homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Bye bye vestments? (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Bye bye vestments?
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Angloid and Carys - thanks for pointing out that in many liturgical / formal services, there'll be plenty of people who are 'providing' (to use my shorthand, which I know is somewhat misleading) without wearing special clothes.

But still, why are those who are wearing vestments being distinguished in this way? If the issue is aesthetic, then let everyone wear vestments. Or create beauty in other ways which don't mark out some people as different.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285

 - Posted      Profile for Utrecht Catholic   Email Utrecht Catholic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
South Coast Kevin,

One good advice,please start reading
LITURGICAL VESTITURE,ITS ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT
by Fr.C.E.Pocknee.Buy it or borrow it from a library.
This very interesting publication will provide you with the information,you need.
I do hope that you are willing to learn something from this Anglican priest.
Otherwise, get in touch with the clergy of St.Paul's cathedral or Westminster Abbey.
I am sure that they are willing to answer your questions.

--------------------
Robert Kennedy

Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SCK
It's not about aesthetics: it's about a view of the nature of the Church and of what is going on in a service. Angloid put it rather succinctly a few posts back:

quote:
What the general catholic (small c) tradition emphasises is that the eucharistic gathering is a representative gathering of the whole church, not just the local congregation. Hence there is a president (not a provider) who by his/her ordination represents the wider church. Special vestments are a traditional way of indicating this but no-one would claim that they are essential.

The president's vestments emphasise his/her role as representative of the wider church. This is where the anonymising effect of vestments comes in: the sacrament is being validly administered not because of any personal virtue or talent or holiness that Fr Tim or Rev Julie may have- there have been a lot of unvirtuous people in Holy Orders, and a fair few downright wicked ones- buit because they are commissioned, and goiven authority, by the Church to do so. The individual priest is merely a channel of God's grace.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
South Coast Kevin,

One good advice,please start reading
LITURGICAL VESTITURE,ITS ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT
by Fr.C.E.Pocknee.Buy it or borrow it from a library.
This very interesting publication will provide you with the information,you need.

I've just searched online and can't find a single review or summary of this book. Could you give me a brief summary, perhaps? Why do you think this particular book will be of so much help to me? I hope this isn't laziness on my part, but I don't really have the inclination to search out a specific book without any reviews or more detailed information. Sorry!
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Otherwise, get in touch with the clergy of St.Paul's cathedral or Westminster Abbey.
I am sure that they are willing to answer your questions.

Again, why will these people be so much more able to give me answers than the good people of Ship of Fools? In any case, I'm sure they're busy people and are likely just to point me towards some online resources. Why would they spend any more time than that in helping some guy who isn't part of their church and doesn't even live in London?
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The president's vestments emphasise his/her role as representative of the wider church. This is where the anonymising effect of vestments comes in: the sacrament is being validly administered not because of any personal virtue or talent or holiness that Fr Tim or Rev Julie may have- there have been a lot of unvirtuous people in Holy Orders, and a fair few downright wicked ones- buit because they are commissioned, and goiven authority, by the Church to do so. The individual priest is merely a channel of God's grace.

Okay, thanks. I do see the point (and it makes sense to me, on its own terms) but it doesn't convert me to the idea of vestments because that's not how I think of church unity. I suppose I don't see the need for there to be a specific 'representative of the wider church'. But I can see the theological consistency; this view of church structure / institution leads to the practice of wearing vestments.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think anyone is trying to convert you to the idea of using vestments, Kevin, but to help you understand why they are used in particular traditions. The above exchange sheds light on that.

I s'pose I've been on both sides of this argument and can see both sides ... but that's Gamaliel for you - cursed with the ability to see both sides of every question ...

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, simply how I'm wired and it does mean I get a sore bum from fence-sitting at times.

--------------------
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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think here that the difficulty is 'authority' in the Church.Most Christians accept that they are not just part of their own small group,be it a house group,parish,diocese or even a'church' like the 'Church of England'Most Christians,particularly those who identify with the historic mainstream'churches,accept that like mankind in general the 'Church' has a history in the world.These mainstream churches have inherited a tradition of some Christians being set apart,commissioned,ordained for specific service within the community.Christ,himself,had his special followers and particularly from Peter the idea of authority in some way to define what is orthodox stems -otherwise the wider church has no meaning.
If we accept that there are people 'set apart',commissioned or 'ordained' to a specific role then the idea of some sort of special garment to show that role becomes less strange.
If by 'vestments' are meant particularly the special garments worn at the eucharist by those
who are commissioned to preside then they are a link with the history of the Church in the world.
In the course of centuries the chasuble has a number of different forms e.g Gothic,Roman and the different form used by Orthodox priests,but still undoubtedly the same garment.
Until recently even those mainstream Christian who eschewed 'vestments' would have had something which showed that they were set apart.
In a time when most of the population had a connection with the 'Church' this was helpful to establish who was who within the community.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure ... on the aesthetic thing, though, that does come into it, surely? Otherwise the person representing the 'authority' of the wider church would do so wearing a plain white sheet or a piece of hessian cloth or something ...

