Ship of Fools: Personal jewelry on clergy when serving

Thread: Personal jewelry on clergy when serving Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024900

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

This came up on the wedding ring thread, when it was noted that some clergy remove personal jewelry when doing a service.
I do not remove my wedding ring, and would not think of doing so, but it is a simple plain band. If it was more ornate I still think I would continue to wear it. I have always been mindful of not wearing bracelets, large rings, and dangling ear rings. I have worn a simple gold stud ear rings. I think it came about from being one of a few female clergy in the early days of women's ordination and not wanting to stand out. I also do not think anything should be distracting. I note that now many of my female clergy colleagues wear it all. I have not paid attention to what men are wearing so clearly it is not evident. What are your thoughts on clergy and jewelry ? Is it simple a matter of personal taste? Does anyone really care one way or the other?

(Edited title. Mamacita, Host)

[ 01. September 2012, 17:01: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

We were taught not to wear any jewelry but a wedding band- No watches, other rings, ear rings, chains or necklaces.

My parish had (and has) what's likely a strict dress code for the sanctuary compared to most places, but I think it does good in helping to keep a sense of the sacred.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I tend to have a habit of trying to eliminate unncessary distractions as much as I can due to the 'was that a bird? - Ooooh, shiney stuff!' nature of my brain. When saying Mass I retain my wedding ring - which is a silver band and fairly unobtrustive - but remove my watch.

PD

[ 01. September 2012, 03:34: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Time pieces, of course, of any sort—watches, wall clocks, cell phones—have no place being visible from the sanctuary. At all.

Servers, priests, deacons, subdeacons, readers, doorkeepers, widows, brothers and sisters, should silence them, remove them, and deposit them in the sacristy before the mass, to be collected once we have returned from the heavenly banquet.

...Oh. Were we talking about jewelry?

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

TSA, in a multiple-centre parish, where the priest is often on a tight schedule from one town or village to the next, the clock on the wall next to the west door may be a vital piece of furniture, as the timing of the sermon may be crucial to that day's schedule.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I do not wear jewellery at any time but I am inclined to agree with Adrian Kavannagh about removing any when at the altar.

One exception is a watch for presider and preacher so as to keep things moving along - unless there is a large clock visible.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I've never thought about this with regard to the clergy before (but can see it would be a problem if too much bling is worn). The largest and most outrageous bling is of course the pectoral cross worn by the bishop - does he keep that hidden when presiding?

It has however been a question which has taxed us as choir members. Understated is always best (apart from RSCM medals), but we tend to let our hair down at Christmas and wear flashing earrings, etc.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I've never thought about this with regard to the clergy before (but can see it would be a problem if too much bling is worn). The largest and most outrageous bling is of course the pectoral cross worn by the bishop - does he keep that hidden when presiding?

Ah, but that's more a part of his/her uniform that personal adornment.

I would echo that large amounts of distracting personal items probably seem unsuitable, although if a priest found it easier to leave a simple earring in during the service I doubt that the Baby Jesus would cry *too* much.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Yes, you do need to keep an eye on the time, but I don't give much of a damn otherwise. I'm more bothered about style issues.

I don't know much about ladies' jewellery but, as a general rule, men's is either always worn or never worn because it should be functional rather decorative. Even episcopal jewellery is meant to house relics.

Therefore should be kept to a minimum, as most men's tend to be. You shouldn't be so concious of it that you remember to take it off before every mass. Also, some wedding bands simply don't come off after a few years.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've been attending churches for several decades, and never heard that some people think clergy et al should remove their watches when taking services. Is this an obscure fad, or does everyone else know this except me? I will have to look at people's wrists in future to see.

Is this because a watch is personal adornment? I've never really thought of it that way, rather than as a thing that tells you the time. Or is it because serving in the courts of heaven we should put ourselves outside time?

I don't feel strongly about things like wedding rings. To me, to insist on removing them is a fad. But I'd agree about jewellery that draws attention to itself, that says 'this is all about me and my expressing myself'. I feel the same about personalised vestments that convey the same message.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Cufflinks might be fine if they operate on the earrings principle--relatively plain, minimal, and as functional as possible. Bracelets and other jewelry should not be worn, unless the wearer is operating under the principle that we really need to see how their taste and wealth help show up their good looks. Bling-wearing prison chaplains can sometimes find that their vanity be misinterpreted, and that would be unfortunate for all concerned.

