Christ Church St Laurence, and possibly at the one or two other non conforming parishes. As one erstwhile and "high" Sydney priest once said to me "one can do funny things with a cope - without meaning really to play games.
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Angloid and Carys - thanks for pointing out that in many liturgical / formal services, there'll be plenty of people who are 'providing' (to use my shorthand, which I know is somewhat misleading) without wearing special clothes.

But still, why are those who are wearing vestments being distinguished in this way? If the issue is aesthetic, then let everyone wear vestments. Or create beauty in other ways which don't mark out some people as different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
Though in fact, as copes are permitted, they have been used in a sort of Chasublesque kind of way for decades at St James King St and Christ Church St Laurence, and possibly at the one or two other non conforming parishes. As one erstwhile and "high" Sydney priest once said to me "one can do funny things with a cope - without meaning really to play games.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

++ Glenn has been heard to say that he thinks that as a matter of canon law he may be required to wear a cope. He refuses to wear a mitre though, useful though one may be to store the sandwiches or a small flask of something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I recently viewed the the episcopal consecration of the new suffragan bishop of Toronto, Anglican Church of Canada.
It struck me that the celebrant/consecrator, the bishop of Toronto, was vested in red chasuble, the bishop-elect Fr.Peter Fenty,started in alb with red stole and after the laying of hand,received the chasuble.
Assisting bishops were in chimere,rochet and red stole.All other clergy wore alb/surplice with stole.Interesting to observe that the Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopalians are very close in their liturgical customs.
All in all a beautiful service,The Church of England could learn something from this service :consecration of one bishop,properly vested in alb,stole and chasuble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paschal:
Hi, this is my first post on the ‘Ship’.
I have recently been examining the 'Divine Rationale' of William Durandus. He goes into detail explaining how the architecture, vestments, Eucharistic liturgy etc. are all designed to help lift us above the mundane and into the spiritual.
Some of what he says of the chasuble is that it ‘signifies charity, without this, the Priest may never discharge his office, for it is proper for him or her always to abide in the bond of charity. It is the Wedding-Garment spoken of by the Lord in the Gospel (Matt. 22:12). The Amice goes round the mouth of the Chasuble, which means that good works ought always to have charity for their source and end (1 Tim. 1:5). When the Priest extends his hands, it signifies the two arms of charity, with which he or she reaches up towards God, and to his or her neighbour (Matt. 13:37-40). The wideness of the Chasuble is a figure of the breadth of Charity, which reaches even as far as our enemies (Ps. 109:96). The Priest may not put off the Chasuble while performing the office (Ps. 132:9). The Chasuble is of one piece, and whole, and is hemmed on every side, which signifies the unity and wholeness of the Faith.’
The 'Divine Rationale' consists of eight books and two of these, one on church symbolism and the other on vestments, were first translated into English in the late 19th century, and they probably played a part in the renewal of interest in wearing vestments in the Anglican Church, particularly as this came in the wake of the Oxford Movement. The Divine Rationale is still held as an authority in the Roman Catholic Church.
The criticism has been made that Durandus was just trying to find or invent spiritual meanings for things encountered in the worship life of the Church. Yet much of what he writes is based on Biblical sources or on the writings of the Church Fathers. In any case, the object of worship is to try, as much as possible, to put aside mundane concerns and to turn hearts and minds towards God. What he says is therefore valid, at least to the extent that individuals find it helpful in worship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
My apologies, particularly, Paschal as you are just starting your merry voyage, and welcome by the way. Horses for courses, what lights your fire and all that, but I regret I find that elaborate explanations attributing ex post facto symbolism to things puts me in mind of the Cricket Bag.

---

quote:

---

The composing of such occasionally moving and thoughtful commentaries was quite common in the period. There's no doubt that they are in that sense 'retroactive': i.e. they have nothing to do with the aetiology of the vestments themselves, but, much like the Classical habit of ascribing false etymologies to words to draw out meaning, they do inspire contemplation and make clear aspects which might otherwise have been obscured.

Much of this can be seen in the traditional vesting prayers, and Vatican teaching ( here ), and it is good to know that such things are still thought about.

---

quote:

---

My apologies, particularly, Paschal as you are just starting your merry voyage, and welcome by the way. Horses for courses, what lights your fire and all that, but I regret I find that elaborate explanations attributing ex post facto symbolism to things puts me in mind of the Cricket Bag.