I'm not suggesting that aesthetics is the only or even the primary aspect - far from it - but it is a factor. In extremis, of course, priests in countries where persecution has been rife have dressed in mufti or used string instead of stoles or dispensed with any form of vestment ...

It strikes me that both/and is the appropriate response to any of this. To suggest otherwise - that there's only one dimension involved and that it is this, that or the other one - seems terribly reductionist to me.

--------------------
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
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This assertion of vestments' utility in re priestly authority is strange: surely, as Gamaliel says, that justifies the principle but not the form.

Vestments are as they are because to adorn the service of the altar is right and proper, an outward and earthly beauty to point to the great and strange beauty that is the Mass, an earthly mirroring of the Heavenly liturgy; a fitting material sacrifice which reminds us that this world will pass away and that treasures stored up (or even used to the most beneficent ends charity can devise) are worthless compared to this great act of our salvation; because the priest is in persona Christi at the altar and it is right that the sacrificial Lamb (and His attendants) be beautifully adorned, that Christ be clothed in fine array as a sign of His heavenly authority.

Compared to this, pointing out who the priest is is a tiny consideration, surely? It's never impressed itself on me in the years I've been an Anglo-Catholic, however true it is.

It also bears being reminded that the alb is technically the proper 'vestment' of the laos: so if one were so minded, the entire congregation could be 'robed' quite properly.

Naturally in all this it is not a case of being 'converted to vestments'. One would have to have the right ('right'TM) conception of the Church first, and then enact that as fittingly as possible.

--------------------
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
Meerkat

Suricata suricatta
# 16117

 - Posted      Profile for Meerkat   Email Meerkat       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have read this thread from the beginning and my brain hurts now. It seems to be a 'getting nowhere' discussion between South Coast Kevin and Gamaliel, with the odd comment from others thrown in along the way. I will now add mine!

I have to say that from my perspective, I find vestments (either 'simple' such as cassock or alb, or more 'formal' such as Chasuble) almost essential and in some ways comforting.

I am from a 'halfway up the candle' C of E Church. I am Churchwarden; Server and Chalice Administrator. I wear my cassock and cotta for the second and third duties (but not generally for the first) as do the others performing the similar duties at Church.

Our Lay Reader wears his cassock, surplice and scarf whenever he is 'officiating'. Our Rector wears his cassock-alb (with stole) at less formal services, including the Eucharist when not on 'feast days'. On those days, he wears his formal cassock, surplice and stole... and sometimes his 'hoodie' (as we like to call it) from days at college / ordination. Nary a Chasuble in sight, unless the Bishop is visiting... when even the Churchwarden (me) has been known to wear his cassock! I then get roped in as Crucifer as well.

We feel that the vestment, however simple, serves several purposes:
It focuses our minds on the task which we are performing.
It clearly identifies the persons 'leading' the service (our Welcomers could, for example, say "Ask the Server about gluten-free wafers... he's the one in the red cassock").
It shows respect in God's house for the solemnity of the Eucharist. I believe - and someone can probably prove me wrong - that the Server should only don their cassock / cotta during the service. I believe that this is to preserve the purity of the Sanctuary during the service: preparation and 'clearing away' are performed in cassock alone (well, no cotta or surplice!)

I have never heard any member of the congregation, regular or just visiting, make any negative comments regarding vestments. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. I have often had compliments about the dignified appearance of the persons who are robed.

When 'out and about', the Rector usually wears an appropriate suit and dog-collar

I would agree that the 'validity' of the service would be just the same without robes, but the dignity would not be the same, IMHO.

Just my threepence worth.

--------------------
Simples!

Posts: 160 | From: Herts, UK | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure the thread is going nowhere, Meerkat. There have been points of agreement and South Coast Kevin had conceded that he can see how vestments fit with particular theological viewpoints and practices - even if he doesn't agree with those practices himself.

I'm not sure I've budged much though ...

[Big Grin] [Biased]

--------------------
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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I take vestments to mean those garments which are worn by the sacred ministers during the liturgy and not robes which might be worn by choristers or vergers. In the Christian churches which use them they link the religious rite with the early days of the Church.In the West the chasuble (casula = little house) and in the East phelonion
both go back to the outer garment worn over the white tunic (alb).With the development and spread of Christianity the chasuble would change slightly in shape to facilitate the actions of the priest,leading to the form of the fiddleback or Roman chasuble.In the Byzantine rites,again to facilitate manual actions the garment was cut away at the front..
The cope was a rain mantle and is still called in Italian 'piviale' and in German 'Pluviale'.
In the West particularly the chasuble was also a teaching garment.The sequence of colours told about the season of the year and especially on the so called Roman chasuble there would be scenes from the life of Christ embroidered.
St John Vianney,the 'cure d'Ars' said that a priest could wear a shabby cassock,but only the very best available should be used for service of God in the liturgy .
In the world where we live fashions change and nowadays perhaps the very best would not be considered as cloth of gold but rather something simpler.Certainly in the Catholic church vestments have in the last 50 years become much simpler and we have seen that lately in the vestments preferred by pope Francis.
For Catholics anyway they fulfil a vital function in the liturgy but their absence in no way invalidates the rite.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859

