|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bye bye vestments?
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin posts: 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.
It would be childishly simple, but on the majority of occasions I have encountered such clerics, they do not do this. Maybe it's a pond difference, but I have found this exasperating. Apparently, I'm supposed to know. Speaking with one such Floridian cleric, he answered that "Everybody knows me," and seemed surprised when I said that I didn't.
When people wear traditional vestments, they are making a point. When people use street clothes as vestments, they are also making a point. Perhaps both groups seem to miss that others don't necessarily see the point which they think they are making.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I s'pose I don't mind the 'making the point' either way, but it's the way that the point's made or the self-consciousness with which it's made that bugs me.
Consequently, I don't have a problem with SCK's senior pastor dressing as he pleases as this isn't done in a self-conscious 'Look at me, I'm making a point' kind of way.
Whereas, an Anglo-Catholic priest in a biretta - say - adopting a more consciously 'Roman' appearance, or our vicar with his check-shirts and slacks, strike me as being rather more self-conscious in their approach.
And I don't like that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
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. . . .
The church I go to has a quite a wide social class mix at least partly demonstrated by how they dress. Wearing robes in church or his black suit on duty the vicar isn't identified with any group; when I have seen him in civvies he looks quite posh.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
In my former con-evo Anglican church, choir dress was worn for early morning Communion. Clericals at all other times, I don't think the church even owns a stole. Given that the bishop when I was there was Wallace Benn, dressing up for the bishop wasn't an issue. Communion at the main services was monthly btw. I suspect it's much easier when one's church is in an evangelical heartland and you have a sympathetic bishop.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
What you are missing Corvo is in SCK's church it is not always the vicar leading worship. As worship leading moves around the congregations then quite possibly if it is a banker in a suit one week, it might well be a brick layer in jeans and a sweatshirt the next (Sorry to use stereo types it is just saves having to create two imaginary characters with more flesh and blood and makes the point equally well). 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.
As language is quite possibly a more critical marker of social class than dress how does your vicar get around that?
Jengie
[ 28. December 2013, 20:34: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
Yes, this is right. While our senior pastor usually gives the welcome and introduction (sometimes it's another member if the leadership team), from then on, anybody who's part of one of our home groups has the authority within our church to lead the songs, prayers, liturgy (yes, we sometimes use liturgy!), meditation etc.
So yes, it could be a posh person in expensive clothes leading from the front at one point, and then another week or indeed later that same Sunday it could be a person on a very tight budget whose clothes are all second-hand and rather worn. I genuinely think we're pretty much blind to such externalities (although this could of course be naive ignorance on my part).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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.
Another point: In many of our churches, laypeople who help lead worship in ways like reading lessons do not "robe up." I think there's a visual plus in showing a kind of democratizing back-and-forth between the pastor/assistant minister and the people in the pew, as when a layperson in civvies comes up from the congregation to read a lesson or to assist in distributing the Eucharist. It underscores the idea of liturgy as a "work of the people" where everyone has a role.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
I don't agree. That aren't anonymous in the sense of blending in to the crowd, but they are anonymous in that they draw attention away from their identity - it doesn't matter whether the person in the fancy kit is X, Y or Z.
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.
SCK and I are pretty far apart in our views of church. For me, a priest is a priest is a priest - it's rare that the identity of the man or woman in the chasuble is relevant. Certainly some priests are gifted preachers, and some aren't - but my understanding of the sermon is not affected by whether or not I happen to know the priest.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
I'd forgotten how the Presbyterian ministers of my youth, all male, would wear black cassock with Geneva bands and (surely?) academic gown and hood. I dimly remember the falls of lace worn by the Scottish Moderator of Assembly. Now most sport fairly ordinary day clothes, though our present Rev Leanne usually wears a white cassock with an appropriate stole, red today presumably for the Christmas season.
As for clerical collars, it's usual for hospital chaplains to wear a cross on their lapel or on a chain, as being less strange for those who welcome support/counselling but are unchurched and might find the dog-collar threatening.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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. This may not accord with the democratic notions which underpin many modern liturgical sensibilities but it is those notions and not the meaning of the word itself that underpin the idea that"all must have prizes".
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
I'm sure this can be the case. The test for me is to see whether someone dresses differently when they are leading the service in some way, compared to when they are attending as a congregation member. If there is no difference, then IMO there's no disingenuousness or hypocrisy going on.
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.