Incidentally, is Durandus saying a priest cannot discharge his (or these days of course, also, her) office without a chasuble, charity or both?

---

quote:

---

Also, does God want us to 'put aside mundane concerns and to turn our hearts and minds towards him'? I rather think he wants us to find him and seek his perspective in the midst of our 'mundane concerns'. In fact, this is part of why I'm so negative towards the whole concept of special clothing for church - I think it sends the message that God is somehow more present in and / or more concerned about what happens in the hour or two of our church service each week than he is about everything else in our lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paschal:
So we lift up our hearts during the two hours of worship, and receive communion, and in so doing become more aware of Christ’s ‘real presence’, become inwardly more aware of his love and peace, so strengthened and fortified in this way, we can take all of this back out into the world and into our daily lives. ‘Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.’ – Go in His peace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paschal:
So we lift up our hearts during the two hours of worship, and receive communion, and in so doing become more aware of Christ’s ‘real presence’, become inwardly more aware of his love and peace, so strengthened and fortified in this way, we can take all of this back out into the world and into our daily lives. ‘Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.’ – Go in His peace.

SCK's response:

---

Yes, that's all good; I'm just sceptical about the whole 'fuelling station' concept of the church service being the place / time / event where we spiritually recharge in order to get through the rest of the week.

Of course there should be an element of recharging and refreshing when we meet together as God's people, but IMO it's better if we can reach a pattern of life such that we are sustained and refreshed by God through the week. The idea being that God is with us and available to us through the whole of life, not just at church services; and marking the church service out as special (e.g. with the vestments thing) can subconsciously send the contrary message.

---

Read.my.lips. South Coast Kevin.

Pashal is NOT saying that those two hours on a Sunday morning are the be-all-and-end-all and the only way in which we can encounter God.

Are you suggesting that Paschal, and others like him, go to church on a Sunday, receive communion and then forget all about God until the following Sunday?

They may or they may not do so - just as someone who attends a Quaker meeting or a Vineyard fellowship or anything else may or may not do so.

At the very least, the weekly eucharistic gathering represents a fixed point - a time set aside for the worship of Almighty God and receiving his grace through the word, the fellowship, prayer and the consecrated elements. These things are 'means of grace' - they minister grace to us.

They aren't the only means available but they are there and it's good to avail oneself of them.

As for the rest of the week - well, however we go about it and whatever our spirituality or churchmanship then there are various means at our disposal there too ... be it daily Bible reading notes, be it some kind of small-group or midweek fellowship, be it a daily office -or, if we live in a convent or monastery, a regular daily round of services ...

You pays your money, you makes your choice ...

It's both/and, not either/or.

I'm sure there are nominal people around who treat a weekly church service as some kind of 'filling-station' - I've heard RCs say as much about some of their own number ...

But that's not what anyone is saying here. Nor is it, I suggest, what vestments - or the lack of vestments - are 'saying' either.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paschal:
So we lift up our hearts during the two hours of worship, and receive communion, and in so doing become more aware of Christ’s ‘real presence’, become inwardly more aware of his love and peace, so strengthened and fortified in this way, we can take all of this back out into the world and into our daily lives. ‘Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.’ – Go in His peace.

---

Yes, that's all good; I'm just sceptical about the whole 'fuelling station' concept of the church service being the place / time / event where we spiritually recharge in order to get through the rest of the week.

Of course there should be an element of recharging and refreshing when we meet together as God's people, but IMO it's better if we can reach a pattern of life such that we are sustained and refreshed by God through the week. The idea being that God is with us and available to us through the whole of life, not just at church services; and marking the church service out as special (e.g. with the vestments thing) can subconsciously send the contrary message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
FFS, Kevin, and I'm sorry to be blunt - but that's exactly how some of us who don't object to vestments and a more sacramental approach to worship view things ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We keep coming back to this thing where you appear to 'project' your own distaste for vestments and so on onto everyone else. Because you think they undermine a more holistic approach, you suggest that this is what it does for everyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure there are nominal people around who treat a weekly church service as some kind of 'filling-station' - I've heard RCs say as much about some of their own number ...