 - Posted      Profile for Roselyn     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican church is scared of the chasuble many priests celebrate the Eucharist in a Cope, necessitating helpers at either side!! PS I do not like choirs in robes and was startled to discover that a distant ancestor had reintroduced robed choirs into C of E many decades after the Reformation!! IRONIC??
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The "helpers either side" are the deacon and sub-deacon, who don't help with the cope. At our church, if ordained, they wear the vestments suitable to their ordination. If not, a plain white cassock-alb, with dalmatic or tunicle on great feasts. Servers, being the crucifer and torchbearers (thurifer and boat carrier on feasts), wear plain albs. Assistants wear cassock and surplice; assistants help with the distribution and are approved for this purpose by the Abp as required by the ordinance.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859

 - Posted      Profile for Roselyn     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
helpers have been seen holding the cope out of the way so the celebrant can move his arms freely
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have ever only seen an assistant help remove the cope before the sermon and a server help restore it after. Perhaps you saw an elderly priest with an exceptionally heavy cope?

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859

 - Posted      Profile for Roselyn     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry no, it was a regular event, i e every Sunday, The copes in question seemed to be well lined and not as light as others I have seen elsewhere.

i am not justifying the practice merely commenting how the Diocesan fear of the chasuble led to a Eucharistic celebration looking more elaborate than it might otherwise have been,

Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Copes are always held out of the way when the priest wearing it is doing something which requires his arms to be free: censing the altar, aspersing the church, &c &c, either by deacon and subdeacon, or deacon and MC, or plain servers. It's a practicality thing.

--------------------
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
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
[...] I am not justifying the practice merely commenting how the Diocesan fear of the chasuble led to a Eucharistic celebration looking more elaborate than it might otherwise have been,

Well, the chasuble is also traditionally held out of the way by deacon and subdeacon when the priest censes the altar, and lifted by deacon (and MC) at the elevation, so there's no reason chasubles need occasion greater simplicity per se.

--------------------
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
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have never seen the practice at any of several churches here, beyond the level I've described.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I have never seen the practice at any of several churches here, beyond the level I've described.

A pity: it's both very beautiful and makes the celebrant's life easier. And it's the sort of thing which would piss off the Moore college lot, which has to be a bonus... [Two face]

--------------------
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
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not talking about wearing copes, but of assistance beyond the level I've described.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm not talking about wearing copes, but of assistance beyond the level I've described.

As was I. Read Fortescue or Reid or O'Connell for details.

--------------------
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
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220

 - Posted      Profile for Corvo   Email Corvo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Our Vicar made mention of the vestments debate at a meeting yesterday and suggested that they might be seen as a version of the traditional Christening gown - itself deriving from the baptismal cloth - and so symbolic of being 'clothed in Christ'.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
[...] I am not justifying the practice merely commenting how the Diocesan fear of the chasuble led to a Eucharistic celebration looking more elaborate than it might otherwise have been,

Well, the chasuble is also traditionally held out of the way by deacon and subdeacon when the priest censes the altar, and lifted by deacon (and MC) at the elevation, so there's no reason chasubles need occasion greater simplicity per se.
Strange that some of the places which make the most fuss about this are also those that use fiddlebacks, which make such palava unnecessary. It's perfectly possible to perform these actions with dignity while wearing a full chasuble.

--------------------
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
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
[...] I am not justifying the practice merely commenting how the Diocesan fear of the chasuble led to a Eucharistic celebration looking more elaborate than it might otherwise have been,

Well, the chasuble is also traditionally held out of the way by deacon and subdeacon when the priest censes the altar, and lifted by deacon (and MC) at the elevation, so there's no reason chasubles need occasion greater simplicity per se.
Strange that some of the places which make the most fuss about this are also those that use fiddlebacks, which make such palava unnecessary. It's perfectly possible to perform these actions with dignity while wearing a full chasuble.
Yes, it is. But it is (I find) a touching reminder that the Deacon and Subdeacon, the Acolytes, MC and servers, are there to attend to, to serve the altar, and its priest (Christ): the tender assistance is moving and symbolic, even if 'unnecessary' (of what in liturgy could we not say that?).

--------------------
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
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The "helpers either side" are the deacon and sub-deacon, who don't help with the cope. At our church, if ordained, they wear the vestments suitable to their ordination. If not, a plain white cassock-alb, with dalmatic or tunicle on great feasts. Servers, being the crucifer and torchbearers (thurifer and boat carrier on feasts), wear plain albs. Assistants wear cassock and surplice; assistants help with the distribution and are approved for this purpose by the Abp as required by the ordinance.

Wait, the Anglican Archdiocese of Sidney allows dalmatics and tunicles but not chasubles?

Has any priestin Sidney tried trotting out vested like an Orthodox priest? He could say that he is in an Alb and Stole (or a fancy tippet), and he could call the Phelonion a fancy Cope. He could also distinguish the Phelonion from the chasuble by saying that Orthodox priests wear it at non-Eucharistic celebrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestment#Eastern_Church_vestments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phelonion

I would love to see the hair-splitting over this!

Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The "helpers either side" are the deacon and sub-deacon, who don't help with the cope. At our church, if ordained, they wear the vestments suitable to their ordination. If not, a plain white cassock-alb, with dalmatic or tunicle on great feasts. Servers, being the crucifer and torchbearers (thurifer and boat carrier on feasts), wear plain albs. Assistants wear cassock and surplice; assistants help with the distribution and are approved for this purpose by the Abp as required by the ordinance.

Wait, the Anglican Archdiocese of Sidney allows dalmatics and tunicles but not chasubles?

Has any priestin Sidney tried trotting out vested like an Orthodox priest? He could say that he is in an Alb and Stole (or a fancy tippet), and he could call the Phelonion a fancy Cope. He could also distinguish the Phelonion from the chasuble by saying that Orthodox priests wear it at non-Eucharistic celebrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestment#Eastern_Church_vestments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phelonion

I would love to see the hair-splitting over this!

Another solution would be to wear a voluminous cope which closed all the way down the front, and was thus practically indistinguishable from a 'Gothic' chasuble when gathered over the arms. Rather like Canon Chamberlain's chasuble confected from two Oxon: MA hoods sewn together...

--------------------
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
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would think that a double cope would be excessively hot even by mid-Spring. Apart from that, both it and the Orthodox vestments would be against the spirit of the canon, if not the letter. Our new Abp is a tolerant man, and provoking a row would not be a good idea.

From my perspective, it would also be playing games and the Eucharist is not really a time for that.

[ 10. January 2014, 20:13: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The "helpers either side" are the deacon and sub-deacon, who don't help with the cope. At our church, if ordained, they wear the vestments suitable to their ordination. If not, a plain white cassock-alb, with dalmatic or tunicle on great feasts. Servers, being the crucifer and torchbearers (thurifer and boat carrier on feasts), wear plain albs. Assistants wear cassock and surplice; assistants help with the distribution and are approved for this purpose by the Abp as required by the ordinance.

Wait, the Anglican Archdiocese of Sidney allows dalmatics and tunicles but not chasubles?

Only because the people who banned chasubles had never heard of the latter. Don't give them ideas!

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I would think that a double cope would be excessively hot even by mid-Spring. Apart from that, both it and the Orthodox vestments would be against the spirit of the canon, if not the letter. Our new Abp is a tolerant man, and provoking a row would not be a good idea.

From my perspective, it would also be playing games and the Eucharist is not really a time for that.

Though in fact, as copes are permitted, they have been used in a sort of Chasublesque kind of way for decades at St James King St and Christ Church St Laurence, and possibly at the one or two other non conforming [Biased] parishes. As one erstwhile and "high" Sydney priest once said to me "one can do funny things with a cope - without meaning really to play games.

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Angloid and Carys - thanks for pointing out that in many liturgical / formal services, there'll be plenty of people who are 'providing' (to use my shorthand, which I know is somewhat misleading) without wearing special clothes.

But still, why are those who are wearing vestments being distinguished in this way? If the issue is aesthetic, then let everyone wear vestments. Or create beauty in other ways which don't mark out some people as different.

My point was more that a substantial proportion of those gathered would be robed, although not everyone who 'provided'. For us there is a clear line, if your rôle means you sit east of that line, you are robed, west of it you are not. That may make it worse for you, but makes the clothing of those 'upfront' less distracting. From the point of view of the choir, choirs often wear a uniform when singing, psychologically it seems to help form a sense of togetherness. In a church setting that uniform is provided by the church which could be said to be very inclusive. Similarly the servers form a team and dress as such. Robing to me is practical, and saves me worrying about what to wear (e.g. is top too low cut when viewed from above or leaning forward)

Carys

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Though in fact, as copes are permitted, they have been used in a sort of Chasublesque kind of way for decades at St James King St and Christ Church St Laurence, and possibly at the one or two other non conforming [Biased] parishes. As one erstwhile and "high" Sydney priest once said to me "one can do funny things with a cope - without meaning really to play games.

++ Glenn has been heard to say that he thinks that as a matter of canon law he may be required to wear a cope. He refuses to wear a mitre though, useful though one may be to store the sandwiches or a small flask of something.

[fixed code]

[ 16. January 2014, 08:54: Message edited by: seasick ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

++ Glenn has been heard to say that he thinks that as a matter of canon law he may be required to wear a cope. He refuses to wear a mitre though, useful though one may be to store the sandwiches or a small flask of something.

Within fairly recent times some C of E bishops held out against the mitre. +Donald Coggan while bishop of Bradford refused to wear one (though he succumbed on translation to York); and similarly +Stuart Blanch at Liverpool (though I think he was deferring to local protestant prejudice rather than his own objections). I don't know of any bishops today who refuse to wear one, though maybe Wallace Benn of Lewes might have.

--------------------
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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The late Frank Houghton, former anglican bishop in China and a mentor to me in my teens, refused to wear a mitre - he called them 'dunces caps.

