|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bye bye vestments?
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem is, SCK, that we can all look at other church services and find something that isn't in the NT and point to it has having no Biblical* or NT justification. Picking on vestments, which have a long history in the church and date from when many of the early Eucharistic services and their features were formalised is possibly not one of the best ones to choose. The NT is very sketchy. Some of the ideas as to how early services were run come from traditional observances in the Orthodox church believed to be earlier than the written histories and to date back to the early church.
* And as you know, vestments are even dodgier to prove no Biblical justification as there's OT justification.
† RC and next door, and being CofE I can't receive the sacrament
I'm only picking on vestments because this thread is about vestments! That doesn't mean I think vestments are a uniquely horrific thing or that their abolishment would usher in the age to come. Nothing remotely like that.
I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to with the Orthodox Church traditional observances. Can you or anyone else point me towards anything online about that claim of how their practices date back to the early church?
As for the Old Testament use of vestments, I've deliberately been going on about the New Testament because there's clearly a radical change from OT to NT when it comes to right worship of Yahweh. OT - temple, animal sacrifice, Levitical priesthood. NT - no specific place, the sacrifice is of our lives in service to God and people, we are all a royal priesthood. I don't think the OT use of vestments tells us anything about what we should do nowadays, to be honest.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Most of what I know about the Orthodox Church I learnt on the Ship. I'll start a new thread on it rather than take this one off on even more of a tangent.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
As for the Old Testament use of vestments, I've deliberately been going on about the New Testament because there's clearly a radical change from OT to NT when it comes to right worship of Yahweh. OT - temple, animal sacrifice, Levitical priesthood. NT - no specific place, the sacrifice is of our lives in service to God and people, we are all a royal priesthood. I don't think the OT use of vestments tells us anything about what we should do nowadays, to be honest.
Some historical problems with that...First, it is known that the first Apostles went to the Temple to pray (Peter, John, Paul...). Second, one has to deal with the changing face of Judaism during the NT time frame. The Jews already had synagogues (developed during the Exile when they weren't allowed to go to Jerusalem), and the destruction of the temple around 70 AD which ended the Levitical priesthood and therefore forced change (which luckily, the Diaspora already had a template for with the Exile). It's easy to think of Judaism as unchanging, but it's changed quite a bit from Abram to Moses to Jesus' time to today.
To believe that the Christian church should be unchanging from say 33 AD to today, is not taking into account changing circumstances (modern technology for one), or revelation from the Holy Spirit (for another).
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
When I attend a Communion Service/Eucharist/Lord's Supper, I hope that God will provide something for me to feed upon. How the person serving that food is dressed will depend upon the nature of the eating place. My preference is, surely, a matter between me and God; it is not necessary for all to be the same. God, after all, made us all different. Whether we prefer posh or plain, surely God is still there. Get over it.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
To believe that the Christian church should be unchanging from say 33 AD to today, is not taking into account changing circumstances (modern technology for one), or revelation from the Holy Spirit (for another).
Good job I don't believe the Christian church should be unchanging then! What I'm saying is that the New Testament gives us some guiding principles which we then have to interpret for our own context. So, if we think church services should include some reading of the Bible, we can happily use modern technology (e.g. books, digital projectors, even e-books) and modern translations unless there's a good reason not to do so in our specific context (e.g. if your gathering place has unreliable electricity then going low tech might be wise).
As for the first Christians gathering at the Temple, presumably that's because they saw themselves as Jews and wanted to convince their fellow Jews that Jesus was the longed-for messiah. Once it became clear that many Jews didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah and didn't want anything to do with the Jesus-followers, the latter stopped meeting at the Temple.
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
When I attend a Communion Service/Eucharist/Lord's Supper, I hope that God will provide something for me to feed upon. How the person serving that food is dressed will depend upon the nature of the eating place. My preference is, surely, a matter between me and God; it is not necessary for all to be the same. God, after all, made us all different. Whether we prefer posh or plain, surely God is still there. Get over it.
I'm not talking about posh or plain, I'm saying that your fundamental view of church services differs from mine. Sorry... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) IMO we gather together to receive from God and from one another, while your view seems to be that (at least in part) you are going specifically to receive from the vestmented person, or from God via the vestmented person, I should probably say.
Anyhow, given your view, I see why you're happy with vestments; they indicate the function of the person with the special responsibility. Whereas I think we should all have a similar responsibility (to encourage, challenge and strengthen one another in our faith), albeit one which gets expressed in different ways according to the skills, gifts and character of each person.
--------------------
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
Reference to vaguely Christian sounding principles does not constitute substantiation, SCK. The only communication difficulty we're having is your inability to give a solid argument.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
There is another thread on which discussion is had about whether Jesus 'chatted' or even smiled.
I don't think we should be allowed to chat before or after the service.
Neither should we smile.
well, we don't know if Jesus did and if we do we run the risk of people misunderstanding what we're smiling about and even marginalising those who don't get to know what you're smiling about - it could be rude!