But that's not what anyone is saying here. Nor is it, I suggest, what vestments - or the lack of vestments - are 'saying' either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would think of it as going to the doctors with the sacraments being the medicine. Christ, of course, is the physician. I would not argue with you when you say God is present in our everyday lives but I think in the liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, God is present in a special way. The Church building, the icons, the rituals and the vestments etc. make this more clear. Worship involves all the senses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Beamish:
Indeed, given that many vestments were, historically, ordinary clothes that have taken on liturgical meanings, just as one girl's joyful song, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord', has become a daily liturgical recitation, surely it is clear that both are required, both can be dedicated to God, who desires the best we can offer in our worship?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Why would God care about stoles, chasubles, birettas and suchlike?

---

quote:

---

Mmm, I'm pretty negative about the compulsory use of liturgy as well!

---

quote:

---

I think for your analogy to work, you'd have to be proposing that we use Mary's words in language she spoke them in.

---

quote:

---

We might use Mary's words but mostly that would be in our native language,

---

quote:

---

so if our vestments are (stylised versions of) regular clothes from 1,500+ years ago then why don't we just wear contemporary regular clothes?

---

quote:

---

Tat is fine if it emerges from within the tradition, but if it's consciously adopted in order to show how much of a liturgist/sacramentalist you are then it's just as bad as the opposite tendency of trying to look cool in a check shirt and slacks.

A plague on both these houses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Incidentally - is anyone seriously suggesting that the Magnificat is simply a record - as in a newspaper report - of a joyful song sung by a young Hebrew girl who had just found out she was expecting God Incarnate ... ?

I'm not suggesting she didn't sing it, but there's layers and layers of meaning in there and parallels with OT songs and so on ...

The same applies to liturgy, of course.

---

That's not quite what I meant to imply, if that's what you mean.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, fair enough, Mr Beamish. It sounded like it to me, but I'm happy to stand corrected.


 

---

Posted by Mr Beamish (# 17991) on :
 
I'm sorry. I wasn't really trying to correct you: it does look like that's what I meant! All of my posts since I've joined have been dangerously incoherent. I think I'll hibernate until March and try again then.
 

---

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Yes, that's all good; I'm just sceptical about the whole 'fuelling station' concept of the church service being the place / time / event where we spiritually recharge in order to get through the rest of the week.

---

I'm in two minds about this. I agree with you that being a Christian is about the whole of life. But I also know that I need to access every spiritual well/ means of grace available to me which includes the Eucharist. For me that involves all sorts of things (including vestments!) all of which aid me in being open to receive from God.

I honestly think that many members of modern charismatic churches do exactly the same the thing. I spent years mentoring/ providing spiritual direction for a considerable number of people in such a church who had very little inclination towards daily spiritual practices and who looked to the worship time (especially the music) on a Sunday as their spiritual "fuel".....of course, not everybody in that church but to be absolutely honest with you I have encountered a far higher level of everyday spiritual life in many people from a liturgical tradition.

The point is that whatever our tradition, there are always going to be various levels of engagement amongst the people in our churches. We will also find different ways and means of accessing the grace of God, vestments as part of the Eucharist are meaningful to me, something else will have equal value for you.

Let's seek to encourage one another to deepen our faith and understanding within the riches of our various traditions.

P.S. Mr Beamish Don't hibernate, you're only just getting into your stride!

[ 02. February 2014, 05:34: Message edited by: MrsBeaky ]
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
There's an organisation active round here that's actually called the Filling Station. Looking at the website, I don't think they use vestments that much. So doubtless SCK would approve.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some people find liturgy and vestments and so on helpful. Others don't. You don't. So what? It's none of your business whether other people derive benefit from worship practices of which you disapprove. Just because you disapprove them doesn't invalidate the benefits that other people derive from them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
I spent years mentoring/ providing spiritual direction for a considerable number of people in such a church who had very little inclination towards daily spiritual practices and who looked to the worship time (especially the music) on a Sunday as their spiritual "fuel".....of course, not everybody in that church but to be absolutely honest with you I have encountered a far higher level of everyday spiritual life in many people from a liturgical tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
There's an organisation active round here that's actually called the Filling Station. Looking at the website, I don't think they use vestments that much. So doubtless SCK would approve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It's maybe something that I take too far, but my approach is to consider why we carry out our religious practices the way we do. Why use liturgy? Why wear vestments? Why - switching to practices that form part of my Christian tradition - speak in tongues or have an extended time of singing fairly simplistic songs? What theological positions are implied by our practices?