[ 13. January 2014, 15:26: Message edited by: leo ]

--------------------
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
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is more than an element of tease in ++ Glenn's comments on his wearing a cope - as in my reply that given the foundation of the diocese first as that of Australia, and later of Sydney, by Letters Patent, the cope has to be blue.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285

 - Posted      Profile for Utrecht Catholic   Email Utrecht Catholic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I recently viewed the the episcopal consecration of the new suffragan bishop of Toronto, Anglican Church of Canada.
It struck me that the celebrant/consecrator, the bishop of Toronto, was vested in red chasuble, the bishop-elect Fr.Peter Fenty,started in alb with red stole and after the laying of hand,received the chasuble.
Assisting bishops were in chimere,rochet and red stole.All other clergy wore alb/surplice with stole.Interesting to observe that the Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopalians are very close in their liturgical customs.
All in all a beautiful service,The Church of England could learn something from this service :consecration of one bishop,properly vested in alb,stole and chasuble.

--------------------
Robert Kennedy

Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I recently viewed the the episcopal consecration of the new suffragan bishop of Toronto, Anglican Church of Canada.
It struck me that the celebrant/consecrator, the bishop of Toronto, was vested in red chasuble, the bishop-elect Fr.Peter Fenty,started in alb with red stole and after the laying of hand,received the chasuble.
Assisting bishops were in chimere,rochet and red stole.All other clergy wore alb/surplice with stole.Interesting to observe that the Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopalians are very close in their liturgical customs.
All in all a beautiful service,The Church of England could learn something from this service :consecration of one bishop,properly vested in alb,stole and chasuble.

[pedantry] Except that a bishop is *properly* vested in alb, amice, stole, maniple, tunicle, dalmatic and chasuble... [/pedantry]

[ 17. January 2014, 08:29: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]

--------------------
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
Paschal
Apprentice
# 17995

 - Posted      Profile for Paschal   Author's homepage   Email Paschal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi, this is my first post on the ‘Ship’.
I have recently been examining the 'Divine Rationale' of William Durandus. He goes into detail explaining how the architecture, vestments, Eucharistic liturgy etc. are all designed to help lift us above the mundane and into the spiritual.
Some of what he says of the chasuble is that it ‘signifies charity, without this, the Priest may never discharge his office, for it is proper for him or her always to abide in the bond of charity. It is the Wedding-Garment spoken of by the Lord in the Gospel (Matt. 22:12). The Amice goes round the mouth of the Chasuble, which means that good works ought always to have charity for their source and end (1 Tim. 1:5). When the Priest extends his hands, it signifies the two arms of charity, with which he or she reaches up towards God, and to his or her neighbour (Matt. 13:37-40). The wideness of the Chasuble is a figure of the breadth of Charity, which reaches even as far as our enemies (Ps. 109:96). The Priest may not put off the Chasuble while performing the office (Ps. 132:9). The Chasuble is of one piece, and whole, and is hemmed on every side, which signifies the unity and wholeness of the Faith.’
The 'Divine Rationale' consists of eight books and two of these, one on church symbolism and the other on vestments, were first translated into English in the late 19th century, and they probably played a part in the renewal of interest in wearing vestments in the Anglican Church, particularly as this came in the wake of the Oxford Movement. The Divine Rationale is still held as an authority in the Roman Catholic Church.
The criticism has been made that Durandus was just trying to find or invent spiritual meanings for things encountered in the worship life of the Church. Yet much of what he writes is based on Biblical sources or on the writings of the Church Fathers. In any case, the object of worship is to try, as much as possible, to put aside mundane concerns and to turn hearts and minds towards God. What he says is therefore valid, at least to the extent that individuals find it helpful in worship.

Posts: 3 | From: Bedford, England | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paschal:
Hi, this is my first post on the ‘Ship’.
I have recently been examining the 'Divine Rationale' of William Durandus. He goes into detail explaining how the architecture, vestments, Eucharistic liturgy etc. are all designed to help lift us above the mundane and into the spiritual.
Some of what he says of the chasuble is that it ‘signifies charity, without this, the Priest may never discharge his office, for it is proper for him or her always to abide in the bond of charity. It is the Wedding-Garment spoken of by the Lord in the Gospel (Matt. 22:12). The Amice goes round the mouth of the Chasuble, which means that good works ought always to have charity for their source and end (1 Tim. 1:5). When the Priest extends his hands, it signifies the two arms of charity, with which he or she reaches up towards God, and to his or her neighbour (Matt. 13:37-40). The wideness of the Chasuble is a figure of the breadth of Charity, which reaches even as far as our enemies (Ps. 109:96). The Priest may not put off the Chasuble while performing the office (Ps. 132:9). The Chasuble is of one piece, and whole, and is hemmed on every side, which signifies the unity and wholeness of the Faith.’
The 'Divine Rationale' consists of eight books and two of these, one on church symbolism and the other on vestments, were first translated into English in the late 19th century, and they probably played a part in the renewal of interest in wearing vestments in the Anglican Church, particularly as this came in the wake of the Oxford Movement. The Divine Rationale is still held as an authority in the Roman Catholic Church.
The criticism has been made that Durandus was just trying to find or invent spiritual meanings for things encountered in the worship life of the Church. Yet much of what he writes is based on Biblical sources or on the writings of the Church Fathers. In any case, the object of worship is to try, as much as possible, to put aside mundane concerns and to turn hearts and minds towards God. What he says is therefore valid, at least to the extent that individuals find it helpful in worship.

