|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bye bye vestments?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, there isn't necessarily a causal link. You can have a 'high' view of the eucharist and still have home-groups.
I understood the point you were making, but I'm not sure you've understood the one that Trisagion was making.
He's effectively saying that Christ is offering Himself to us through the eucharist and that is something of an entirely different order to what may or may not go on in house-groups.
It's like comparing apples and pears or chocolate and coal.
Sure, Christ can minister to and through each one of us in a home-group setting, but Trisagion is saying that as far as the RC Church is concerned Christ can only be offered to us through the eucharist via the means he has ordained.
In crude terms, you'd have to be a Catholic to know what he was talking about whereas he doesn't have to be a Vineyard-y type to know what you're referring to in terms of house-groups.
I know that's not a satisfactory explanation, but there it is. His approach makes perfect sense in the context of a highly developed sacramental theology.
Your approach makes perfect sense in the absence of that.
All I was suggesting was that in the absence of a highly developed sacramental approach, churches like yours are inevitably going to put something else centre-stage. In your particular case it'll be house-groups and the support/nurturing structures that these provide.
In other settings, as you say, it'll be preaching or something else.
The point I was struggling to make wasn't about house-groups particularly, but what we do or don't do in the absence of a highly developed sacramental theology or system.
I'm not saying that such a system is the be-all and end-all ... although I might if I were Trisagion, simply that if you don't have such a system you are going to substitute something else in its place.
I'm not against house-groups any more than I'm 'for' or against vestments. I happen to like vestments. If I'm attending a communion service in an Anglican setting, I'd prefer to see them. If they're not there I roll my eyes and wonder why they think the absence of such things is any more cool, trendy or contemporary than their presence - and why they think it matters.
If I attended a communion service in a Baptist church or a Vineyard church or similar then no, I wouldn't be expecting to see vestments and I wouldn't be 'disappointed' that they weren't there - any more than if I watched a Western film on the telly I'd be disappointed if there weren't any Romans or Ancient Greeks in it.
--------------------
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 Zach82:
I actually don't think much of the language of "qualification" for the sacramental priesthood.
Neither do I but it was the language SCK chose to use, so I thought I'd use it in response to him, since he clearly sees it in those terms.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I actually don't think much of the language of "qualification" for the sacramental priesthood.
Neither do I but it was the language SCK chose to use, so I thought I'd use it in response to him, since he clearly sees it in those terms.
Heh, I suspect you know enough real life priests to not be fooled by a fancy frock, nu? ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Just a question about Anglican canons:
Does TEC or ACCAN regulate clerical dress? Can a priest celebrate Mass in civies in church in the US or Canada?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Just a question about Anglican canons:
Does TEC or ACCAN regulate clerical dress? Can a priest celebrate Mass in civies in church in the US or Canada?
I don't think so for TEC—least I didn't see anything when I flipped through the BCP or the Canons.
Even without said canons, it's almost unheard of for a priest to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday without vestments, if our friends in the CoE were wondering what would happen. Hip priests putting on a do for the youths for an evening service, on the other hand...
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Just a question about Anglican canons:
Does TEC or ACCAN regulate clerical dress? Can a priest celebrate Mass in civies in church in the US or Canada?
There is no canon respecting clerical dress, so teh BCP rubric on page lvi referring to the ornaments of the ministers being as of the second year of Edward VI would seem to be the rule. Forests have died over whether or not this means surplice and likely cope, or chasubles & maniples etc., but IMHO it would exclude golf shirts and chinos.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I am curious to know what people think might happen if Synod agree to this change.
Nothing at all. Everyone will carry on doing what they already do.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
When did Chasubles and Maniples actually stop being used in the C of E? I assume they were brought back under Mary I, but with the Elizabethan Settlement were they quickly swept away and replaced with surplices and copes only? Or was there argument about what was worn in the second year of Edward VI's reign even then? When did the surplice (and cope in some places) become the norm? I know Puritans were refusing to wear vestments the whole time but I am more interested in when the "higher" vestments stopped being used. Did miters, croziers, stoles, etc., disappear at the same time?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Pretty much none of that survived the reign of Elizabeth. There were some odd goings-on on one or two cathedrals, and in royal chapels, but on the whole it was all out of the window for four hundred years, Neil the second (or third) phase of the Anglo Catholic movement at the end of the 19th century.