---

The answer, I believe, can be summed up in the adage lex orandi lex credendi.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
People - maybe you - have used that phrase before in discussions with me. I still don't really understand what it means or what point you're making, though. Sorry... Feel free to explain.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
It means "the law of prayer is the law of belief". In otherwords, the prayer of the Church is the primary means by which we transmit the faith from one generation to the next. In it Christ himself opens up the scriptures to his people. In fact, I would regard the liturgy as being equal with scripture.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It means "the law of prayer is the law of belief". In otherwords, the prayer of the Church is the primary means by which we transmit the faith from one generation to the next. In it Christ himself opens up the scriptures to his people. In fact, I would regard the liturgy as being equal with scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It means "the law of prayer is the law of belief". ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It means "the law of prayer is the law of belief". In otherwords, the prayer of the Church is the primary means by which we transmit the faith from one generation to the next. In it Christ himself opens up the scriptures to his people. In fact, I would regard the liturgy as being equal with scripture.

---

Okay, thanks. I still don't understand what relevance this has to my 'Why' questions a couple of posts upthread. Sorry for being slow!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
The subconscious message here, I think, is that we can engage with God more effectively and more powerfully when we're singing songs together than in other contexts or activities. While I'm sure this is true for some people who are particularly stirred by music, it's not true for everyone - is it...?

---

Art resonates with the human soul and psyche, I've always felt, and it points to something more than the material world in which we inhabit, and the very existence of art and perception of beauty is, for me, an argument for the existence of God. Art communicates in ways that words or words alone cannot. I think that is why threads despairing about the shallowness of lyrics in worship exist in places like the Ship.

Taking words alone, and drawing upon a pseudo-fictitious example, I would be mortified to find myself singing something like,

'I like Jesus;
he's my mate.
He is really,
really great.'

when the nature of what the Saviour means to me is so much more than that. It's much more akin to

'Guide me, O thou great Redeemer,
pilgrim through this barren land.
I am weak but thou art mighty,
hold me with thy pow'rful hand.'

And so on. In the text alone, a text that I can get behind, I am taken through a microcosm of thought and prayer. Even if I'd never seen it before (and we've all seen hymns for the first time and thought 'Ooh, that's good' I'm sure) I would be able to get behind the concepts because of their richness, their complexity, their appropriateness and their applicability. Through the words the author has, to draw upon an idea expressed by Douglas Hector, reached through time and space to touch upon a concept nestled within the reader and bring it to flower, deepening their worship and devotional life and, hopefully, relationship with the Almighty.

Music adds another layer of meaning and expression and can bring out different themes in different ways. The various settings of 'Ave verum corpus' show, I think, something of the different theological emphases that one can apply to the Eucharist.

Even allowing for the entirely reasonable notion that most people aren't paying that much attention, music speaks to us on a powerful level. Something presented in song is more engaging: words are more moving, phrases are more memorable, and jokes are funnier, even for those for whom music is generally uninteresting... although I suspect that those people have simply not found a form that resonates with them yet.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, South Coast Kevin, if that is AO's position, how is it any more or any less untenable than your position which seems to be:

'My understanding of scripture suggests that vestments and liturgy etc isn't really how things ought to be done and my understanding of scripture trumps Tradition/tradition and anything that your church might happen to teach ...'

Now, you're not 'slow' and you're a perfectly likeable and decent chap. The problem, it seems to me, is that you're not liking the answers you're getting.

It's perfectly defensible, it seems to me, to justify liturgy and vestments etc if, as in the case of the Orthodox Church (and to an extent, other 'sacramental' churches) one believes that these things convey and transmit the Faith.

So, the prayers of the Church, in AO's view, are equal to scripture and many of them, indeed, contain scripture - the Nunc Dimittis, the Magnificat, various prayers and doxologies from both the OT and the New ...

So, if liturgy both conveys and transmits these truths it doesn't make a lot of sense - in AO's view - to interfere with it. It's already doing the job perfectly well, thank you very much ...

Indeed, if my understanding of these things is correct, liturgies began to become more formalised and 'set' from about the second century onwards both to guard against heresy - Gnostics, Montanists etc - and to preserve and convey orthodoxy - or what became Orthodoxy (and Catholicism, the two terms being synonymous prior to the Great Schism).

Now, the presence of a liturgy doesn't in and of itself guard against heresy - as we've seen in some of the mainstream Churches ... but taken alongside other aspects of the life of the Christian community it plays that kind of role.