Best to cut it out altogether in case of misunderstanding.
Just face the front, shut up and show no emotion, no interest and certainly nothing that might suggest you know something they don't!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
What is the history of the rochet and chimere worn by Anglican bishops? Were they part of Choir dress before the Reformation? If not, where did they come from? Secular dress? Academic or legal dress? How did they become asociated with bishops?
I could ask the same questions about the tippett/preaching scarf, preaching bands, and the Canterbury cap. Were they ecclesiastical vestments before the Reformation? If so, how were they used? If not, where did they come from?
Was the tippett related to the stole at all? Were preaching bands related to the tab that in later centuries would be in clerical collars?
[ 02. January 2014, 15:39: Message edited by: stonespring ]
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What is the history of the rochet and chimere worn by Anglican bishops? Were they part of Choir dress before the Reformation? If not, where did they come from? Secular dress? Academic or legal dress? How did they become asociated with bishops?
I could ask the same questions about the tippett/preaching scarf, preaching bands, and the Canterbury cap. Were they ecclesiastical vestments before the Reformation? If so, how were they used? If not, where did they come from?
Was the tippett related to the stole at all? Were preaching bands related to the tab that in later centuries would be in clerical collars?
The chimere is really a sort of cassock: the cote-hardy of the 16thC in its academic form (i.e a tabard, like the present DD convocation dress at Oxford). The rochet is analogous to the alb or surplice, cut for greater mobility, and was worn as street dress in the same way as priests would wear a rochet, later a cotta/surplice. Neither is "choir dress" for a bishop: in choir he would wear surplice and cope over both rochet and chimere.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
Thanks for that - but doesn't this depend on translation, 'fringe' vs 'hem'?
No, it does not. The phrase in question is ἥψατο τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ ("she touched the fringe of his garment"). We're interested in the word κράσπεδον. BDAG gives meaning #1 as a generic edge/border/hem, and meaning #2 as the "tassel (צִיצִת), which an Israelite was obligated to wear on the four corners of his outer garment, acc. to Num 15:38f; Dt 22:12." How it's translated into English makes no difference.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
As for the first Christians gathering at the Temple, presumably that's because they saw themselves as Jews and wanted to convince their fellow Jews that Jesus was the longed-for messiah. Once it became clear that many Jews didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah and didn't want anything to do with the Jesus-followers, the latter stopped meeting at the Temple.
"Saw themselves as Jews"? No, they were Jews. The fact that they continued to worship at the Temple was a pretty basic fact, so much an assumption of the context that it's barely even something to be pointed out—it's used in the framing of the narrative in a pretty boring way, as in “One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, at three o’clock in the afternoon. And a man lame from birth was being carried in...” (Acts 3:1–2) They're going to the Temple because it's time to go to the Temple. Full stop. This isn't the story, it's the background.
SCK, you're missing out by defining the New Testament as the only source for information on early church practices. The New Testament assumes so much as mutually-understood background that it can be inaccessible to us. You might find a distinct break between OT and NT worship; fine. Here's the view from Clement of Rome, writing in the late 1st or early 2nd century, one of the very earliest Christian documents not to be in the NT.
quote:
Since, therefore, these things are now clear to us and we have searched into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do, in order, everything that the Master has commanded us to perform at the appointed times. Now he commanded the offerings and services to be performed diligently, and not to be done carelessly or in disorder, but at designated times and occasions. Both where and by whom he wants them to be performed, he himself has determined by his supreme will, so that all things, being done devoutly according to his good pleasure, may be acceptable to his will. Those, therefore, who make their offerings at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed, for those who follow the instructions of the Master cannot go wrong. For to the high priest the proper services have been given, and to the priests the proper office has been assigned, and upon the Levites the proper ministries have been imposed. The layman is bound by the layman’s rules...Let each of you, brothers, give thanks to God with your own group, maintaining a good conscience, not overstepping the designated rule of his ministry, but acting with reverence. Not just anywhere, brothers, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the offerings for sin and trespasses, but only in Jerusalem. And even there the offering is not made in any place, but in front of the sanctuary at the altar, the offering having been first inspected for blemishes by the high priest and the previously mentioned ministers.
- 1 Clement 40:1-41:2
Either Clement is writing about Jewish worship in the Temple, which makes this very early (pre-70-CE), and which indicates a very strong involvement of the early Christian church in the Temple worship, not simply as a way to make "converts," but as a way to worship; or Clement is writing after the destruction of the Temple using it as a metaphor for Christian worship. Note, in either case, the distinctions between the roles of the high priest, priests, Levites, and laity.
Seems to me that either perspective is bad for your idea of the early church—what do you think?
(Or will there be a sort of "no true Scotsman" answer here? "No true early Christian would write this way...")
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Ken - my parody only went so far. Given the paucity of SCK's scriptural arguments - as opposed to knee-jerk ones - then I think it was a fair approximation.
Ok, so you don't like vestments either.