The composing of such occasionally moving and thoughtful commentaries was quite common in the period. There's no doubt that they are in that sense 'retroactive': i.e. they have nothing to do with the aetiology of the vestments themselves, but, much like the Classical habit of ascribing false etymologies to words to draw out meaning, they do inspire contemplation and make clear aspects which might otherwise have been obscured.

Much of this can be seen in the traditional vesting prayers, and Vatican teaching ( here ), and it is good to know that such things are still thought about.

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My apologies, particularly, Paschal as you are just starting your merry voyage, and welcome by the way. Horses for courses, what lights your fire and all that, but I regret I find that elaborate explanations attributing ex post facto symbolism to things puts me in mind of the Cricket Bag.

Incidentally, is Durandus saying a priest cannot discharge his (or these days of course, also, her) office without a chasuble, charity or both?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
My apologies, particularly, Paschal as you are just starting your merry voyage, and welcome by the way. Horses for courses, what lights your fire and all that, but I regret I find that elaborate explanations attributing ex post facto symbolism to things puts me in mind of the Cricket Bag.

Ha ha, my thoughts exactly (both with saying hello and welcome to Paschal, and with the retrospective explanations of things like vestments).

Also, does God want us to 'put aside mundane concerns and to turn our hearts and minds towards him'? I rather think he wants us to find him and seek his perspective in the midst of our 'mundane concerns'. In fact, this is part of why I'm so negative towards the whole concept of special clothing for church - I think it sends the message that God is somehow more present in and / or more concerned about what happens in the hour or two of our church service each week than he is about everything else in our lives.

--------------------
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
Paschal
Apprentice
# 17995

 - Posted      Profile for Paschal   Author's homepage   Email Paschal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Vade Mecum wrote:
quote:

The composing of such occasionally moving and thoughtful commentaries was quite common in the period. There's no doubt that they are in that sense 'retroactive': i.e. they have nothing to do with the aetiology of the vestments themselves, but, much like the Classical habit of ascribing false etymologies to words to draw out meaning, they do inspire contemplation and make clear aspects which might otherwise have been obscured.

Much of this can be seen in the traditional vesting prayers, and Vatican teaching ( here ), and it is good to know that such things are still thought about.

In examining the dates and works of Philo, Josephus, and Saint Jerome, for example, it can be seen that not only are Christian vestments closely related to those of the Old Testament priests but also that this type of symbolic understanding has been in use since the earliest times.

I read the article in your link and it echoes what Durandus says. Also, when a close examination is made of the Christian traditions it soon becomes apparent that they are far more than merely long standing custom. Almost invariably they are found to encapsulate the higher spiritual teaching of the Church. Surely they should not be too quickly abandoned?

Enoch wrote:
quote:
My apologies, particularly, Paschal as you are just starting your merry voyage, and welcome by the way. Horses for courses, what lights your fire and all that, but I regret I find that elaborate explanations attributing ex post facto symbolism to things puts me in mind of the Cricket Bag.

Incidentally, is Durandus saying a priest cannot discharge his (or these days of course, also, her) office without a chasuble, charity or both?

Maybe the cricket bag is a simple way of expressing deeper spiritual practices? So far in my reading I have not seen where Durandus says that these things must be practiced. What, by the way, do you see as the being the office of a priest? How would you define it? Perhaps we differ in this.

South Coast Kevin wrote:
quote:

Also, does God want us to 'put aside mundane concerns and to turn our hearts and minds towards him'? I rather think he wants us to find him and seek his perspective in the midst of our 'mundane concerns'. In fact, this is part of why I'm so negative towards the whole concept of special clothing for church - I think it sends the message that God is somehow more present in and / or more concerned about what happens in the hour or two of our church service each week than he is about everything else in our lives.

How do we seek God’s perspective and find it in the midst of mundane concerns if we do not turn to him? Also, ‘Lift up your hearts.’ ‘We lift them up to the Lord.’ Where in the Eucharist, other than in the intersessions and perhaps to some extent in the sermon, is the focus on mundane concerns rather than on spiritual things? So we lift up our hearts during the two hours of worship, and receive communion, and in so doing become more aware of Christ’s ‘real presence’, become inwardly more aware of his love and peace, so strengthened and fortified in this way, we can take all of this back out into the world and into our daily lives. ‘Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.’ – Go in His peace.

The words quoted above should be, or are, familiar to all Anglicans who attend the Eucharist, as well as to those of some other denominations.

Posts: 3 | From: Bedford, England | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paschal:
So we lift up our hearts during the two hours of worship, and receive communion, and in so doing become more aware of Christ’s ‘real presence’, become inwardly more aware of his love and peace, so strengthened and fortified in this way, we can take all of this back out into the world and into our daily lives. ‘Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.’ – Go in His peace.