The rule about doing things as in the time of Edward was used permisssively, to argue that such vestments were not in fact illegal. It was not used prescriptively - in practice almost no Anglican clergy wore anything like catholic Eucharistic vestments for four centuries.
FWIW I think croziers may have survived as a symbol of a bishop. But then shepherds crooks were ordinary tools of a secular trade in those days.
I don't know when surpluses came in. They may never have gone completely out. Though I guess their near universality would have been a late 19th century thing. Not sure. Am not at home now - I have some books there that might have clues to that question.
[ 31. December 2013, 00:15: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Surplices never really died out-- I have seen them in engravings and images of clergy from the Elizabethan period, 17c and 18c, as well as from the late Hanoverian period. Often cassocks were not worn undenearth them, and the cleric simply put his surplice on over his apron.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The Puritans were actually opposed to surplices and copes—chasubles were long gone by the time they became their own group.
Surplice, tippet, and cap were the "official" uniform from Elizabeth on, with a cope when the priest was feeling fancy dancy. Bishops wore a rochet and chimere.
[ 31. December 2013, 01:44: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I oughtter add that, at some point, Geneva gowns with bands became the norm for preaching. The surplice was for communion. Especially when the archdeacon was looking. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Even without said canons, it's almost unheard of for a priest to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday without vestments, if our friends in the CoE were wondering what would happen.
We do have an annual visit to a local park for an outdoor Mass, where the congregation and onlookers are "treated" to the sight of the priest in Hawaiian shirt, shorts and stole.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, there isn't necessarily a causal link. You can have a 'high' view of the eucharist and still have home-groups.
I understood the point you were making, but I'm not sure you've understood the one that Trisagion was making.
He's effectively saying that Christ is offering Himself to us through the eucharist and that is something of an entirely different order to what may or may not go on in house-groups.
Okay, I get that. But I still don't understand why vestments are necessary, even with this understanding of what's going on at the Eucharist. And I say if one's theology doesn't require vestments at the Eucharist (or, for that matter, at any other church service / gathering / event) then let's do away with them because they send unhelpful messages - that church and faith are anachronistic, and that church services are about some people doing things for the rest of us, with those others being more or less passive recipients.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Okay, I get that. But I still don't understand why vestments are necessary, even with this understanding of what's going on at the Eucharist. And I say if one's theology doesn't require vestments at the Eucharist (or, for that matter, at any other church service / gathering / event) then let's do away with them because they send unhelpful messages - that church and faith are anachronistic, and that church services are about some people doing things for the rest of us, with those others being more or less passive recipients.
This repeated claim that they send unhelpful messages needs to be justified. You can't simply assert it as fact without some supporting evidence - particularly since the differentiation they symbolise seems to be accepted without creating a manifest feeling of exclusion in those parts of Christianity which make up fully three-quarters of Christians worldwide.
As for anachronism: Christianity is anachronistic. The Church is both synchronic and diachronic and its capacity to evangelise doesn't seem to have been compromised by the use of ancient forms for her liturgy. In fact, such efforts as she has made to express the faith liturgically in the Zeitgeist seem to have appealed to a very narrow demographic.
The "some people" are doing something for the rest of us: they are sacramentally representing Christ the Head of His Body the Church, as his Paschal Sacrifice is offered to the Father. The laity's non-ministerial, full, conscious and active participation is bound to be different and largely internal - consisting largely in uniting our sacrifices and sufferings with those of the One they have pierced. Short of being crucified sinless, what more can we do?
Face it, SCK: this is about your personal taste. You don't like vestments because you believe that they are divisive, can't see the difference between a differentiated community expressing that differentiation in visible symbol and an exclusive caste system propping-up its oppression with sumptuary laws and think that generally these things evoke the same effect on others as they do on you. You adduce no evidence in support of your contentions other than to repeat them and you take no account of the fact that the vast, vast majority of Christians simply don't see it that way. Might that be because the specific predilections and circumstances that give rise to your tastes are simply not shared by most Christians.
[ 31. December 2013, 09:49: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Read what Trisagion actually wrote, South Coast Kevin.
Back up the thread, Trisagion said this in response to a question from me:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Then why should this necessitate vestments necessarily?
Trisagion:
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.
--
So, you see, Trisagion isn't saying that they are 'necessary' insofar that a Catholic Mass would be invalid without them. No, as it happens I'd imagine that in extremis plenty of Catholic Masses have been celebrated without the full kit and caboodle ... in prison camps, during times of persecution etc etc.
Neither, if you read their remarks properly, are Zach82 (US Episcopalian) and Trisagion (RC) saying that clergy are somehow 'better', more 'worthy' or more 'qualified' or whatever else than anyone else is. In fact, they've made it quite clear on several posts that they don't believe this to be the case.
The only person here, it seems to me, who is insisting of reading nefarious qualities into the wearing of vestments is your good self ...
You are so convinced that they introduce some kind of division or unhealthy demarcation that you insist on maintaining that position despite the protestations of everyone else here who is cool about the practice, who belong to churches where these things are done and who ought, if anyone should, to know whether there are deleterious results ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Perhaps it is best considering this as an issue of "causing your brother to stumble". If the lack of vestments is inducing your fellow Christians to be irreverent and casual about the Eucharist, then perhaps you need them. If, on the other hand, the use of vestments is encouraging an idolising of the priesthood then they need to be dialled back.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Perhaps it is best considering this as an issue of "causing your brother to stumble". If the lack of vestments is inducing your fellow Christians to be irreverent and casual about the Eucharist, then perhaps you need them. If, on the other hand, the use of vestments is encouraging an idolising of the priesthood then they need to be dialled back.
Perhaps my brother is stumbling because he refuses to pick his feet up when he walks, or to look where he's going: perhaps the cause has nothing to do with the vestments and everything to do with something else altogether.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In fairness, Trisagion, I think SCK's objections are deeper than purely grounds of personal taste ... and are based on personal conviction.
I can sympathise because, and I don't mean this to be patronising, they are convictions I would once have shared.
It isn't for me to tell SCK what to do, but a suggestion I would make and humbly punt in his direction would be for him to judge different Christian traditions and practices on their own merits ... rather than necessarily filtering them through his own perceptions and second-guesses.
We all do that to a certain extent.
I'm not saying I'm any 'better' at this than he is, but it helps to bear context and tradition and theology in mind whenever we encounter groups outside our own tradition or comfort-zones.
I attended the RC Easter Vigil this year. Having been to Orthodox Easter Vigils I was able to make comparisons with that, but I didn't sit there making comparisons with, say, a Pentecostal service or a Reformed Baptist service or a Vineyard service ...
Why not?
Because that wouldn't have been to compare like with like.
If I were 'assessing' or 'evaluating' it then it would have been on its own terms to the extent that I understand or apprehend them.
I didn't go in and see the priest and the deacon and others robed up and think, 'Look at those bastards ... they think they're better than me because they've got vestments on ...'
Nor did I think, 'Look at this, it's terrible, they have introduced a clergy/laity divide and it's impossible for anyone else to participate in the service other than in a passive way ...'
As it happened, plenty of people were involved in the service in some way or other - giving readings, helping with the distribution of the elements etc. There was even a quite touching moment when they paused to congratulate a couple who were celebrating a remarkably impressive wedding anniversary as they'd been married a gazillion years.
Equally, if I were to attend a service at SCK's church I wouldn't look at his senior pastor and think, 'Look at that bastard ... who does he think he is? I bet he hasn't even been to a 'proper' seminary and he's so laid-back he's wearing a polo-shirt and chinos instead of surplice and cope ...'
No, I'd assess what went on in its terms insofar as I understood them.
We need another thread on the anthropology aspect.
And the accusation that churches like SCK's take a one-dimensional approach ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I know we're straying off the question of vestments but I do have a question for SCK to finish this tangent ...
Part of the value of the eucharist for me (however we administer these things) is that it 'grounds' us in someway in the wider Christian narrative - it focusses us on the central core of the 'Christ event' - in those terms there is an objectivity about it that remains and conveys grace effectively irrespective of how good, bad, naff or embarrassing anything else that takes place in the service may happen to be.
My question for Kevin is, how does your church maintain that sense of objectivity if the prime focus is on small groups where people are encouraged to share testimonies, experiences and so on that may vary considerably in quality and may lack that objective standard?
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Perhaps my brother is stumbling because he refuses to pick his feet up when he walks, or to look where he's going: perhaps the cause has nothing to do with the vestments and everything to do with something else altogether.
Oh, certainly. There's a reason there's an "if" in my suggestion.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'Who can discern his errors?'
As someone who would have argued along very similar lines to SCK at one point, I'm reluctant to lay any deficiency to his charge.
That said, I do find it intriguing that he persists in regarding these things as 'dangerous' and misguided even though plenty of people here have posted to say that they don't see them as badges of 'meritocracy' nor of 'divisiveness' (although 'differentiation' perhaps).
It's as if to acknowledge that this might be the case would be to take out a central keystone and the whole edifice of SCK's theology and perception of church would collapse ...
I know he doesn't think that way, but that's how it's coming across. To me at least.
--------------------
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
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
As for anachronism: Christianity is anachronistic. The Church is both synchronic and diachronic.
And I thought you were going to say that the Church is just chronic...
As a civil servant I have a 'uniform' of suit and tie, though this is not actually a requirement of the job. It's a sign of both the times and my age that there are fewer and fewer of my colleagues wearing this 'uniform', even in meetings with outside interests. People often don't want to acknowledge others' authority or power (both used loosely in my case) so meeting and office etiquette has become much more informal. This may or may not be a long term change, but it has been gathering pace in the UK since the 1960s and possibly since 1945.
Upthread there was a comment about paramedic uniform. While that remains and is identifiable, it is greatly changed from 20 or so years ago when ambulance and fire service uniform was jacket, tie and cap - much like that of the police. The green jumpsuits are as much to say 'we are not police' as to say 'we are paramedics', and are meant to be functional above anything else. The same has happened to nurses' uniforms over the same time. Meanwhile, the doctor's 'uniform' of suit, tie and white coat has almost entirely disappeared due to infection control - you can now only tell who is a doctor because she is the only one not wearing a uniform!
This leaves clergy as outliers where uniforms are concerned in the Western world - I'm not qualified to comment on attitudes in the larger part of the planet. In a complex world, perhaps only the clerical collar acts as a day-to-day identifier of a priest. As for vestments, they can hardly be described as 'functional' in the normal sense, though I can accept Trisagion's argument of 'ritual functionality' where the vestments have their own meaning and function as part of the Eucharistic celebration.
I would prefer to celebrate the Eucharist dressed as simply as possible. I tend to feel that the vestments, particularly the chasuble, make me the centre of attention - me, not 'the priest' - and I would prefer the focus to be on Christ rather than myself. Many of my congregants would argue otherwise (Church in Wales has a tendency to be high, as all the 'low' ones had plenty of choice of chapels in the past!). I also accept that my RC heritage is probably something I try to leave behind me to a great extent.
So put me down for functional and simple means of identification, rather than complex signals through vestments and colours and so on.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, there isn't necessarily a causal link. You can have a 'high' view of the eucharist and still have home-groups.
I understood the point you were making, but I'm not sure you've understood the one that Trisagion was making.
He's effectively saying that Christ is offering Himself to us through the eucharist and that is something of an entirely different order to what may or may not go on in house-groups.
Okay, I get that. But I still don't understand why vestments are necessary ...
God help us when we reduce worship to what is "necessary"! I think this comment illustrates quite perfectly the functionalist/minimalist mindset driving these changes. We can make do without it, therefore we ought to, lest people start to Christianity actually requires us to step outside of the bubble of our assumptions about the world and modernity!
What about giving our best to God, not grudgingly when it's "necessary" because we can't avoid it, but extravagantly, even seemingly foolishly, because we want to, and because we could not ever possibly run the risk of over-giving?
[ 31. December 2013, 12:49: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Who was it that said that being 20 years out of date looks far worse than being 2,000 years out of date? Which sums up quite nicely how I feel about "anachronism." When the Church tries to be with-it and totally up-to-date, it usually fails miserably.
The Church trying to be up to day results in churches like this.
[ 31. December 2013, 13:06: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Richard M
Apprentice
# 16447
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Most Anglicans probably wouldn't recognise a subdeacon if one bit them on the bum.
One can tell when a subdeacon bites one on the bum as they will be wearing a tunicle.
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Or a humeral veil.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
For me, the whole point of robing is that, like an actor getting dressed in costume, one is assuming a role. I am a Reader (Licensed Lay Minister) and I find it helps one to be able to 'Speak with authority'.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
When the ritualists reintroduced eucharistic vestments, they were making a statement which has already been made by the Oxford Movement - that the C of E is the continuation of the Catholic Church in this land and that its priests intend to do what the church intends to do when offering the Holy Sacrifice.
The chasuble has been the vestment for offering mass for 16 centuries.
I am wary when the chasuble is not worn - when alb and stole seem to suffice.
I shall be even more wary if vestments, robes even, become optional.
I have been only once to a mass celebrated in lounge suit (apart from house masses) and know a bishop who takes confirmations in a lounge suit. Both people concerned do not believe that the C of E is catholic (except in the wider sense as meant in the creeds).
If synod votes to make robes optional, it is yet one more example of creeping protestantism.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, ken and others would argue that since the Oxford Movement, it's been a case of 'creeping Catholicism', Leo.
![[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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Yes and no.
We (catholic types) perceive that the evangelicals are taking over.
The 'old style' evangelicals of the 1950s obeyed the rubrics and canons, were steeped in scripture and followed the prayer book.
The 'new breed' don't seem to have Holy Communion every Sunday, only use short quotations from scripture on PowerPoint.... O, I won't go on about it as it is still Christmas!
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
And not getting started on that would be a very good idea... *hint hint*
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
For me, the whole point of robing is that, like an actor getting dressed in costume, one is assuming a role. I am a Reader (Licensed Lay Minister) and I find it helps one to be able to 'Speak with authority'.
What makes the role? The person or the "costume"? Am I less of a preacher because I preach with a jacket and tie I n a Baptist church? What would change if I became an Anglican minister who preached wearing vestments? (By the way, I'm really the only person who wears a jacket and tie here so all the arguments on vestments marking "difference" do apply!)
beware too that it might help to assume a role for some but be the end (not the means) for others.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
For me, the whole point of robing is that, like an actor getting dressed in costume, one is assuming a role. I am a Reader (Licensed Lay Minister) and I find it helps one to be able to 'Speak with authority'.
What makes the role? The person or the "costume"? Am I less of a preacher because I preach with a jacket and tie I n a Baptist church? What would change if I became an Anglican minister who preached wearing vestments? (By the way, I'm really the only person who wears a jacket and tie here so all the arguments on vestments marking "difference" do apply!)
beware too that it might help to assume a role for some but be the end (not the means) for others.
The grant of a licence to preach in an Anglican Church means you are speaking on behalf of the Church, which ought to mean you take some recognisance of the doctrines of that Church. At a basic level, that ought to preclude preaching Anabaptism. You, personally, might hold those views, and you would have every right to express them but you should not do so from the pulpit. Vestments are a sign that you speak and act with the authority of the church. Consequently, when I lead a service in church, I do not robe as I have no licence to lead worship or to preach.
[ 01. January 2014, 08:49: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
beware too that it might help to assume a role for some but be the end (not the means) for others.
Something tells me that the suspicion expressed in this little remark might hold the key to many of the objections expressed on this thread.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
This repeated claim that [vestments] send unhelpful messages needs to be justified. You can't simply assert it as fact without some supporting evidence - particularly since the differentiation they symbolise seems to be accepted without creating a manifest feeling of exclusion in those parts of Christianity which make up fully three-quarters of Christians worldwide.
Many things have been accepted by the majority of people for many centuries, but that doesn't make them right. Without meaning to draw any direct parallels with wearing vestments, most people (most Christians!) accepted slavery until, what, a few hundred years ago. Women can now be ordained in the Church of England. There are now laws against cruelty to animals. Things which were once accepted by the vast majority of people can fall out of favour and become socially unacceptable.
I know most Christians are content with their ministers wearing vestments, but I still think it's divisive and unhelpful. I'm not sure what evidence I could offer, really. My argument is (I think!) based on logic; the wearing of vestments sets some people apart in some way, which I consider to be a fundamental breach of the equality of all believers under Christ. People have different roles, skills, and preferences, of course, but I think marking some of those people out as distinctive by the wearing of special clothes is contrary to the New Testament. Sorry...
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Face it, SCK: this is about your personal taste. You don't like vestments because you believe that they are divisive, can't see the difference between a differentiated community expressing that differentiation in visible symbol and an exclusive caste system propping-up its oppression with sumptuary laws and think that generally these things evoke the same effect on others as they do on you.
Sorry, I don't think it's personal taste. It's my take on the New Testament. And I'm not saying clergy form an exclusive caste who oppress the lowly peasants. I have no doubt that most clergy are good people trying to follow Christ as best they can (as are most non-clergy Christians). I just think the wearing of vestments (and the whole clergy-laity distinction) is something the early Christians picked up from their surrounding culture but isn't to be found in the New Testament, and indeed cuts across the message therein.
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And so SCK and his happy band march off towards the Kingdom, blissfully aware that among the whole host of Heaven, they are the only ones marching in step ....
I don't doubt that your views are sincere and that you are a good Christian (see: I can do the damning with faint praise thing, too, just as you did in your remarks about the clergy), but I think that a consideration of the Church-Sect typology might help us all understand the difference between, say, your Vineyard church and sya the CofE, and how vestments/ robes or their absence reflect wider understandings of the nature of the ecclesial body.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And so SCK and his happy band march off towards the Kingdom, blissfully aware that among the whole host of Heaven, they are the only ones marching in step ....
One could have said the same about the first anti-slavery campaigners (again, I don't mean to imply equivalence between slavery and vestment-wearing). The majority view on any particular issue is not automatically the correct view.
As for damning with faint praise, that really wasn't my intention so I'm sorry that's how it came across. How would you prefer I rephrased my praise of clergy-folk?
--------------------
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
You're actually going to pitch the idea that wearing a fourth century poncho at mass is a moral evil condemned by the Holy Scriptures? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
OK, SCK, I drop what i said about damning with faint praise- that was just a bit of gratuitous snarkiness, I'm afraid. But by bringing up the slavery thing again, implying a moral equivalence is exactly what you are doing. I believe that vestments/ robes matter because they say something about the status of the minister (that is, that what they do, sacramentally and in leading worship, they do by the authority vested - useful dual meaning there, now I think of it- in them, not because they necessarily have any particular virtues of their own - which is what Article XXVI of the 39 Articles is about). But I don't doubt that everything would be there in the essentials if the minister were stark bollock naked. In that sense, vestments are important but they are not a first order issue. Now, you might of course argue that slavery is also not necessarily a first order issue if the most important thing is our status in the eyes of God and of our fellow Christians, but most would agree that it is a good deal more important than what the minister wears. In fact, you are, paradoxically, making the wearing of vestments/ robes out to be much mnore important than many of those who disagree with you would say that it is.
[ 01. January 2014, 14:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You're actually going to pitch the idea that wearing a fourth century poncho at mass is a moral evil condemned by the Holy Scriptures?
It's not hard to find the idea in Scripture that wearing bling that makes you look more important than other people is a Bad Thing.
The argument here is not that posh ponchos are dated. It is whether or not they mark the wearer as set aside for some elite status. Expensive suits could be just as bad. Or gold braid, or military uniforms, or ermine robes.