So what?
You see, this is what it's all boiling down to here, personal taste or some kind of projection of one' own values onto other settings.
SCK sees someone in vestments and immediately thinks the worst. Someone else sees them and immediately sees the best.
As it happens, our vicar doesn't wear vestments at all. He's a nice bloke, I like him. But I'd never go to him with a personal problem or issue nor consult him in a 'spiritual director' type way. Why not? Because I don't think I'd like the way he'd handle that sort of thing for various reasons.
That's got nothing to do with the presence or absence of vestments.
He doesn't wear them because he believes that they put up a 'barrier'. Well, I don't feel any less or a barrier or better disposed to him because he doesn't wear vestments. I can't see how it any way makes him better or worse at what he does.
In fact, by not wearing them he's putting a barrier up to people who do like to see clergy wearing vestments ...
These things cut both ways.
I don't see how someone wearing or not wearing vestments makes any difference to how we do or don't treat one another when we gather for worship.
But then, if your view of worship is that the NT only sanctions services that look like yours (or how you imagine the NT gatherings to have been through the lens of your own tradition) then you are going to struggle with anyone else's way of doing things.
--------------------
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 Bostonman:
Either Clement is writing about Jewish worship in the Temple, which makes this very early (pre-70-CE), and which indicates a very strong involvement of the early Christian church in the Temple worship, not simply as a way to make "converts," but as a way to worship; or Clement is writing after the destruction of the Temple using it as a metaphor for Christian worship. Note, in either case, the distinctions between the roles of the high priest, priests, Levites, and laity.
You're right, this text is a challenge to my interpretation of what the NT says about church practice. I know basically nothing about 1 Clement so I thought I'd do some quick research. I found something (here and the comments below) suggesting the part you quoted is an interpolation of some sort, perhaps from when Clement himself was still a Jew. Is this a remotely mainstream theory or just outlandish speculation?
--------------------
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
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Either Clement is writing about Jewish worship in the Temple, which makes this very early (pre-70-CE), and which indicates a very strong involvement of the early Christian church in the Temple worship, not simply as a way to make "converts," but as a way to worship; or Clement is writing after the destruction of the Temple using it as a metaphor for Christian worship. Note, in either case, the distinctions between the roles of the high priest, priests, Levites, and laity.
You're right, this text is a challenge to my interpretation of what the NT says about church practice. I know basically nothing about 1 Clement so I thought I'd do some quick research. I found something (here and the comments below) suggesting the part you quoted is an interpolation of some sort, perhaps from when Clement himself was still a Jew. Is this a remotely mainstream theory or just outlandish speculation?
Intriguing! I have to admit I'm ignorant enough about textual issues in 1 Clement myself not to be able to answer that one. One other semi-useful note is that "give thanks to God with your own group" is the verb eucharisteito, "let him give thanks," from eucharistein, which is of course the source of our "Eucharist." The verb appears six times in the Septuagint but always as a basic "giving thanks" and never in a liturgical sense. This suggests a Christian flavor at least to that small portion.
And of course either way, the presence of this passage--interpolated or not--tells us something about whether the church, early and a bit later, saw its worship.
I learn new things every day!
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's got nothing to do with the presence or absence of vestments.
He doesn't wear them because he believes that they put up a 'barrier'. Well, I don't feel any less or a barrier or better disposed to him because he doesn't wear vestments. I can't see how it any way makes him better or worse at what he does.
In fact, by not wearing them he's putting a barrier up to people who do like to see clergy wearing vestments ...
These things cut both ways.
So that´s a reason for not making it binding. There are arguments for and against it, and no biblical rule enforcing it. It´s not being discussed wether the Church should eliminate vestments, but only allow ministers who do not want to wear them to do so. I think it´s a right move.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
Frankly,is it not somewhat odd,that people who do not belong to the Anglican communion, or whose church is not in full communion with Canterbury advocate that Anglican priests should have the freedom not to use vestments ?
Anglican ministers do not like vestments,whether
chasuble or surplice/alb and are unwilling to wear them should do better by leaving Canterbury and find a new home with a non liturgical church,since it is not only the vestiture isssue that matters but equally their unwillingness to use the liturgy ordered by the Church.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Can I make a clear point now while I am thinking of it. Uniform is not about classlessness. I went to an all girls school and the ability to be dressed in the uniform was the biggest indicator of class out there. Middle class girls came with uniform from the proper outfitters; working class had the best their parents could do from the local shops. It showed the uniform colours were not easy to find in normal shops. There was no hiding of class with uniform.
What uniform does is make statements about authority; either whose authority you are under or whose authority you act on. Think of the centurion saying "I say to this one go and he goes and to another come and he comes". They were not obeying him because of his own authority but because of that which he represented as a Centurion in the Roman Army and wearing that uniform.
If vestments are a uniform then this suggests to me that the person leading worship in vestments is performing a different role to a person leading worship in normal dress. A person leading worship vested is proclaiming themselves as a servant of "God" or "the Church" and as such leads worship. The person dressed in everyday clothes is leading worship primarily as one of the congregation.