Yes, that's all good; I'm just sceptical about the whole 'fuelling station' concept of the church service being the place / time / event where we spiritually recharge in order to get through the rest of the week.

Of course there should be an element of recharging and refreshing when we meet together as God's people, but IMO it's better if we can reach a pattern of life such that we are sustained and refreshed by God through the week. The idea being that God is with us and available to us through the whole of life, not just at church services; and marking the church service out as special (e.g. with the vestments thing) can subconsciously send the contrary message.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
FFS, Kevin, and I'm sorry to be blunt - but that's exactly how some of us who don't object to vestments and a more sacramental approach to worship view things ...

If I attend a fairly 'High' service - and my local parish church is anything but 'high' - I don't come away thinking that the service, in and of itself, is somehow more holy than the rest of my life or that the times I spend at home, working, leisure, etc or even sitting on the john are somehow far less holy in comparison ...

We keep coming back to this thing where you appear to 'project' your own distaste for vestments and so on onto everyone else. Because you think they undermine a more holistic approach, you suggest that this is what it does for everyone else.

It doesn't.

To be brutally frank, I've had a far more integrated and holistic approach to faith and its relation to the non-church-services part of my life since I eschewed the more pietistic elements of charismatic evangelicalism than I ever did as a full-on pietistic charismatic evangelical.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not decrying charismatic evangelical worship - it's great, for those who want to worship that way. I worshipped that way myself for many, many years.

Now, I choose not to - unless I can help it or unless I'm visiting somewhere like that.

I'd much rather a daily-office and contemplative type approach with regular eucharistic services on a Sunday. I find that integrates my Sunday faith with my weekday faith if you like - in a way which I never found was quite the same in my more full-on days.

They're not holding a Candlemas service at a church I sometimes visit this time of year for that purpose and I'm quite disappointed.

But life goes on. It doesn't mean that my faith collapses like a pack of cards simply because there's no readily available Candlemas alternative ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gnnnn ...

How does what Paschal said here about a eucharistic service in any way undermine the sense of drawing on God and drawing close to him the rest of the week?

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Paschal:
So we lift up our hearts during the two hours of worship, and receive communion, and in so doing become more aware of Christ’s ‘real presence’, become inwardly more aware of his love and peace, so strengthened and fortified in this way, we can take all of this back out into the world and into our daily lives. ‘Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.’ – Go in His peace.

SCK's response:


Yes, that's all good; I'm just sceptical about the whole 'fuelling station' concept of the church service being the place / time / event where we spiritually recharge in order to get through the rest of the week.

Of course there should be an element of recharging and refreshing when we meet together as God's people, but IMO it's better if we can reach a pattern of life such that we are sustained and refreshed by God through the week. The idea being that God is with us and available to us through the whole of life, not just at church services; and marking the church service out as special (e.g. with the vestments thing) can subconsciously send the contrary message.

[brick wall]

Read.my.lips. South Coast Kevin.

Pashal is NOT saying that those two hours on a Sunday morning are the be-all-and-end-all and the only way in which we can encounter God.

Are you suggesting that Paschal, and others like him, go to church on a Sunday, receive communion and then forget all about God until the following Sunday?

They may or they may not do so - just as someone who attends a Quaker meeting or a Vineyard fellowship or anything else may or may not do so.

At the very least, the weekly eucharistic gathering represents a fixed point - a time set aside for the worship of Almighty God and receiving his grace through the word, the fellowship, prayer and the consecrated elements. These things are 'means of grace' - they minister grace to us.

They aren't the only means available but they are there and it's good to avail oneself of them.

As for the rest of the week - well, however we go about it and whatever our spirituality or churchmanship then there are various means at our disposal there too ... be it daily Bible reading notes, be it some kind of small-group or midweek fellowship, be it a daily office -or, if we live in a convent or monastery, a regular daily round of services ...

You pays your money, you makes your choice ...

It's both/and, not either/or.

I'm sure there are nominal people around who treat a weekly church service as some kind of 'filling-station' - I've heard RCs say as much about some of their own number ...

But that's not what anyone is saying here. Nor is it, I suggest, what vestments - or the lack of vestments - are 'saying' either.

--------------------
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
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Paschal:
So we lift up our hearts during the two hours of worship, and receive communion, and in so doing become more aware of Christ’s ‘real presence’, become inwardly more aware of his love and peace, so strengthened and fortified in this way, we can take all of this back out into the world and into our daily lives. ‘Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.’ – Go in His peace.

Yes, that's all good; I'm just sceptical about the whole 'fuelling station' concept of the church service being the place / time / event where we spiritually recharge in order to get through the rest of the week.

Of course there should be an element of recharging and refreshing when we meet together as God's people, but IMO it's better if we can reach a pattern of life such that we are sustained and refreshed by God through the week. The idea being that God is with us and available to us through the whole of life, not just at church services; and marking the church service out as special (e.g. with the vestments thing) can subconsciously send the contrary message.

