|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Robes or none - evidence, please?
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
There is something profoundly wrong if you are even considering the question. Worship in the Anglican tradition, especially the for the Eucharist, has proper vestments. Their use does not depend on what any young people, non-Anglicans or any others may think.
Mr Rob, how I wish it were that simple! 'Anglican tradition', even in the geographical spread reflected in responses to this thread, may have 'proper vestments' (at least for the Eucharist) - but cannot agree on what those vestments actually might be! The actual reality of what you will see in any given church seems to depend in varying degrees on parish custom (which was new once!), rules or customs of the wider church, the preferences of the incumbent, and the resources available when you open the cupboards in the vestry!
Almost every Sunday service from Common Worship apart from the Eucharist is some permutation of A Service of the Word. The Canons and rubrics are silent on what distinctive vesture (if any) should be worn by the leader of this service: hence the debate!
By "proper vestments," I didn't mean the use of Eucharistic vestments as such, but that the Eucharist was deserving of highest honor in relation to the use of any robes.
I didn't say that everyone had to be agreed on the style, material or the cut of sacred vesture, but merely that the robes were part of Anglican tradition. In that sense of Anglican tradition the canons, the rubrics and church history are not silent. But all those facts must be given added weight in the absence of anything more than a hunch or discomfort or personal preference to do without vestments.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
My understanding of sacramental priesthood is the opposite of (S)pike’s. The baptized are the body of Christ, the high priestly people of God to “offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”. When that sacrifice is expressed congregationally in Eucharistic worship, they choose one of their number to articulate that priesthood and represent themselves.
Since the liturgical priest unites the local congregation with the wider church throughout history, by virtue of their Episcopal ordination rather than any personal qualities, it is perfectly appropriate that s/he wears something to show their representative and symbolic nature.
What I don’t understand is the protestant view of ministry, which seems to mean that clergy are wiser and holier than the rest of us. Which is why in MW they seem to go on and on and on in their sermons.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And the Melchisedek verse is about Jesus, and about him not being part of the OT priesthood, The writer to the Hebrews has been traduced enough by decontextualised misquoting.
It has also bee associated with the ordained priesthood in the Christian Church since ancient times — as, for instance, if the office for the feast of a confessor. It is no use trying to understand the spiritual meaning of Scripture if one ignores its context with the the liturgical life of the Church. Scripture, after all, is shaped by tradition and not vice versa.
The wilful incapacity of those who wish to assert a sacrificing priesthood to understand the thrust of the theological argument of Hebrews is breathtaking. The argument, should they dare to listen to it, is that Jesus is superior to angels, to the paradigmatic characters of the OT - Moses in particular, and to the OT sacrificial priesthood. The Aaronic strand has been set aside, and this is indicated by the understanding that Jesus is the heir of different priesthood, from Melchizedek, a man out of left field. He becomes the sole priest, no longer offering sacrifices, and enabling through his death a new covenant, once for all guaranteeing access to God. He abolishes sacrifices. We need no OT priesthood, no intermediaries, no intercessors, no representation. That's the plain meaning of the text.
Using a text liturgically out of context to mean that which is actually opposite to the intention of the author's argument doesn't make it true. Unless you're a postmodern! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
At which point, let's draw a line under the priesthood/Melchizedek tangent and return to the OP question about robes and attracting people to church. Thank you for your cooperation.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Ven Bede's got it right. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
You're attempting to school a Bishop on scripture and tradition? Fabulous.
Ah the age of deference hasn't passed.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancilla:
I’m very much with Angloid on this one, that the vestments are a way of saying ‘it’s not all about me / my personality’. Whereas ‘normal’ clothes are an expression of individuality – precisely NOT about being ‘no different from anyone else’. !
That's what it looks like from the inside. To someone who wanders in with no background, who hasn't learned the ropes, a man standing up at the front wearing robes and speaking while everyone else sits down in normal clothes and keeps quiet, certainly seems to be saying "look at me I'm different". Clothes are messages as much as buildings are.
Ken - I've only been officially 'on the inside' for about four years. I started going to church in my twenties, and I've always felt more comfortable with robed clergy. In any case, it’s surely the fact that one person is standing up and speaking (which is the same in church as it is in many other contexts in life) which makes the distinction.
It's this point that does it for me:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
What I don’t understand is the protestant view of ministry, which seems to mean that clergy are wiser and holier than the rest of us.
One thing that this whole debate illustrates is that exactly the same feature of worship can mean opposite things to different people (it’s the same with versus populum / ad orientem celebration) So perhaps what really matters is telling - or better showing – people what it is you are trying to express.
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
What I don’t understand is the protestant view of ministry, which seems to mean that clergy are wiser and holier than the rest of us. Which is why in MW they seem to go on and on and on in their sermons.
I think there are rather protestant views of ministry. Certainly in Methodism, we don't hold that clergy are wiser and holier than anyone else. Some protestant traditions would reject the notion of clergy altogether. But all of that would need a thread in Purgatory!
[Host hat not on...]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
But in Protestant churches its quite common for all sorts of lay people to have a go at preaching, not just "The Minister". Including in many evangelical Anglican churches. Which changes the symbolism round entirely. Makes it more about shareing ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I'm sure there are churches where one superhero preacher preaches every sermon, but I don't know where they are round here and I haven't been to one for over thirty years.
On the other hand Catholic places tend to reserve preaching for the ordained clergy. Often the same bloke who is doing the Communion. So you get a much stronger dose of "Father Knows best".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I've preached at mass in my time.
As seasick said, perhaps we should get back to the OP.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Pondering on my earlier (and excellent) posting, I tried to put myself into the shoes of someone who had no real experience of churchgoing--- this is more common than we think and many of my friends have never been in a church except for an occasional wedding. In most cases, the worship leader's actions normally indicate their role-- viz., they are standing at the front, speaking, or doing ritual stuff.
However, what they wear is not meaningless. If they are in mufti, office clothes (suit & tie) convey one message, the ubiquitous golf shirt another. After decades dealing with bureaucrats and academics, it is the suit and tie which I find less forced, but business casual (to me) suggests that the person is up to something and that I must keep an eye out. Other friends have the opposition response, so perhaps a non-robed cleric conveys different messages with the same outfit, and is likely unaware of this.
I recall attending Holy Trinity, Trinity Square, Toronto, with a friend. The preacher was in collar and business suit with the celebrant in a meso-American woven chasuble. Asking her what she thought of what they wore, she said that the sermon was confusing (and it was), but that he should realize that a Harry Rosen sale suit from 1982 was distracting. There was no comment on the chasuble, nor on the albed assistant.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
You're attempting to school a Bishop on scripture and tradition? Fabulous.
As Our Lord commanded and taught us: 'preach the gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:15).
Given that all verses after verse 8 in mark 16 are later accretions/corruptions of the text, I am not sure what this has to do with chasubles.
When Jesus did the so-called Great Commission in Matthew, was he wearing as cope of as chasuble? And are we allowed to disregard what he commanded if he wasn't wearing a maniple with said vestment?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I particuarly like those Christus Victor pictures and crucifixes which show Our Lord in a chasable and stole.
I have seen one where he is just wearing a stole (perhaps a low church Christus Victor) but the stole is crossed over the breast (old rite).
Perhaps a topic for elsewhere?
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I particuarly like those Christus Victor pictures and crucifixes which show Our Lord in a chasable and stole.
I have seen one where he is just wearing a stole (perhaps a low church Christus Victor) but the stole is crossed over the breast (old rite).
'just wearing a stole'??
I hope it was quite a wide one! ![[Cool]](cool.gif) ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
I looked in on this thread when there were only three postings: I now wish I had maintained an eye on it and responded earlier as so many good points had been made.