People who habitually attend churches where vestments are used will mostly no longer notice them. People who don't - that is the vast majority - will find them odd and likely interpret the as marks of status. So its really an insider/outsider split, not a traditionalist/modernist one.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It's not hard to find the idea in Scripture that wearing bling that makes you look more important than other people is a Bad Thing.
The argument here is not that posh ponchos are dated. It is whether or not they mark the wearer as set aside for some elite status. Expensive suits could be just as bad. Or gold braid, or military uniforms, or ermine robes.
It's also not hard to find extremely detailed descriptions of priestly garments.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Albertus - I'm really sorry that I'm still not expressing myself clearly, but I don't mean to say that slavery and wearing vestments are equivalently bad. My parallel is merely that slavery was once accepted by most people (including most Christians) so the argument against my view (that the wearing of vestments is not in God's will) which is based on force of numbers is not a valid one. Defenders of slavery could have used exactly the same argument.
Zach82 - I wouldn't use the phrase 'moral evil' but, yes, I do think God's will is that nobody wears vestments in church services. I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but can you at least see the basis for my view?
EDIT:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's also not hard to find extremely detailed descriptions of priestly garments.
In the Old Testament, of course. I think that's a significant point.
[ 01. January 2014, 14:22: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm not expecting you to agree with me,
Why not? Don't you think believing in the will of God is important?
quote:
but can you at least see the basis for my view?
No. I can't.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
In the Old Testament, of course. I think that's a significant point.
So what. It can hardly be against God's will to wear vestments when he commanded Moses to deck out Aaron with a bejeweled ephod with a curious girdle.
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You're actually going to pitch the idea that wearing a fourth century poncho at mass is a moral evil condemned by the Holy Scriptures?
It's not hard to find the idea in Scripture that wearing bling that makes you look more important than other people is a Bad Thing.
The argument here is not that posh ponchos are dated. It is whether or not they mark the wearer as set aside for some elite status.
Separate or distinct status, not an elite one. A person who has been commissioned to exercise their Christian ministry in a particular way with certain defined responsibilities -and, yes, (legal-rational, perhaps with a dash of traditional) authority- within the Church. But most certainly not personally a better or holier or more important Christian than those in the pews.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I think pretty much everyone would agree that donning vestments to show how you are better than everyone else is bad.
What I take issue with is the idea that wearing anachronistic, ornate garments is necessarily a mark of hypocritical piety.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm not expecting you to agree with me,
Why not? Don't you think believing in the will of God is important?
I just meant that you'd already expressed strong disagreement with my view so I wasn't expecting you to change your mind just based on a few sentences from some guy on the internet. That's all. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It can hardly be against God's will to wear vestments when he commanded Moses to deck out Aaron with a bejeweled ephod with a curious girdle.
But there are loads of things God apparently commanded in the Old Testament that Christians no longer think apply. For a start, there are many elements of OT practice that Jesus, Paul etc. explicitly repudiated. We Christians can't use solely 'it's in the Old Testament' as a basis for anything, can we?
--------------------
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:
But there are loads of things God apparently commanded in the Old Testament that Christians no longer think apply. For a start, there are many elements of OT practice that Jesus, Paul etc. explicitly repudiated. We Christians can't use solely 'it's in the Old Testament' as a basis for anything, can we?
I am not arguing that the commandments on priestly attire apply to Christians. I am arguing that those passage are evidence that there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing priestly vestments.
Do you think God commanded Aaron and his sons, and all Israelite priests thereafter, to sin?
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Well, the sheer extent of the detail in the OT regarding the high priestly garments does rather baffle me! Anyway, in the OT the priests clearly were some kind of intermediary between God and the people as a whole. But that arrangement is set aside in the NT, God now interacting with all people directly (although with the community of God's people still being immensely important; I'm no individualist).
The birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus all signalled a change in how God deals with people, so some things (many things, ISTM) which God formerly commanded are now outside of his will. I'd put wearing vestments down as one of these things.
--------------------
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