I would think of it as going to the doctors with the sacraments being the medicine. Christ, of course, is the physician. I would not argue with you when you say God is present in our everyday lives but I think in the liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, God is present in a special way. The Church building, the icons, the rituals and the vestments etc. make this more clear. Worship involves all the senses.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
South Coast Kevin, I agree with you 100% on this:

'Of course there should be an element of recharging and refreshing when we meet together as God's people, but IMO it's better if we can reach a pattern of life such that we are sustained and refreshed by God through the week.'

Has it not occurred to you, though, that for some people such a pattern of life is facilitated by attendance as some kind of church service on a Sunday and by whatever regular pattern of prayer and fellowship, study and reflection, social-action and engagement that they happen to follow between that Sunday and the next?

You seem fixated with this idea that we're all 'Sunday Christians' and that in some mysterious way the fact that this, that or the other minister, leader or cleric is wearing some kind of special clothing is somehow undermining or obviating whatever benefits the people might otherwise derive from such gatherings ...

I might start a new thread on how we maintain and sustain our walk with God - or 'refreshing' as you put it - throughout the week.

But I'm sure such means have already been discussed on Ecclesiantics and elsewhere - small groups, daily offices, daily studies etc etc ...

All these things are available should people wish to avail themselves of them.

What's the problem?

--------------------
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
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991

 - Posted      Profile for Mr Beamish   Email Mr Beamish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is there not also something to be said for Christianity in its context as a continuation of that promise to Abraham? I don't think I would be going out on a limb to suggest that the priesthood of Melchizedek is related to the priesthood of (say) Giles Fraser as it is also related to the priesthood of all believers. People have always worshipped both formally and informally, and it seems curious to me that anyone should argue that worship must be informal and undirected OR formal and regimented when scripture and history are full of people bursting into spontaneous prayer and song but also attending gatherings at temple, synagogue and church.

Indeed, given that many vestments were, historically, ordinary clothes that have taken on liturgical meanings, just as one girl's joyful song, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord', has become a daily liturgical recitation, surely it is clear that both are required, both can be dedicated to God, who desires the best we can offer in our worship?

I'm rambling, sorry, but I think it's worth noting that, although parish figures continue to slump, Anglican cathedrals (where the use of vestments is now normal) have seen a rise in attendance in recent years, which I think shows that they tap into people in a positive way. There is a time for informal worship, yea, and for everything under the Sun, including a bit of tat.

[ 01. February 2014, 14:17: Message edited by: Mr Beamish ]

Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991

 - Posted      Profile for Mr Beamish   Email Mr Beamish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Argh, so many booboos in my first post. I meant to try to point out that Melchizedek probably had ceremonial attire, and we know that priests and Levites did, too. I'll get my coat.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
FFS, Kevin, and I'm sorry to be blunt - but that's exactly how some of us who don't object to vestments and a more sacramental approach to worship view things ...

Yes, of course I realise this. I was just responding to Paschal's comment and what I saw as hints of the 'filling station' approach.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We keep coming back to this thing where you appear to 'project' your own distaste for vestments and so on onto everyone else. Because you think they undermine a more holistic approach, you suggest that this is what it does for everyone else.

I'm not projecting, I'm making inferences. IMO, treating the church service as a spectacle, or as an event where we meet God in a special way, runs the risk of sending the message that God is more concerned about the nature of our ritual behaviour than he is about the nature of our character. Some of the discussions on the Ship about the minutiae of appropriate clerical dress for this or that special date in the ecclesiastical calendar strike me as ridiculous. Why would God care about stoles, chasubles, birettas and suchlike?
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure there are nominal people around who treat a weekly church service as some kind of 'filling-station' - I've heard RCs say as much about some of their own number ...

But that's not what anyone is saying here. Nor is it, I suggest, what vestments - or the lack of vestments - are 'saying' either.

I know no one here is explicitly saying that the weekly church service is like a filling station at which we get fuelled up to survive through the rest of the week. But I pick up a sense of that view, from what some people on this thread have been saying (including Paschal's first post), and IMO vestments - placing importance and significance on the details of who wears what - contribute to that sense, for me. I realise by now that many people don't share my view, of course!
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would think of it as going to the doctors with the sacraments being the medicine. Christ, of course, is the physician. I would not argue with you when you say God is present in our everyday lives but I think in the liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, God is present in a special way. The Church building, the icons, the rituals and the vestments etc. make this more clear. Worship involves all the senses.

Yes, I appreciate that in your theological framework there is something special, something distinct about the way we meet with God at the church service, with the sacraments that take place there. And I guess that whatever I might say about the subconscious sending of messages that God is not so interested in the 24/7 of life won't make much difference (no matter how persuasive I might be!) because of that underlying theological position.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Beamish:
Indeed, given that many vestments were, historically, ordinary clothes that have taken on liturgical meanings, just as one girl's joyful song, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord', has become a daily liturgical recitation, surely it is clear that both are required, both can be dedicated to God, who desires the best we can offer in our worship?

Mmm, I'm pretty negative about the compulsory use of liturgy as well! I think for your analogy to work, you'd have to be proposing that we use Mary's words in language she spoke them in. We might use Mary's words but mostly that would be in our native language, so if our vestments are (stylised versions of) regular clothes from 1,500+ years ago then why don't we just wear contemporary regular clothes?

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools