Ship of Fools: MW2767: St Clement of Rome, Sun City

Thread: MW2767: St Clement of Rome, Sun City Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027921

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

The worshipper described the priest's "sockless sandals" as "hellish".

In the hot country where I come from, sockless sandals are formal wear! (And in fact what most priests wear - the rest wear bare feet inside the church and sandals or flip-flops outside .)

And IMHO, sandals with socks are an abomination - except maybe for a tropical person stranded in a cold country.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Saw some at church yesterday (socks under sandals) and refrained mightily from commenting. [Devil]

Seriously though, if you can't wear sandals over bare feet to church, we'll have to leave Jesus and the Twelve at home.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

In Australia to wear socks with sandals is the dorkiest fashion statement EVER. Only English people would do it and we laugh heartily at them.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Link to report...

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

"Sockless sandals" was obviously allowed, or the bishop or ordinary would intervene. Presumably, the priest-celebrant was incardinated to the local diocese, rather than to a religious order.

The ecclesiastical name for barefoot or only sandalled is Discalced. Had the celebrant been female in an Episcopal Anglican church, I wonder if the MWer would have felt the same way about going barefoot in open sandals.

I ask, what is the difference between a barefoot woman and a barefoot man?

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously though, if you can't wear sandals over bare feet to church, we'll have to leave Jesus and the Twelve at home.

Acting in persona Christi doesn't mean you have to dress like Jesus did, or indeed mimic his every action!

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

One isn't meant to be physically comfortable at the altar. One wears a cassock and all the appropriate vestments over that, and one wears black shoes and black socks. The only concessions I can see involve the clothing one wears under the cassock.

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

quote:
One wears a cassock and all the appropriate vestments over that, and one wears black shoes and black socks.

One does, unless one is a monastic in an order and climate in which the wearing of sandals is usual. Franciscans often celebrate mass wearing the sandals which are part of their habit.

Of course, there is no particular reason to think that is the case in Sun City; I looked at their website, and if the priest is a religious, he doesn't identify himself as such.

[ 30. September 2014, 14:05: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I ask, what is the difference between a barefoot woman and a barefoot man?

If you need to ask, my dear boy, then Miss Amanda is afraid she can't help you. [Biased]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

I took the remark about sandals at the end of the report as a joke. As has been pointed out, while it is clearly not necessary to conform with Our Lord's footwear choices, it must surely be permissible.

More intriguing to me is the claim that they pray Matins are Daily Mass. Given that the (OF) Roman Liturgy of the Hours knows no such service, I wonder what is meant. Do they pray a monastic office? Or is it MP / Lauds from the LotH (which I've encountered in plenty of parishes), or Office of Readings (which I never have and would be interested to see).

[ 30. September 2014, 14:30: Message edited by: Hart ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

May Our Lord And His Blessed Mother forgive him, but my fellow-Reader (a man who prides himself on being Far More Spiritual Than Everyone Else) always wears sandals with socks! A couple of Sundays ago, he even sported fluorescent ORANGE socks with a green dalmatic, whilst acting as liturgical deacon...... [Eek!]

O I dunno - sandals are OK (especially if it's very hot, or you have problems with wearing shoes), but surely, if you're in the sanctuary, you could at least avoid drawing attention....!!

Ian J.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I ask, what is the difference between a barefoot woman and a barefoot man?
If you need to ask, my dear boy, then Miss Amanda is afraid she can't help you.

Probably a rhetorical question!

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

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
One wears a cassock and all the appropriate vestments over that, and one wears black shoes and black socks.
One does, unless one is a monastic in an order and climate in which the wearing of sandals is usual. Franciscans often celebrate mass wearing the sandals which are part of their habit.

Of course, there is no particular reason to think that is the case in Sun City; I looked at their website, and if the priest is a religious, he doesn't identify himself as such.

It's also difficult to think that every church in AZ doesn't have some sort of air conditioning. It is absolutely ubiquitous in the SW USA, including churches. What one tends to do in that part of the country is flit from one air-conditioned refuge to another. The worst part of life is driving a car on a series of errands, thus never allowing the car's aircon to cool the inside down enough for comfort, whilst it can get very hot inside the vehicle when you run in somewhere to take care of 10 minutes worth of errand fulfillment. I used to live in Texas: I'm personally acquainted with these things.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:
I ask, what is the difference between a barefoot woman and a barefoot man?

Toenail varnish.