One is not right and the other wrong; indeed in someone ways the person leading worship always connects with both. However which you prioritise does say something about how you understand worship.
Jengie
--------------------
"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
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
If vestments are a uniform then this suggests to me that the person leading worship in vestments is performing a different role to a person leading worship in normal dress. A person leading worship vested is proclaiming themselves as a servant of "God" or "the Church" and as such leads worship. The person dressed in everyday clothes is leading worship primarily as one of the congregation.
Dead on, but I'd amend a bit: it's not about the priest declaring herself a servant of God (so's the rest of the congregation) or of the Church (ditto, but with a different sort of contract...) It's about the priest declaring herself to be the priest. The priest's defining contribution to the worship (namely, saying the blessing over the bread and wine) is no more or less important than the deacon's or the laypeople's; it is just different. The real problem here isn't that the priest has a distinctive uniform (the laity do as well in a sense, although theirs has class mapped onto it -- how nice a suit and so on), it's that clericalism has made it seem that the priest has all the power.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Frankly,is it not somewhat odd,that people who do not belong to the Anglican communion, or whose church is not in full communion with Canterbury advocate that Anglican priests should have the freedom not to use vestments ?
Anglican ministers do not like vestments,whether
chasuble or surplice/alb and are unwilling to wear them should do better by leaving Canterbury and find a new home with a non liturgical church,since it is not only the vestiture isssue that matters but equally their unwillingness to use the liturgy ordered by the Church.
.
What nonsense. Anglican priests are already free to choose to use vestments or not, and many thousands choose not to. Maybe tens of thousands worldwide, there are provinces where such things are all but unknown. And in England at any rate it wasn't the evangelicals who abandoned the liturgy of their denomination for that of another over a century ago.
One of the most irritating things about factionalism in the Anglican communion is this absurd tendency for some of the factions to pretend that their own habits and preferences are somehow normative or traditional for the whole, when often they were more or less invented wholesale not so long ago. And it turns nasty when the pretence is used as an excuse to try to expel everyone else.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm old-skool enough to agree with the observation that vestments serve a purpose in taking attention away from the person at the front and redirecting it to the liturgy.
I've come across this argument a fair bit (on the Ship and in real life) and, while it's the argument used in favour of vestments that makes most sense to me, I still don't really get it.
Do people really find it a distraction if the 'person at the front' is wearing unobtrusive, inoffensive regular clothes rather than vestments?
It can be. I'm going to deconstruct this a bit/get more meta and say:
Finding clothes that are "unobtrusive and inoffensive" for being up-front for service leading is not as easy as some might think. There is often a fine sartorial line to walk. Some walk it successfully. Some don't (which can cause muttering/distraction amongst the observers ... ok, the successful one can do it as well. Those of us who have an eye for such things are always looking). The line is, as a general rule (please note this disclaimer ... individual mileage might vary), more complicated and usually spendier for a woman to negotiate.
Or to put it another way, neutral street clothes would be one thing, but clothes are rarely neutral.
When I see someone with a stole, chasauble, or (from my pre-Episcopalian days rolling around other parts of the Protestant mainline) a Geneva gown on, I also know it's likely not someone who wandered in off the street and has commandeered the mic. The garment is a token of their role. I know that people who went to schools or had jobs that required uniforms may react viscerally to it, but I will note from "the other side" of a free-dress education that I spent my teen years feeling at least somewhat inadequate because my clothes were pretty basic (we were not as well off as a lot of people I was in school with) and there was a lot of competition with/commenting about clothes.
I will also note, as another meta-point, the particular flavor of "street clothes" donned is usually as much of a uniform/"drag"/sending a particular message as any vestment. A good suit, a cheap-looking/ill-fitted suit, a polo shirt, an aloha shirt ... all send a particular message.
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What is the history of the rochet and chimere worn by Anglican bishops? Were they part of Choir dress before the Reformation? If not, where did they come from? Secular dress? Academic or legal dress? How did they become asociated with bishops?
I could ask the same questions about the tippett/preaching scarf, preaching bands, and the Canterbury cap. Were they ecclesiastical vestments before the Reformation? If so, how were they used? If not, where did they come from?
Was the tippett related to the stole at all? Were preaching bands related to the tab that in later centuries would be in clerical collars?
The chimere is really a sort of cassock: the cote-hardy of the 16thC in its academic form (i.e a tabard, like the present DD convocation dress at Oxford). The rochet is analogous to the alb or surplice, cut for greater mobility, and was worn as street dress in the same way as priests would wear a rochet, later a cotta/surplice. Neither is "choir dress" for a bishop: in choir he would wear surplice and cope over both rochet and chimere.
This kind of conversation, and the others like it in the "miscellaneous questions" thread makes me wonder how much truth there is in the idea that vestments are supposed to be unobtrusive in some way.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Frankly,is it not somewhat odd,that people who do not belong to the Anglican communion, or whose church is not in full communion with Canterbury advocate that Anglican priests should have the freedom not to use vestments ?