You'd be pretty dim, for instance, if you came away from an Orthodox service in English without realising that they believe that Jesus is God.

You'd be hard-pressed, at times, to get that impression from some charismatic evangelical outfits I know ...

I agree with Mr Beamish, sloppy language produces sloppy theology.

You're right to ask questions about 'why' we do things - why liturgy, why tongues (if we go in for that sort of thing), why vestments ...

But whenever anyone here makes a case for vestments - to return to the OP and not pursue tangents - you instantly dismiss their reasons because you think they convey some kind of subliminal message that undermines the idea of engaging with our faith 24/7.

And no matter how many people who go in for vestments and so on tell you that this isn't what it conveys to them you insist that it must do because you've already made up your mind that this is one of the deleterious effects of such an approach ...

So, the same charge that you address to AO could be reversed upon your good self.

AO seems to be suggesting, 'My Church is right and that settles it ...'

You seem to be suggesting, 'My personal interpretation of the NT is right and that settles it ...'

How is your position going to take us any further than AO's?



Meanwhile, I'm with Mrs Beaky. In my experience what the Catholics would call 'spiritual formation' is in short supply across the charismatic evangelical spectrum. 'Worship' has been reduced to a period of singing simple and repetitive worship songs and getting some kind of buzz out of that ...

It's hardly surprising that such people struggle to find room for their faith 24/7 if that's all they've got to go on.

Now, I'd add that 'spiritual-formation' in the Catholic sense is pretty sporadic and ad hoc right across the board. People are poorly catechised. That applies everywhere.

The answer, I submit, isn't in ditching the whole thing and starting all over again from scratch but by seeking by word and example to show that there IS something in the tried and tested means of grace - in the liturgies and sacraments - that is both transformative, transcendent and capable of developing a 24/7 approach to one's faith.

I'm still aiming for that ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It may be a tangent, but it seems to me that the approach taken by The Filling Station to corporate sung worship - by which they mean charismatic style choruses from the usual suspects - has effectively replaced the sacraments in their spirituality/theology.

See: http://www.thefillingstation.org.uk/prayer/

I could start a thread saying why I believe this to be more damaging than the propensity towards vestments and liturgy among the historical churches.

For a kick-off, it uncouples worship and praise etc from the eucharistic life of the church and centralises corporate singing as the be-all and end-all.

It completely misses the context of Wesley's hymns and the context of early Christian worship.

It is both reductionist and in danger of focusing on performance and musical ability - within a particularly narrow range of musical styles.

See: http://www.thefillingstation.org.uk/prayer/

People have asked me what I mean when I say that in the absence of a 'developed' approach to the sacraments the contemporary charismatic evangelical scene has effectively sacralised other aspects - such as corporate singing - and made them central. In future I may simply point them to this link and let it speak for itself.

Am I the only one who feels that it offers a rather two-dimensional or one-sided approach to faith/worship/spirituality?

At least with the more liturgical churches there's an attempt to engage all the senses - sight, sound, touch, smell, taste ...

Here it simply sounds like it's all about some pillock with a guitar ...
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
SCK - do you want to effectively make church as un-special as possible, then? Because if so, to me there seems no point in even going. If all days should be as worshipful and equally holy with nothing to mark Sunday as set-apart, and no ritual of any kind, then you would be having mini praise sessions in your own home every night and just not bother with church.

As for liturgy, set liturgy is very meaningful to me in terms of the church community affirming/stating as one what they stand for, and supporting each other. As someone with chronic mental health issues who sometimes/often finds worship difficult, it is incredibly helpful to have the congregation buoying me along with saying liturgy together. It helps me praise God even if I can't feel it, because with my MH issues sometimes I cannot feel any emotion.
 

---

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK - do you want to effectively make church as un-special as possible, then? Because if so, to me there seems no point in even going. If all days should be as worshipful and equally holy with nothing to mark Sunday as set-apart, and no ritual of any kind, then you would be having mini praise sessions in your own home every night and just not bother with church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Beamish:
Art resonates with the human soul and psyche, I've always felt, and it points to something more than the material world in which we inhabit, and the very existence of art and perception of beauty is, for me, an argument for the existence of God. Art communicates in ways that words or words alone cannot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK - do you want to effectively make church as un-special as possible, then? Because if so, to me there seems no point in even going. If all days should be as worshipful and equally holy with nothing to mark Sunday as set-apart, and no ritual of any kind, then you would be having mini praise sessions in your own home every night and just not bother with church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What SCK seems to be doing is going even further and suggesting that if we so much as have any 'special' events or special occasions then that somehow, in and of itself, undermines any sense we might otherwise have of God being present in the ordinary and the every day.