To give a biased observation from within a Diocese where the overwhelming 'norm' is to not wear any distinctive dress in worship, including the Eucharist (which is not Anglican style in any degree), though the Dean wears suit, tie and geneva gown:
Having attended over a number of years a variety of services in the diocese, when in a church which I haven't been to before I find myself playing the "spot the minister" game - the bulletin lists the staff, but you have no idea of whose who. The service seems to be confused and dijointed for someone not in the know by virtue of being a regular attendee. When there are a multiude of worship leaders (though in my humble opinion there is only ONE chief celebrant in the eucharistic setting) the 'guess who is' expands, especially as they rarely ever give their name, designation and purpose.
I too share the opinion of those who have said that non-robed 'cergy' are more likely to dress for their personality are very much correct - suit and tie on one person, open neck shiort and shorts on another - and act individually, rather than corporately. A good vestment - whether alb or cassock based - covers a 'multitude of sins', and uniformity meaves at least a visual sense of cohesion.
Our community clergy, eucharistic assistants and servers - male and female - all wear albs, with the intent of showing that we are all part of the operating whole, hence too why clergy and servers all gather at the altar for the Great Thanksgiving, and receive communion together before distributing to the rest of the body of Christ.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
... To give a biased observation from within a Diocese where the overwhelming 'norm' is to not wear any distinctive dress in worship, including the Eucharist ... though the Dean wears suit, tie and geneva gown:
There's only one diocese that could be in the entire Anglican Communion, and throw in the Porvoo Communion for good measure.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
As has been pointed out, much of our vestment tradition comes out of the Old Testament traditions, but the Roman Court also had influence on the vestments.
For me vestments are one thing that connect us with previous generations of Christians, and I would hope will be carried on into future generations.
The biggest challenge to vestments came from John Calvin and the move to de romanize the church. Since then there has been a tension between full vestments or casual dress. Most churches will find themselves somewhere in that continuum.
When I supply the pulpit at a liturgical church I will use vestments appropriate to that community. If I preach in a non liturgical setting I will usually wear just a suit and tie. But if I am in an outdoor setting, I tend to be more casual.
One of the things I like about using vestments is the ability to change the colors according to the liturgical year. I like good designs on stoles and even chasubles--adds so much to the total worship experience, in my book.
I agree with a previous poster who pointed out most of his non worshiping friends are not staying away because of how we dress. I think it has more to do with a perceived hypocrisy between what we preach and what we do. That and the mistaken notion that all Christians are represented in the likes of some fundamentalist tv evangelist.
Rather than arguing about whether to vest or not to vest, we should explore effective ways of getting the Word out and living up to that Word.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Rather than arguing about whether to vest or not to vest, we should explore effective ways of getting the Word out and living up to that Word.
Bingo. Here's the correct answer.
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
... To give a biased observation from within a Diocese where the overwhelming 'norm' is to not wear any distinctive dress in worship, including the Eucharist ... though the Dean wears suit, tie and geneva gown:
There's only one diocese that could be in the entire Anglican Communion, and throw in the Porvoo Communion for good measure.
And with all the fuss a while ago about whether dioceses that were 'gay friendly' to bishops should be in or out of the Anglican Communion, I can't remember any discussion as to whether that diocese, with its sui generis views on so many topics including possible lay celebration or celebration by deacons, should be in or not. A far more pressing question I would have thought.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
@sebby. There's actually been quite a bit of discussion about this and veiled references at Lambeth to discussion of eucharistic celebration by the unordained were specifically about Sydney. This is not the sort of thing which elicits commentary by the secular press which may be how Sebby missed it, but those who are really interested can dig up quite a bit on Australian church legislation-- until Sydney comes out of the closet on its practices, there's not a lot which can be done. An unkind friend tells me that some folk in Sydney have been grateful for the pastoral necessity argument used by some proponents of SSBs/SSMs whereby people can do what they wish without the canonical changes which excite a wider public. However, his opinions may simply be scurrilous comment.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Thank you. It does seem rather silly that gay or not gay should be a defining feature of first degree Anglicanism, yet avoidance of the Lambeth Quadrilateral, or unAnglican practices should go unremarked or ignored in such discussions.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