Anglican ministers do not like vestments,whether
chasuble or surplice/alb and are unwilling to wear them should do better by leaving Canterbury and find a new home with a non liturgical church,since it is not only the vestiture isssue that matters but equally their unwillingness to use the liturgy ordered by the Church.
.
What nonsense. Anglican priests are already free to choose to use vestments or not, and many thousands choose not to. Maybe tens of thousands worldwide, there are provinces where such things are all but unknown. And in England at any rate it wasn't the evangelicals who abandoned the liturgy of their denomination for that of another over a century ago.
One of the most irritating things about factionalism in the Anglican communion is this absurd tendency for some of the factions to pretend that their own habits and preferences are somehow normative
In the Church of England priests have little discretion. The vesture at Holy Communion, and for the occasional offices is regulated by Canon Law, any departure from established practice requires the agreement of the PCC, and the Bishop decides in the event of any dispute.
Surely, until and unless Canon Law permits complete freedom, the ones who are acting exceptionally (and disobidiently) are those very few parishes where street clothes are warn at services of Holy Communion.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Frankly,is it not somewhat odd,that people who do not belong to the Anglican communion, or whose church is not in full communion with Canterbury advocate that Anglican priests should have the freedom not to use vestments ?
Anglican ministers do not like vestments,whether
chasuble or surplice/alb and are unwilling to wear them should do better by leaving Canterbury and find a new home with a non liturgical church,since it is not only the vestiture isssue that matters but equally their unwillingness to use the liturgy ordered by the Church.
That is to misunderstand something that is fundamental to the Church of England. It makes it completely different from the various churches elsewhere that have the word 'Episcopalian' in their name.
This irritates members of other ecclesial communities, but in England, the Church of England is 'the Church', 'our church', the one that is descended from those who first evangelised these islands, and through them the apostles. It is also the one for those who just identify themselves as Christians, rather than as Christian + Roman Catholic, Calvinist, Believers' Baptism only or whatever.
This also means that the things that go with denominational self-identification, rather than just with being Christian are secondary, not fundamental.
So saying to a member of the Church of England, 'if you don't like the way we do things, you can always go and join another denomination' doesn't wash. This is particularly so if it is about something that isn't just secondary, but probably tertiary, rather than something primary to Christianity itself like the truth of the resurrection or whether Jesus is the Son of God.
Also, if you think it's a bit odd that people in England who are not members of the CofE are sticking their oars into this debate, is it not equally odd that a member of a church elsewhere which is, thankfully, in communion with us but not descended from the local root stock, also feels they have a stake in it?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've tweaked SCK's ear a few times on this thread, but I can - honestly - see what he's getting at.
His issue isn't with vestments per se - but what they symbolise - for him and others like him - in terms of the kind of authority structures that Jengie Jon is alluding to.
SCK doesn't believe in a priesthood - other in the priesthood of all believers sense - so anything that appears as if it might be diluting that is inevitably going to worry or annoy him.
I think Jengie's raised a good point on the authority thing ... and, of course, in her denomination and tradition there are distinctive clothes too ... I've seen plenty of Geneva gowns and dog-collars and so on on the Reformed side of things and Jengie will be well aware of all of that.
Which is why I keep coming back to the context thing. No liturgy police are going to go around to SCK's Vineyard church to compel them to wear albs, surplices, Geneva gowns, cowboy outfits, pirate gear or anything else ...
Which is as it should be.
But equally, SCK can't expect everyone else to start behaving as his church does - and he certainly doesn't appear to entertain that idea - at least not in the short term ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Incidentally, I've seen boards online where the Orthodox in the US are having all kinds of fits and tussles about the clergy in some jurisdictions going around in mufti or wearing lounge suits and so on - and thereby becoming indistinguishable from RC or Protestant clergy ...
Whether that represents the thin end of a very large wedge, I don't know ...
I can see what SCK is driving at but to all practical intents and purposes I don't see how people are treated any better or worse in churches that go in for vestments than those which don't ...
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Enoch just said.
And:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
In the Church of England priests have little discretion. The vesture at Holy Communion, and for the occasional offices is regulated by Canon Law, any departure from established practice requires the agreement of the PCC, and the Bishop decides in the event of any dispute.
What planet is this on?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Ken - yes, you're right about the Catholic wing of the CofE adopting styles from 'another denomination' back in the day.
But that was then and this is now. What we see now are evangelical clergy adopting the patterns and practices of other denominations - Vineyard, NFI, etc - and trying to vire them in - with varying degrees of success - into existing Anglican protocols.
Both ends of the spectrum have done it and are doing it.
Whether we see that as good, bad or indifferent depends on where we stand, of course.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What Enoch just said.
And:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
In the Church of England priests have little discretion. The vesture at Holy Communion, and for the occasional offices is regulated by Canon Law, any departure from established practice requires the agreement of the PCC, and the Bishop decides in the event of any dispute.