Which is complete nonsense. If I went to a swanky restaurant for a special meal tomorrow night it wouldn't mean I wasn't going to enjoy my cheese on toast or my Staffordshire oatcakes later on in the week ...

---

I don't think this analogy works very well, sorry. I prefer to think of our life with God as analogous to breathing, because it's something that happens all the time while we're doing other things. In fact, your thinking that eating is a good analogy to our relationship with God implies (to me, at least) that at some level you see connecting with God as a sporadic thing. But it shouldn't be, should it? God is present with us all the time, we just need to become more aware of that presence and in tune with his ongoing, moment by moment guidance.

EDIT - Good grief, so many words. Apologies...

[ 02. February 2014, 20:40: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
 

---

Posted by Mr Beamish (# 17991) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Beamish:
Art resonates with the human soul and psyche, I've always felt, and it points to something more than the material world in which we inhabit, and the very existence of art and perception of beauty is, for me, an argument for the existence of God. Art communicates in ways that words or words alone cannot.

---

I'm glad you connect with God and feel close to him through art and music. I also do so, to an extent, in particular through music. But ISTM some people don't - music and the arts don't speak to every human soul.

Mr Beamish, you might not have seen it but I mentioned upthread (quite a way upthread!) a book my church home group had worked through recently. It outlines something like ten different ways people connect with God, one of which was through art, music and so forth. But in that particular chapter, the author focused on church services as the place of our connection with God, whereas the other chapters were about finding God in the midst of regular life, through nature, through helping others, through studying etc.

It's that focus on church services (and the efforts to make them aesthetically pleasing) that I find concerning, because I can't help but think it implies an elevation of the church service (above the rest of life) as the main place we connect with God, and thus a downplaying of the chances of finding God in all the other moments of our life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... People have asked me what I mean when I say that in the absence of a 'developed' approach to the sacraments the contemporary charismatic evangelical scene has effectively sacralised other aspects - such as corporate singing - and made them central. In future I may simply point them to this link and let it speak for itself....

---

I think you're onto something important there. Personally, I prefer the objectivity of conventional sacramental worship. It is great when God gives us a 'special sense' of himself. However, Jesus is just as much present in the bread and wine, irrespective of how we feel. The priest doesn't somehow make him more present by 'really, really praying', nor by having the backing of either a 'worship leader' (I thought that was what the priest/president is supposed to be doing) who keeps "abreast of the latest songs coming out of the worldwide charismatic church" (is that a different church from the ordinary one?), or the best trained classical choir in the country, nor for that matter, by wearing an exquisitely embroidered maniple.

ISTM that if one moves outside the notion of sacraments that are objective, then what you replace them with is likely to become dependent on whether we 'really, really feel' that we are in the presence of the Lord, and it becomes someone's job to manufacture that feeling. Whether they do it by whipping up fervour or the beauty of holiness isn't all that different.

A curious thing is, that a lot of the people involved in the Filling Station appear to be CofE clergy, who must therefore have other more conventionally sacramental roles on Sundays.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
I think the use of vestments will "thin" in the middle of the candle, with those in the middle moving either up or down.

ISTM there will always be a place in Christendom for the way-up vestments. The Orthodox are not about to preside in suit and tie any time soon.

Plain chazzies etc will eventually disappear as MOTR churches close. No liturgical supply places will carry them, and fewer people will be inclined to pay to have them made or have the skills/equipment to make them. If there are house churches, a minimal, easily transferable version of liturgical leadership vestment may emerge.

"Street clothes" churches will carry on as usual.

I base these predictions on general trends in clothing. People wear formal clothing on fewer occasions, and so do not purchase much of it, so it becomes less available, etc. But formal clothing will not die out entirely; it will head to the upper stratosphere of cost and availability.

I also note what has happened to liturgical vestments in past centuries, such as the gradual minimization from ruff to stock to clerical collar.

These are opinions based on "what is." I offer no opinion about "what ought to be". I leave that to Ad Orientam and South Coast Kevin.

 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
SCK,

I'm afraid you've done nothing more than build a strawman or create a false dichotomy, probably both. As someone said in an earlier post, people need signposts and however convincing you think you are you're not going to convince those who need such things, and I would argue we all do. He who says he doesn't is kidding himself.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
For the love of God, SCK, I don't believe that engagement with God should be 'sporadic'. Ideally, we should have some kind of awareness of the presence of God 24/7.

The reality is, we don't.

At least, I don't, I can't speak for anyone else, least of all your good self.

Sometimes I feel that there is an open heaven, at other times that the heavens are as brass.

I sin, I fall short, I make a prat of myself.

We all do.

You seem to think that if we strip everything back to the bare essentials, whatever they might be, then the ground is cleared for us to enjoy complete, unbroken 24/7 blissful fellowship with the Almighty and be aware of his Spirit moving in our lives at a very conscious and realised level ...

I really don't know what planet you are living on. Are you married with kids? That'd soon disabuse you of that notion.

I've often mentioned my Great Aunt Nell on these boards. She was confined to a couch for most of her life with extreme cerebral palsy. If anyone radiated love, grace and fortitude it was her. She was dribbling down her chin all the time, she had to be bathed, people had to wipe her backside for her ...

The vicar used to visit once a week and bring her communion. She loved those visits. She relied upon them.

I'd like to have seen you try to tell her that 'set' times and set forms weren't important ...

Not only are you setting up a straw-man and a false dichotomy you also appear to have lost touch with reality and positing some kind of super-spiritual state of Nirvana that doesn't take account of the shit and the rough and tumble of ordinary, every day life.

Good luck with that.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, Enoch, I suspect that the CofE clergy involved in The Filling Station feel 'restricted' by their more sacramental roles and are looking for an outlet to act in a way that they consider to be 'freer' and more Spirit-led.

As a young man, I would have sympathised. I would have been like SCK and considered 'scripted', liturgical worship to be 'restricting'.

Now, I find it liberating. I use the words of the Office as a channel, a vehicle, if you like, for my prayers.

Sure, these things don't offer a direct 'hit' and need to be worked at. We acclimatise ourselves to them over time.

The appeal of the 'free style' worship and the simple worship songs is very clear - it doesn't take as long to get into that sort of thing.

But however we worship, whatever style we use it all involves a period of socialisation and accustomisation - as it were.

I didn't take to contemporary chorus-singing and so on when I first encountered it back in the early '80s - but eventually I suspended my distaste and got stuck in. I grew to appreciate it.

The same happened in reverse as I moved from that style towards a more liturgical, daily office kind of approach ...

I fully take on board SCK's point about fellowship being more regular and sustained in order to be as meaningful as it should be ... I've still got issues to resolve with that one. Not because I believe that engagement with God should be 'sporadic' as SCK suggests, but because I find the kind of pietistic small-group settings that he might favour to be rather cloying and claustrophobic.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Beamish:
To these people [living lives of woe and pain], who come to a church where there can be a foretaste of the heavenly banquet, where things are presented to encourage prayer and peace, where the care taken in presentation puts them at ease and allows kind words of friends and ministers to enter them, I suspect your rebuttals would seem hollow. To such people, indeed to the many millions if not billions of people who do not exist in our relatively pampered western society, I suspect that to these people, for whom God seems so very distant, that church is indeed the chief place where they find God, and to make it into something else would rob them of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK, I think that's (sadly) a very naive and over-idealistic view of Christian life. Shit gets in the way. We live in a fallen world and part of that is not having as good a spiritual life as we could. When I am having a bad time MH-wise I physically and mentally cannot have the kind of spiritual life you describe, but even those with no MH have the same problems, whether due to kids or money worries or work or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
'Low' churches tend to be neutral spaces which only seem filled with God's spirit once the worship begins. And without the visual and sensory aids of vestments and ritual it is much harder work to connect. Or it is for many people.

---

quote:

---

SCK said:
The focus on things like vestments (and pretty much all the ceremonial, ritual elements) makes me think the church service itself is being put on a pedestal as the main place where our faith 'happens', the main place where we experience God. I think church services should instead equip and enable us to find God and live according to his ways, so that we come closer to living fully in line with his will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

---

[/QUOTE]

Why? I don't see how that follows at all. It's like saying that we shouldn't put any effort into preparing our meals or presenting them attractively because that detracts from the real business of eating - which is purely to sustain ourselves.





 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
I read liturgy/worship a different way. Certainly not as earning brownie points with God - but nor a s a "training exercise" for the real deal of life. Liturgy is the real deal ... the rest of life is the after effect. Liturgy is the moment we enter into the relationship of God we were designed to have - we re-enter Eden if you like, by becoming the tenth leper, the one who remembers the source of blessing.

We do it well because we love God - if I want to make a decent dinner for Kuruman I don't open a can of spaghetti. Nor is it a training session for what may happen: it is communion ... and something beautifully prepared makes for better communion than spaghetti or baked beans.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
The focus on things like vestments (and pretty much all the ceremonial, ritual elements) makes me think the church service itself is being put on a pedestal as the main place where our faith 'happens', the main place where we experience God. I think church services should instead equip and enable us to find God and live according to his ways, so that we come closer to living fully in line with his will.

---

Again, somewhat of a strawman, old chap. Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, the liturgy is the primary means by which the faith is handed down. Secondly, no one has argued that the liturgy is a means in itself. It most certainly is a means to an end and the sacraments especially do equip us to go out and live Christlike lives. That is the whole point of the sacraments - they are medicine.

The vestments, rituals etc. are there so that we can't impose our own personalities and whims on them. This is the whole point of tradition - it's a guarantee against relativism and arbitrariness.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I like that Ad Orientem ... you'll have me crossing the Bosphorus yet ...


 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Vade Mecum and Zappa - thank you for illustrating the view that I'm arguing against:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The Mass is the main place where our faith happens. It is the crucible between heaven and earth; it is Calvary, the empty tomb, the perfect Sacrifice and the Body and Blood of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
I read liturgy/worship a different way. Certainly not as earning brownie points with God - but nor a s a "training exercise" for the real deal of life. Liturgy is the real deal ... the rest of life is the after effect. Liturgy is the moment we enter into the relationship of God we were designed to have - we re-enter Eden if you like, by becoming the tenth leper, the one who remembers the source of blessing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The vestments, rituals etc. are there so that we can't impose our own personalities and whims on them. This is the whole point of tradition - it's a guarantee against relativism and arbitrariness.

---

ISTM a lot of the traditions in more liturgical, 'higher' churches are absolutely arbitrary, or at least were introduced for pragmatic reasons and then retained (and justified with fine-sounding but totally post hoc theological arguments) long after the practical need has disappeared. Vestments are an obvious example - being stylised forms of regular clothing from, what is it, the 2nd-4th centuries - but IIRC there are plenty of other examples. Like this one...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, though, South Coast Kevin, people who advocate and use symbolic forms and so on are, for the most part, well aware that they often derive from pragmatic originals ...

An RC priest once explained to me how incense was first used as a form of deodorant when crowds gathered - people didn't wash so much in those days ...

It was used in pagan religions as well as in Judaism and later Christianity.

I don't see how that in any way precludes its use.

On the theological objections, well, yes, I can see how there's going to be a fundamental divergence between someone like yourself and Vede Mecum and Zappa on this one.

If you don't have as 'realised' or sacramental a eucharistic theology as they do, then that's fair enough. That's up to you. However, you seem to be implying that such a position is wrong in and of itself and responsible for great ills both in church and society as a whole ...



For my own part, I'm not entirely convinced that either Zappa or Vede Mecum ARE illustrating the point that you are trying to make. I daresay that neither would claim that the Eucharist is the ONLY means by which the Lord reveals himself or ministers to people ... it is a primary means ...

On a PM we've had some discussion about these issues and you gently took me to task about using the figure or analogy of eating and drinking in relation to our engagement/interaction with God.

The thing is, the Lord Himself uses this kind of language. He is perfectly comfortable with using the examples of eating and drinking to refer to our most intimate relations with Him: 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood ...'

Whether we take a memorialist or a more 'realised' approach to the eucharist, that language is there and is perfectly legitimate - indeed we have the highest authority for its use!
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Does anyone knows what happened at General Synod about this?

Any reports I've seen deal with the Piling Report and Women bishops - nothing about robes and vestments.

[ 21. February 2014, 13:03: Message edited by: leo ]
 

---

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Does anyone knows what happened at General Synod about this?

Any reports I've seen deal with the Piling Report and Women bishops - nothing about robes and vestments.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0