In the correct liturgical colour, of course.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I took the remark about sandals at the end of the report as a joke. As has been pointed out, while it is clearly not necessary to conform with Our Lord's footwear choices, it must surely be permissible.

Why must it be permissible? A priest is not an actor, pretending to be Jesus. You wouldn't expect a priest to come to the altar without washing for weeks, yet doubtless Jesus would have been rather smelly a lot of the time.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Yes, just about every church in the Phoenix area is air conditioned. But many of them keep the thermostats high for financial and environmental reasons. We're a casual part of the world, and going without socks or stockings is the norm. (I notice that my dear friend Miss Amanda didn't even notice this until the recessional.)

Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
I ask, what is the difference between a barefoot woman and a barefoot man?
Toenail varnish.

So if be-sandaled men wear nail polish - in the right liturgical colours - that would be OK?
[Biased]

In other news, socks with sandals have been very high trend high fashion for a season or so now. On women (And shoes without socks for men.) No, me neither. Fashion is crazy.

Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
I ask, what is the difference between a barefoot woman and a barefoot man?
Toenail varnish.

So if be-sandaled men wear nail polish - in the right liturgical colours - that would be OK?
[Biased]

In other news, socks with sandals have been very high trend high fashion for a season or so now. On women (And shoes without socks for men.) No, me neither. Fashion is crazy.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Yangtze:

quote:
So if be-sandaled men wear nail polish - in the right liturgical colours - that would be OK?

Why, of course! [Big Grin]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I'm a priest and I wear footwear I'm comfortable in. Not usually sandals but not always (or often) black Oxfords either. I agree that black shoes with a black cassock is an appropriate look, but usually I wear an alb so colour of shoes is less crucial.

I can't say it matters a great deal. I can criticise other priests and other people for their fashion sense but that is sheer personal prejudice whichever way it goes.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

To respond to several points raised upthread:

I called it matins; they called it "Liturgy of the Hours: Morning Prayer" in the bulletin. Tomayto, tomahto.

The church was comfortably air-conditioned.

Socks with sandals are quite the fashion trend in many circles in the USA.

I really didn't notice the priest's feet until the recessional. I was busy writing during the processional, and his feet were not visible behind the altar.

Priests can wear whatever they please on their feet if they don't mind wading through Baby Jesus' and his Blessed Mother's tears.

At any rate, the remark about the sandals was meant to be tongue-in-cheek -- or should I say toe-in-sock?

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

My post-grad neuropsych professor - a truly brilliant young man - in the mid-1970s wore socks with sandals as part of his habitual look. It was 1976 hipster basically, and an alternative to middle age tweed jacket academic. Maybe contemporary hipsters are reviving the style?

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :

Australia.
Very few churches have any air-con. Maybe a ceiling fan or two?
My church put in air-con last year... All year-round at that... Because at a summer funeral that year, inside the church was 39.c, whilst outside, at the cemetery, it was only 35.c

Here no-one seems to go what shoes you wear, as long as you don't faint from heat exhaustion.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I can't remember when I was in a church here that had air-conditioning. Perhaps somewhere like Hillsong has it, but I can't speak from experience.

Upthread, Miss Amanda raises some questions about technical RC rules, which I shan't debate. But I can recall a time when I was doing some work in a country city, well west of the Dividing Range. Madame came with me for a break. In February, this city was hot, so hot that even in the evening the temp was usually in the high 30s. Come Ash Wednesday, we went to the 7 pm Eucharist and Ashing. The church was very hot, probably closer to 40 than 35. Before the service, the priest came out and apologised that he would not be wearing a chasuble - they were all hot, he said, the lenten purple particularly so. His decision was very understandable. I don't know what he was wearing underneath, but his legs were bare and he simply wore sandals. It looked so timeless, not necessarily 20th century outback Oz, but equally valid in 5th century Antioch, or Ephesus.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
... A couple of Sundays ago, he even sported fluorescent ORANGE socks with a green dalmatic, whilst acting as liturgical deacon......

Sounds like a walking packet of tic tacs

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Socks with sandals are just plain bad, even if worn by would-be-trendy academics. Just plain bad.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Yes and no.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I remain puzzled by this. I know women don't like to see us wearing socks with sandals, but our feet are just knobbly and ugly. So why? Or is the objection just a silly fad?

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

We don't cover our hands: why should we cover our feet?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Nor do we cover the orifices by which extraneous matter enters the body, so why should we cover those by which it exits?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

This is the weirdest MW thread I've ever read.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Nor do we cover the orifices by which extraneous matter enters the body, so why should we cover those by which it exits?

Here you go

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Interesting link, but Jesus always went about fully wrapped in robes, if you believe the artwork. Although he did wear sandals (albeit without socks).

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

He did go around robed: and his eyes were blue and his beard was blond, if you believe the artwork (and if you believe some of the artwork he was crucified in eucharistic vestments, er...)
How do we know he didn't wear socks with sandals, BTW? Romans did in Britain and it can I believe get cold in Palestine in winter.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

If he does then we're having a "What Not to Wear" episode in heaven... [Big Grin]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Interesting link, but Jesus always went about fully wrapped in robes, if you believe the artwork. Although he did wear sandals (albeit without socks).

Not according to the mural on the front of the book we used for our sacramental initiation class he didn't.

[ 03. October 2014, 17:30: Message edited by: Hart ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
In Australia to wear socks with sandals is the dorkiest fashion statement EVER. Only English people would do it and we laugh heartily at them.

Yeah, replace, " Australian" with " Californian" . If it's hot enough to wear sandals, ir's too hot to wear socks.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If he does then we're having a "What Not to Wear" episode in heaven...

He doesn't.

Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :

Socks and sandals on men are mock-worthy because a lot of the pics show badly dressed guys with inappropriately matched socks, sandals and shorts. I live in the tropics, but I am required to wear long pants, sleeves and a tie (with shoes and socks) at work. When I'm not working I would prefer to wear shorts, but I can't find any non-beach or sports type shorts that I either like, or fit well enough. The style these days for men's dress shorts (dress shorts! Is there such a thing?) tends towards a slimmer, shorter cut, and I don't like it as it's too boyish for me. So, I tend to wear long, light linen or cotton pants instead, especially when I'm in the town or city.

My point is, though, that while short shorts and sandals with white sports socks - or even business socks - is a daft look in most people's eyes, long pants with sandals and similarly coloured socks is more comfortable, cooler and also more practical than traditional shoes and socks. Conversely, it is surprising how uninhibited some people are about displaying horribly unkempt feet while wearing open sandals with no socks. I think it is widely accepted among the PC brigade (so called, and of which I am one) that is bad manners to tell people what they should and shouldn't wear in order to be attractive to others, so I will refrain from telling people with nasty feet to cover up; it's just odd that people feel at liberty to tell men not to wear socks and sandals because it is unattractive to women (and other men). Saying that, my usual outdoor dress outside work involves long pants, sandals and no socks.

Posted by Jante (# 9163) on :

I also don't like to se women presiding in bare feet and sandals ( with or without nail polish). Perhaps its my college training but I'm black shoes all the way with robes!

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jante:
Perhaps its my college training but I'm black shoes all the way with robes!

There's a special corner reserved for you in heaven.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

This

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
...men's dress shorts (dress shorts! Is there such a thing?) ...

Shorts can be Tat or Rig or Scunge, but not Robes.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I don't know about that.

quote:
Members wore a white alb-like garment that extended only to the knees.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
One isn't meant to be physically comfortable at the altar. One wears a cassock and all the appropriate vestments over that, and one wears black shoes and black socks. The only concessions I can see involve the clothing one wears under the cassock.

Mate - you haven't presided in Darwin. You'd have drowned in sweat before the Gospel.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
The style these days for men's dress shorts (dress shorts! Is there such a thing?)

There is in Bermuda.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

And you'll note the black socks. Pity the camera didn't pan down to their feet.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

All I can think is " tan line"

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
And you'll note the black socks. Pity the camera didn't pan down to their feet.

But they probably were wearing shoes, not sandals.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I ask, what is the difference between a barefoot woman and a barefoot man?

Both equally shocking whilst waiting at the Holy Table. A lady in such circumstances would, of course, wear black court shoes.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

And yet, given Moses and other OT examples, barefoot (no sandals at all) would seem to be a fine way to go.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

But none of them officiated at Holy Communion.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Both equally shocking whilst waiting at the Holy Table. A lady in such circumstances would, of course, wear black court shoes.

+ a frilly apron and a little pad to take down the orders on? This parallel doesn't work.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

They stood in the very presence of God, which is close enough for me when it comes to standing in the Eucharistic Presence.

Apparently God likes bare toes.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Very odd cultural differences at play here. OT prophets and Muslims take off their shoes in the presence of God; Jews cover their heads; Christians traditionally wear shoes (but only Anglo-catholics seem bothered about the colour), and if female cover their heads but if male uncover them. If God were not God s/he would get very confused.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

And it's partly cultural in my case, since I live largely in a culture where you take off your shoes in someone's home. As a result, wearing dirty street shoes to the altar has always seemed to me a bit odd. Though I do it, so as not to freak out my mainstream culture friends.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

It's not confusing at all [Ultra confused]

Actually I suspect the great lord almighty who invented toes is probably not too shocked to see them at the altar/table whatever. There are other parts of the body to which I (and the scriptures) might suggest God responds more cautiously in public (hair of course being something God's servant Paul had some thoughts about).

But as Lamb Chopped is indicating, cultural propriety rather than Anglo-Saxon snobbishness should be the dictator of sartorial choice. Kuruman and I worked training indigenous Australian priests for whom anything but sandals or bare feet would have been both excruciatinly painful and bloody ridiculous at the altar. Might not Oxbridge or Yalevard attire just look a little out of place when this is your nave, it's 40+C outside and more inside, when your normal Eucharistic context is like this and any rampant Europeanization of dress begins to smack far more of colonialization than the gospel of Jesus Christ?

And if that is true of remote Indigenous liturgies, why is it not true of down town New York, Manchester, Auckland or Ouagadougou (in the latter of which you would be brave to wear shoes or make eucharist at all)?

In other words, ffs let's not be paternalist or culturally imperialistic about what God wants God's people to wear. The vestment symbols are fine in context, the clothes must be appropriate in context, and if someone doesn't like it then that someone should probably have a long hard look at the reasons for their prejudice and make sure they really mean the words of confession when they say them.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Both equally shocking whilst waiting at the Holy Table. A lady in such circumstances would, of course, wear black court shoes.
+ a frilly apron and a little pad to take down the orders on? This parallel doesn't work.

I'm afraid that on the rare occasions when our vicar, for some reason, puts on a Roman chasuble to celebrate versus populum, she does rather look like a dinner lady in one of those tabards. (I wouldn't dare tell her that, though. [Smile]

)

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
The clothes must be appropriate in context, and if someone doesn't like it then that someone should probably have a long hard look at the reasons for their prejudice.

I have no problem with that provided it was in Ordinary Time.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

One Easter morning I was serving as Eucharistic minister and noticed that our Rector had slipped out of her stylish pumps when she began the Eucharistic prayer. We were standing behind the altar, which was covered with a lush frontal that reached all the way to the floor on all sides. No one knew she was barefoot except for me and, as Zappa put it so well,

quote:
the great lord almighty who invented toes.

She slipped back into her high heels before we carried communion to the people, and no one was the wiser, and certainly no offense given. As far as I could tell, God was glorified and the people were fed.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Well said, Dean Zappa, I could not agree more. As for Lois Nadjamerrek, she looks dressed with a simply dignity very suited to the occasion - as did the priest in the anecdote I related.

BTW, like the other photos you took, and perhaps some might like to flip through them to get a better idea of the the country of which you're speaking.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

Hell on Earth for Miss Amanda:

http://www.nationalcathedral.org/exec/cathedral/mediaPlayer2013?MediaID=MED-6D198-OR000E&EventID=CAL-6649J-UO0003

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

I wear sandals with out socks in the Tropics. In the sanctuary, priests, readers, and altar boys are barefoot. So are we all because we have left our footwear outside on the church porch.

I also just wear sandals in Canada from the time of my return until the weather requires shoes and socks.

As long as my feet are clean, there is no reason to do otherwise. No one has ever commented (Miss Amanda might, but she is an obvious exception). What a very silly thing about which to get upset!

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Hell on Earth for Miss Amanda

Well, Rapid City, South Dakota . . . what do you expect? At least the altar party and choir were all properly shod and haberdashed.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
(dress shorts! Is there such a thing?)

Yes. Yes there is.

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
To respond to several points raised upthread:

I called it matins; they called it "Liturgy of the Hours: Morning Prayer" in the bulletin. Tomayto, tomahto.

Not really. In the Latin Rite, Matins and Lauds are two distinct offices. Morning Prayer is simply Lauds in the modern Liturgy of the Hours. The equivalent to old Matins is the Office of Readings which can now be said at any time of the day (and joined to another office).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0