What planet is this on?
On the planet I inhabit on Sundays 90% of parishes wear some sort of robes for Communion, of which perhaps two-thirds wear full Eucharistic vestments.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I went to another Baptist church during my summer holiday - admittedly on the Bank Holiday Sunday.
I failed to recognise the Minister - who I know! - because he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt, long shorts and sandals.
It wasn't a Communion Sunday so he did not need to preside at the Lord's Table. Doubtless it was normal for that church, but it still felt odd to me.
But, then, I wear a preaching gown and stole, at least on Sunday mornings.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which is why I keep coming back to the context thing. No liturgy police are going to go around to SCK's Vineyard church to compel them to wear albs, surplices, Geneva gowns, cowboy outfits, pirate gear or anything else ...
Which is as it should be.
But equally, SCK can't expect everyone else to start behaving as his church does - and he certainly doesn't appear to entertain that idea - at least not in the short term ...
I think the context point you make above is absolutely key. Even a church like HTB which departs from the common liturgical pattern can sense that using robes at their 11am Sung Eucharist works in a way that it wouldn't at their other more informal services. This is also true for many other evangelical churches who have 8am or 9am Holy Communion Services which precede a later more informal service.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...to all practical intents and purposes I don't see how people are treated any better or worse in churches that go in for vestments than those which don't ...
Agreed.
In my experience, "yer avrage non-churchgoer" doesn't actually care two hoots about whether the priest wears vestments or not. They are certainly NOT the turn-off that the anti-vestment brigade sometimes claim. In fact, the opposite is often equally true - that NOT wearing vestments confuses and even disappoints non-churchgoers.
I have frequently had wedding couples come to me and say something along the lines of "we were at XYZ parish church, having our Banns read. The priest didn't wear robes or have a dog collar on. It all looked so wrong. What was his problem?"
When it comes down to it - EVERYTHING a minister wears will say something about her/him - whether they turn up in chasuble, or cassock/surplice/preaching scarf, or lounge suit or tatty jeans and T shirt.
But what is also important to remember is that what someone THINKS they are saying by what they wear is not necessarily what others will receive. The person who deliberately dresses casually in order to make a statement about "not having ungodly prestige or vanity" may well find that the message someone picks up is "this person just doesn't really care at all".
We cannot control the messages people take from who we dress. All we can do is be true to ourselves - because insincerity is easily perceived. And I think people need to be honest, as well. I would much rather someone say "I don't wear vestments because I feel uncomfortable in them" than for them to try and make a tortuous case that vestments are somehow off-putting to people in general.
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s not being discussed wether the Church should eliminate vestments, but only allow ministers who do not want to wear them to do so. I think it´s a right move.
In fact, what is being proposed is not actually going to make any difference at all. All it will do is legitimate what some Anglican priests already do - not wear vestments. As always, Canon Law struggles to keep up with reality.
Whilst I am not that troubled by this proposal in itself, it is the underlying attitude which I have always found difficult. If you have got ordained in the C of E, you are committing yourself to the way that the C of E works. It seems strange to me to get ordained and then say "actually, I disagree with most of what the C of E represents." It seems to me to lack a certain degree of integrity. Not wearing vestments is just one small example of this kind of attitude. It can also be seen in the way that some priests pay little attention to the deanery or diocesan structures and give more attention to para-church organisations. It can also be seen in the way that some priests avoid even the minimal liturgical direction in Common Worship and go off and do their own thing completely.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I agree. According to the report in today's Church Times the proposer of the motion (and it's a private member's motion, not an 'official' one, BTW) says that while he does often robe/ vest, when he doesn't he feels bad about breaking the rules. Well, OK, don't break them, then!
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
If vestments are a uniform then this suggests to me that the person leading worship in vestments is performing a different role to a person leading worship in normal dress. A person leading worship vested is proclaiming themselves as a servant of "God" or "the Church" and as such leads worship. The person dressed in everyday clothes is leading worship primarily as one of the congregation.
Dead on, but I'd amend a bit: it's not about the priest declaring herself a servant of God (so's the rest of the congregation) or of the Church (ditto, but with a different sort of contract...) It's about the priest declaring herself to be the priest.
By whose authority are they a priest?
A soldier when he puts on uniform declares himself a soldier but it is only because that that is the uniform of a regiment authorised by the state that makes him genuinely a soldier. So he carries the authority/is a servant of the state when he wears the uniform.
Jengie
[ 03. January 2014, 11:55: 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
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
To give this pot yet another stir:
My wife's favourite cousin, a conscientious and by no means fogeyish evangelical Anglican from Chester diocese, attended his friends' child's baptism at a right-on C. of E. evangelical church not far from here. He and his wife were very shocked, indeed upset that the officiating minister (the curate, I believe) took the service in a sports jacket and open-necked shirt, which they thought showed disrespect to the family, who had attended in their best clothes. This was about 15 years ago.