Yes, this is pretty much fair. I'd just add that I don't think a church talk / sermon should just be about inviting people to learn from one's own personal experience. It shouldn't be solely subjective, as this implies, but a mixture of the subjective (e.g. here are some ways in which God has comforted, encouraged and challenged me recently) and the objective (e.g. let's look at this Bible passage, or this hero of the faith from times past, to see what we can learn for today).
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.
What's that got to do with the assembling of Jesus' followers then? Christians gather together, the New Testament says (ISTM), for mutual encouragement in our faith, not for some set apart person to do something for us. I wonder when the term 'liturgy' first started being used in this misleading, dangerous way to describe church gatherings?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
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 ?
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.
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.
I have worshipped several times in parish-churches.cathedrals of the US Episcopal Church and the Church of Sweden,where I have never come across the problems about the use of vestments.
Both churches lack the puritanical attitude,as found with many Evangelical clergymen of the C.of.E.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
If you're Roman Catholic, as Trisagion is, then it holds out no 'danger' whatsover. It's a 'public work' for the benefit of all who happen to be there ... and indeed, in more Catholic theologies the eucharistic aspect extends beyond those who are physically present too ... but that's another issue and a more 'mystical' one ...
As for whether it's 'misleading', then that depends on the extent to which any of us might feel that RC teaching is misleading in and of itself.
I'm not RC, but if I were RC then it's a truism that I wouldn't find it 'misleading'. If anything, I'd probably regard some of the 'enthusiastic' testimonies, prophecies and sharing of apparent experiences at your church to be potentially misleading.
I'm not suggesting that they are or aren't, by the way, but one of the reasons why a 'set' liturgy developed in the early centuries of the Christian church was partly to guard against error and heresy ... and you can see how it could perform that function in a time when there was mass illiteracy.
If you get a free-for-all ... and no churches, however apparently spontaneous they appear, goes in for a free-for-all, then the more opportunities there are for error.
Sure, a lot of ancient liturgies can creak though lack of unction, as it were, but at the same time they can provide checks and balances against whacky ideas. Of course, it doesn't mean that the priest, clergy-person, minister or leader is necessarily themselves free from error and heresy - but if they're delivering the 'set' liturgies or presiding over them in some way, then at least those can preserve and transmit the Truth.
At least, that's the theory.
I s'pose my own default position would be that I'm not really that bothered what people wear as long as:
- It arises naturally and organically out of their tradition.
- It isn't self-consciously trying to make a 'point' in some overt and in-your-face kind of way.
As it happens, I do like to see liturgical colours for the different 'seasons' of the church year and so on because I appreciate the symbolism and so forth. That doesn't mean I'd expect to see them in all churches and right across the board.
If I were to visit your Vineyard church, South Coast Kevin, I'd assess that on its own merits and in line and keeping with the particular tradition/expression it represents.
If I were to visit an RC church, I'd do the same.
As for whether the RCs are somehow misguided and dangerous in their definition of liturgy ... how is that we never hear the Pope, RC bishops, clergy etc denying the Trinity, the deity of Christ and other essential doctrines?
We've had any number of Protestant clergy and leaders - from the more liturgical and liturgy-lite traditions doing all of that and a lot more besides.
Who's being misleading and dangerous now?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting points, Utrecht Catholic ...
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 ?
Answer: Of course it does.
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.
Indeed, or, increasingly it seems to me, but ken disagrees, without surplice/alb and 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 ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
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 ]
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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 ? ...
In simple terms, No. Irrespective of what some clergy may individually attribute to the significance of what they do and do not wear, it remains, No.
Canon B 8.1
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.
The rest of that canon sets out the 'normative' range of what can and cannot be worn for which services. However, the statement above forces us to conclude that, irrespective of why they may choose to dress in any particular way, what people wear, is a matter of decency and good order, not of theology and ecclesiology.
I think we are also obliged to conclude that that not complying with the canon at all is indecency and bad order, not bad theology or ecclesiology, and does not invalidate any sacrament.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
It's not a circular argument because I've explained (and have covered similar ground in some of our previous discussions) why I think the conception of 'liturgy' as something done for the people is misleading and dangerous. You and others might disagree with me, and that's totally fine, but I really don't think my argument is circular.
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.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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?
Again, 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?"
Granted, most people are NOT faceblind. But there are more of us out there than you'd think. Also shortsighted, etc. I really appreciate uniforms of any sort, because they prevent me making an ass of myself in any number of settings.
[ 29. December 2013, 20:55: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My view on this one is more aesthetic than anything else ... nothing to do with whether we can 'recognise' the minister/priest leader etc.
If one is 'face-blind' then it might be different.
@Trisagion ... sorry to hear about your migraine. I hope you feel better soon.
Yes, I think I know what you're referring to about Christ praying in and through the liturgy - I've come across that in some of Thomas Merton's writings and I know the Orthodox have a similar view ... although I'd imagine theirs would be a tad less 'defined' than the Roman one.
Some Anglicans have a similar view of the Liturgy too, of course ...
It makes sense. I'd like to hear you expound it some more though.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On this ...
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?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Then why should this necessitate vestments necessarily?
I didn't argue that it did. I was commenting on the mid attribution of meaning to the word "Liturgy ". I don't believe that vestments are necessary.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - fair enough.
Then what would your view be on the purpose vestments serve, Trisagion?
To mark out the priest in some way?
Or to add to the symbolism and the aesthetic quality of the total worship experience ... if that doesn't sound like some kind of sensu-round cinematic thingummy ...
?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
We seem to have some who are posting about vestments being essential, and some about vestments being good practice.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, that's about the top and bottom of it. But we also have some who believe that they can be positively harmful ... if I read South Coast Kevin correctly ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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?
Neither, really. Certainly not the former! And your latter reason sounds a bit trivial, so I'd like to express it differently (while noting it might amount to something similar). 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.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I can see that, South Coast Kevin, but I'd imagine Trisagion would say that in the Liturgy it is ultimately Christ Himself who presides - both the Head and the Body.
He does that through everyone gathered there - not simply the clergy.
In sacramental theology, in both its Eastern and Western forms, the eucharist is where the Body of Christ is most perfectly expressed.
Indeed, the Orthodox put it that the Church 'becomes' the Church at the eucharist ... that is the point in space and time where the Church Militant joins mystically with the Church Triumphant in heaven.
The RCs will have a similar view, albeit expressed in different terms perhaps.
So when Trisagion says that the Liturgy is performed 'for' people he is saying it in a rather richer way than you (or I) might take him to mean ...
He's not talking about a dry performance. He's talking about Christ Himself working in and through the elements of the eucharist and the 'work' of the Liturgy to unite us mystically with himself ... and physically too as we partake of his Body and His Blood.
Can you see the difference?
It is a 'together' thing as through the eucharist and the Divine Mysteries that they both represent and convey that we are knit together - with one another and with the Godhead.
That's what he's trying to say, I think. And it's a pretty big deal.
It's not simply a bloke in a dress saying some magic words on behalf of everyone else.
It can be, of course, if that's what you want it to be. But if you accept, as he does, a more sacramental approach and the teachings of his particular Church then it becomes miraculous ... it becomes Heaven on earth.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - let's put it this 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.
Not if, like Trisagion, we believe that it is Christ who is serving the Liturgy. Yes, Christ Himself.
How does that in any way disempower the people who are not necessarily consecrating the elements?
If someone were to come to your church on Sunday and share a particular testimony, is that in any way disempowering the rest of the congregation who didn't share that particular testimony or had the experience that was related in the testimony?
No, of course it doesn't.
If I'm receiving Christ in the eucharist - whether understood figuratively or literally - how am I disempowered if it is someone else who is 'celebrating' and not me?
Surely it's the fact that I am receiving Christ from Christ - as it were - that is the most important thing?
I really don't see how this cuts across in any way the interaction/integration between one another that you are referring to.
That aspect might be expressed differently in a more sacramental and formally liturgical setting than it is in your church ... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
My old Great Aunt Nell was house-bound for much of her life and the vicar used to take her communion at home where she spent most of her time on a couch. Did that disempower her? Did it somehow disempower the other people who attended the parish church that she would have attended had she been able to do so?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Gamaliel, you've used 541 words in total to reply to my 94, so forgive me for just responding to part of what you've just posted!
I'm not meaning to downplay the significance of Communion / the Eucharist, and anyway this is all a bit of a sidetrack from the original question about vestments. Let me just say that, whatever our precise conception of what is happening at the Eucharist, 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'd like to pick up on comments a few people have made about how these discussions are very insular and would make no sense at all to the vast majority of unchurched people. This is an important point, I think; if we want to say to newcomers 'This is how it's done' (regarding anything in our practices / traditions) then I reckon we need to have a good, clear explanation as to why that is.
On the specific case of vestments, I think the argument for their necessity has to be a pretty compelling one, because of all the negatives - they set certain people apart in some way when we're all supposed to be equals, they encourage a provider / receiver mentality, they make Christianity look desperately old-fashioned...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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:
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:
...they encourage a provider / receiver mentality...
Even better, so far as the Christian Faith is concerned, where Christ offers freely and we receive in faith.
quote:
...they make Christianity look desperately old-fashioned...
We do worship the Ancient of Days.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
Fair enough, although I prefer to think of the church service as a more organic outflowing of the people's ongoing life with God.
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.
I meant equality among the people, as I did with the provider / receiver mentality. For sure, we receive in faith from Christ but my point is that we all receive in the same way, without a human intermediary. And having some people wearing vestments at least makes me think those people are different in some way and are doing something for me that I can't do myself. Finally, would my point about making Christianity look old-fashioned have been clearer if I added 'and therefore irrelevant to people today'?
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.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, wearing vestments marks some people out as special,
Yes, that's right.
quote:
. . . as doing something which others are not permitted or not qualified to do.
Yes, that's right.
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.
It isn't the vestments that are divisive but the fact that some are sacramentally set apart to represent Christ the High Priest, that is to make Him sacramentally present and that some are not. There is one body but different members. It is that simple reality that is what you choose to call divisive - I might want to say "differentiated".
If you feel that vestments give the message that some are permitted or qualified to do something that you are not, then they've done at least part of what they are intended to do. If the fact that you are not permitted or qualified to do those things upsets you, then you need to take that up with the Lord, who appears not yet to have called you to that ministry in the Catholic Church.
As for the other purposes of vestments: Zach82's suggestions of seemliness and beauty are pretty much what I'd want to say.
If you don't buy-in to the whole sacramental way of viewing the world then you are bound to find this difficult. But I'd also suggest that you then have other problems, however, which are rather more fundamental: such as how we encounter Christ after his ascension, except in an extrinsic and subjective manner. That might be enough for you: I think it fails to take seriously account of our bodily nature and collapses the beautiful complexity of the Church's anthropological teaching into something hollowed out and distortedly one-dimensional.
[ 30. December 2013, 11:42: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Trisagion, you're absolutely right. I don't agree with the idea or the necessity of some people being 'sacramentally set apart to represent Christ the High Priest', so I don't accept the need for vestments to represent this.
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).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I actually don't think much of the language of "qualification" for the sacramental priesthood. Priesthood isn't really about being more educated, more pastoral or holier than others, though of course all those are important. The qualification of priesthood doesn't mean priests are of a higher quality than other Christians. Holy Orders, like any other sacrament, points to the work of God, and in ordination God promises that, when this particular person celebrates the liturgy, Jesus becomes present to the congregation in a special way.
Vestments do not symbolize the holiness or the charism of the priest. On the contrary, they disguise his or her lack of worthiness for the office.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Is the anthropological aspect a subject for another thread?
It seems that we have two irreconcilable viewpoints here.
On the one hand, South Coast Kevin believes that there is something 'dangerous' in the sacramental viewpoints expressed by Trisagion - and that's a bigger issue than the use or non-use of vestments.
On the other, Trisagion believes that SCK's approach to the ascended Christ is somehow 'deficient' and verging on the one-dimensional because it is not as 'realised' in a physical sense ie. not tied in so explicitly with a particular sacrament or ordinance.
As an Anglican, of course, I'm floating in some kind of half-way house position between Trisagion's and Kevin's.
Meanwhile, I'd agree with Zach82 that clerical office or functions in no way betoken greater levels of holiness, knowledge, worthiness or anything else.
On the vestments thing, I don't get particularly upset if they aren't present but I do think there is something in their use as a 'leveller' - as per the choir robes and the farmers' pongy milking or mucking out clothes in the example I gave earlier ...
The main reason for justifying their use, I'd suggest, is the aesthetic one.
I don't have an issue with SCK's church not having vestments - it's none of my business whether they do or not - but I doubt they'd be completely free of aesthetic sensibilities. I'd imagine there'd be some form of decoration somewhere ... whether in the form of banners or whatever else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Is it just me but is the following missing the point to some extent?
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?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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 ...
I don't see a causal link between downgrading the Eucharist and emphasising home groups, to be honest. Surely you can have a strong emphasis on Communion while also doing a lot of pastoral care, accountability and so on through house groups? And conversely, there must be plenty of churches that emphasise things other than the Eucharist (preaching, for example) while not going in for home groups at all.
My reference to house groups was just to explain the basis of my church considering that I'm 'qualified' (or permitted, if you prefer) to preside at and / or assist with Communion at one of our services.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