Comments, anyone?
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
Something that I don't think has been mentioned is that in old photos - particularly from the 70s and 80s - it's often only the robed clergy who don't look ridiculous.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
By whose authority are they a priest?
A soldier when he puts on uniform declares himself a soldier but it is only because that that is the uniform of a regiment authorised by the state that makes him genuinely a soldier. So he carries the authority/is a servant of the state when he wears the uniform.
Jengie
Well, yes, but by whose authority is a minister of any particular denomination a minister ... or leader, cleric, pastor or whatever else we might call them?
Mudfrog is a Salvation Army officer by the authority of the appropriate authorities in the Salvation Army. He can officiate in whatever capacity SA officers officiate in there, but he couldn't necessarily officiate in some way at his local URC ...
This applies all ways round.
Those with a more sacramental understanding of things would say that the authority of the priest comes from the Church and that person's vocation to the priesthood presumably ...
I don't quite get the point or distinction you're making. Whatever church tradition we belong to we see the authority of the leaders/clergy deriving from some kind of collective power beyond ourselves ... be it a Baptist minister being 'called' by the congregation or a priest whose vocation is 'recognised' the Bishop on behalf of the wider Church ...
[fixed code - preview post and the UBB practice thread are your friends]
[ 03. January 2014, 15:59: 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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Be it a Baptist minister being 'called' by the congregation or a priest whose vocation is 'recognised' the Bishop on behalf of the wider Church ...
Of course those of us who are "accredited" Baptist ministers have been "recognised" by the wider denomination as well as by the local congregation ... we are not entirely Congregationalist in that respect.
But I think you know that, anyway.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gamiliel
I am saying in putting on the uniform of the role he is effectively stating that he is serving God/Church as a priest. Being a priest is a role technically that certain servants of God are called to.
A priest is always a priest, by authority. A minister is always a minister by authority though it may simply be that of the local congregation. If you choose to forefront being a priest, then it is because you see yourself as by being a priest as under authority of that being. A priest is never a priest without this. So you can not simply get around the wearing vestments is a sign of being a priest, instead of being a sign of under the authority of God/Church.
In other words, being a priest implies being under God/Churches authority or his/its servant.
Now I live in a tradition where both approaches are validated. There are those who see the ministerial role as being primarily being the player-coach among the congregation, and there are those who see it as primarily about the servant role. We also have all shades in between. How do you read someone who preaches in a dark suit and white tie?
My own tends towards the second stance rather than the first. The minister is symbolically there as the representative of the catholic nature of the Church (its not just us here in this locality). So I am quite happy for people to vest. I have to however remember that those who come in street attire often have thought out their theology as carefully as me.
Jengie
[ 03. January 2014, 14:45: 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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... In my experience, "yer avrage non-churchgoer" doesn't actually care two hoots about whether the priest wears vestments or not. They are certainly NOT the turn-off that the anti-vestment brigade sometimes claim. In fact, the opposite is often equally true - that NOT wearing vestments confuses and even disappoints non-churchgoers. ...
I don't always agree with with Oscar the Grouch but on this I do.
There are clergy and there are churchgoers who have strong views on this. That this thread has now reached page 5 demonstrates this. I've no idea whether the average non-churchgoer is attracted or put off by seeing somebody at the front in robes. It's unlikely that there is any unanimity on the subject anyway. I don't think any of those who advocate the status quo or some sort of mufti have any idea either. I think that in almost all cases, their arguments are driven by what they want to wear.
As 'it's not all about me', there's actually rather a better case for having strict rules and prescribing standard garments for everyone. If one did, the ensemble for which there's the best traditional case is actually cassock, surplice and black scarf, or blue for readers, and that's it, for all services. It's the modern equivalent of what was universal from the sixteenth until the nineteenth century. It would please virtually no one. The outfitters would all squeal. But at least everyone would be left gnashing their teeth equally.
After all, soldiers aren't entitled to please themselves whether they decorate their uniforms with different coloured additions or wear extra sorts of garments over their battledress.
[ 03. January 2014, 15:49: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
In fact, what is being proposed is not actually going to make any difference at all. All it will do is legitimate what some Anglican priests already do - not wear vestments. As always, Canon Law struggles to keep up with reality.
Perhaps, there are other who do not like wearing vestments, but still use them out of respect to the canon law. For these, the change would make an effect.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
the officiating minister (the curate, I believe) took the service in a sports jacket and open-necked shirt, which they thought showed disrespect to the family, who had attended in their best clothes. This was about 15 years ago.
Comments, anyone?
An evangelical of my acquaintance felt similarly when the bishop wore a lounge suit to confirm her granddaughter
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I don't know if this is of any pertinence, but over the years I have had five lengthy conversations with non-attenders who had gone to their first church service -- note that this is not rare and a huge chunk of the population of Canada only knows of church services through funerals, weddings, TV evangelists and the odd film.
There were lots of questions, mainly concern about how they were to behave and what expectations there were of them, and some discussion over architecture and trimmings. Although all of these services involved vested clergy-- usually chasubled but surplice & stole at one, only person asked about vestments. I gave a quick two-sentence resumé of their historical origins and mentioned that they vary from traditions and that some don't use them. The only response was a nod. If you're attending a liturgical church as a newcomer, I'm not sure that it is a relevant factor at all, given that so many things are new to them and different from their expectations and preconceptions.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
Should the canon law be passed that Anglican priests are allowed to dispense with the liturgical vestiture, what would be their next proposal " Informal Liturgy " ?
I am afraid that traditional Anglicans will then start considering to convert to Orthodoxy or Rome.
Bishops who take services in a suit,do not take their own church and its people very seriously.
Do all those Anglican Evos,really believe in the the sacramental life of Church ?
They are certainly not interested in the Unity of the Church,in fact they are destroying it.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Knowing a priest who conducts the Eucharist in black jeans and a heavy metal T-shirt, I can assure you that your assumptions are a crock of shit.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
Karl,
One good advice,please remain Always polite and do not use ugly words.
It must have been a wonderful view, a priest in jeans and t-shirt celebrating the Eucharist.
The recent Christmas Midnight Eucharist from Westminster Abbey produced a much better picture.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I've so far resisted the temptation to contribute to this thread, but I'm not sure that this has been mentioned.
As far as I am aware, the vast majority of services that are led by unrobed clergy (which is a small minority of all Anglican services) are informal in liturgy and structure as well as presentation. They mostly fall into the category of 'services of the Word'. I'm not sure that even a strict following of the present canon law requires any sort of vesture at such services. Most evangelical clergy still robe for Holy Communion, and no doubt would for choral Morning and Evening Prayer if they were offered.
There is a discussion to be had whether such informal 'liturgy lite' services should be regarded as the central offering of a worshipping community. That is much more important in my view than what the clergyperson wears.
Priests of many traditions (anglo-catholic as well as evangelical) will often celebrate the eucharist informally, usually for small groups and outside the church building, and not wear vestments. Possibly a stole with ordinary clothes, but not always. That seems like a sensible and flexible adaptation of the rule for different contexts.
Having said all that, it seems to me important that the worship offered in any (Anglican, at any rate) church should be recognisable as the worship of 'the Church' and not just the fad of the particular congregation or even worse, the vicar. Using authorised liturgy and traditional vestments make that clear. Personalised stoles, or (that weird modern evangelical fad) black scarves emblazoned with naff motifs, are as bad as chinos and polo shirts.
And those who insist that 'traditional' C of E vestments are the minimalist surplice and scarf of the sixteenth century, well those of us who stress our Catholic inheritance don't accept that our tradition only goes back to the Reformation.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But that was then and this is now. What we see now are evangelical clergy adopting the patterns and practices of other denominations
Recency Illusion. Loads of evangelicals didn't wear vestments forty years ago. At least some of them because they thought they were evil papist innovations.
The off-planet surreal thing about this thread is the idea that CofE clergy are constrained in these matters by canon law. They aren't, and they haven't been since the bishops failed to suppress ritualise more than 100 years ago. Since then they have had almost complete freedom to organise the liturgy in their parishes. There may be some de facto limitations excercised by the PCC and wardens and congregation (few vicars want their flock to walk out) but the de jure control of liturgy and ornament by bishops and archdeacons and so on is a one shot weapon that was fired before the Great War and shot the establishment in the foot.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
An evangelical of my acquaintance felt similarly when the bishop wore a lounge suit to confirm her granddaughter
Leo, I rather agree with your friend. However there are supposed to be records from the eighteenth century of bishops, on their rare journeys round their dioceses confirming large numbers of people not just outdoors but while still sitting on a horse. One would hope the horse was a fat little thing like a Welsh cob. Otherwise he might not have been able to reach the various heads.
I suppose at least the bishop would have been wearing gaiters.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken
Loads of evangelicals didn't wear vestments forty years ago. At least some of them because they thought they were evil papist innovations.
Ken you may be right from your experience, but that's not my memory. My recollection is that cassock, surplice and black scarf was universal for Morning and Evening Prayer. Quite a number still wore tabs when preaching.
The only issue was that many evangelicals wore stoles for Communion but those that regarded them as evil papist innovations wore a black scarf for everything.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The arguments, I find, against such things such as vestments are iconoclastic in nature for the most part.
[ 03. January 2014, 22:35: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Karl,
One good advice,please remain Always polite and do not use ugly words.
It must have been a wonderful view, a priest in jeans and t-shirt celebrating the Eucharist.
The recent Christmas Midnight Eucharist from Westminster Abbey produced a much better picture.
Swearing has always been acceptable on the Ship. It's fine not to like it but not fine to tell grown adults off for it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
When I was confirmed, in a church of high persuasion, the bishop's stole had a police insignia on it as he was a Police Chaplain.
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