Can one also make a plea that celebrants and those distributing the Elements not use perfume and cologne-- I have twice had to suppress scent-related sneezing fits at the altar rail. As well, Iphones can be left in the sacristy and need not be consulted during services-- while one cleric told me that is where he kept his preaching notes, I told him that I suspected him of watching Lady Gaga videos rather than pay attention to the reading from Philippians. He gave the nervous chuckle which clerics sometimes use when tempted to respond more vigorously.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've been attending churches for several decades, and never heard that some people think clergy et al should remove their watches when taking services. Is this an obscure fad, or does everyone else know this except me? I will

Most of my FSSP parish priests have removed their watches when celebrating Mass and the sacraments. This is done not only to remove personal effects, but also not to focus on time when celebrating. This is counter-cultural, indeed, and is common among tradition-minded priests.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I've never thought about this with regard to the clergy before (but can see it would be a problem if too much bling is worn). The largest and most outrageous bling is of course the pectoral cross worn by the bishop - does he keep that hidden when presiding?

It has however been a question which has taxed us as choir members. Understated is always best (apart from RSCM medals), but we tend to let our hair down at Christmas and wear flashing earrings, etc.

Generally speaking, the pectoral cross is visible at the daily office, though usually it decides to hide behind one's tippet or chimere, and hidden at Mass where it should be worn over the alb but under the chasuble.

As for clocks, a large one within the sight of the preacher has been a blessing to many. I find if I have a clock visible I am inclined to preach 12-15 minutes; if there is no clock visible then I can go 18-21 minutes without realizing I have taken that long. My best sermons - if the feedback is anything to go on - seem to occur when I have something to get off my chest and a clock visible.

PD

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Can one also make a plea that celebrants and those distributing the Elements not use perfume and cologne

indeed. I remember a curate in the 1970s who wore Aramis. The wafers stank and tasted of it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It has however been a question which has taxed us as choir members. Understated is always best (apart from RSCM medals), but we tend to let our hair down at Christmas and wear flashing earrings, etc.

RSCM medals are hardly flashy, nor are GSS medals worn by servers.

As for flashing earrings, I always thought you were fun. now I know so. Keep flashing for Jesus.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I do not wear jewellery at any time but I am inclined to agree with Adrian Kavannagh about removing any when at the altar.

One exception is a watch for presider and preacher so as to keep things moving along - unless there is a large clock visible.

This is woprth quoting in full:

quote:
The wearing of jewellery by liturgical ministers is severely restricted in Roman canon law to bishops and few others. The ascetical reasons for this should be fairly obvious. So should the liturgical reasons, yet this seems not be the case. Austerity in altar ap¬pointments and vestments, is made a mockery when
the liturgical minister displays personal jewellery of apparent expense on hand, wrist, and chest. If the
minister's personal identity needs such supports, they should be worn apart from the liturgy. In the liturgy they should be taken off. This includes wrist watches, especially the complex electronic kind, which become distractingly visible at crucial moments, such as during elevations, hand layings, and blessings

Elements of Rite: A Handbook of Liturgical; Style – Aidan Kavanagh, O.S.B. (Liturgical press, Minnesota 1990 p. 63

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Basically, I am not a jewelry person; only my wrist-watch, which is quite seemly and I never think to remove it, which would be impractical, in case I need to tell the time during the service. Not only that, it is safer to keep it on, lest it be mislaid, broken or stolen.

I wear my GSS medal away from my 'home' church, when I am with my brother and sister members. The same could very well apply to a CoS medal where worn. (The CoS member who has posted above, omits to mention that!)

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've been attending churches for several decades, and never heard that some people think clergy et al should remove their watches when taking services. Is this an obscure fad, or does everyone else know this except me? I will
Most of my FSSP parish priests have removed their watches when celebrating Mass and the sacraments. This is done not only to remove personal effects, but also not to focus on time when celebrating. This is counter-cultural, indeed, and is common among tradition-minded priests.

Contrariwise, I have seen RC churches in Spain and France with grandfather clocks in the sanctuary. I assume they have been there for some time although whether long enough to qualify as 'traditional' by FSSP standards I know not!

(and on another note I'm partial to a splash of Aramis myself...)

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :

I remove my wedding ring and engagement ring and any other rings I may be wearing after the Peace.

My watch was minimal, very thin and plain on a stainless steel band. My current one is very thin, on a black leather strap. It has never occurred to me to take it off. Hopefully neither of them are a distraction.

Earrings are slightly pink pearls. I leave them in.

Never take my bracelet off. Mr St E gave it to me the day I was deaconed.

No one has ever commented, apart from one man who wondered why I was taking my rings off.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've been attending churches for several decades, and never heard that some people think clergy et al should remove their watches when taking services. Is this an obscure fad, or does everyone else know this except me? I will have to look at people's wrists in future to see.

I don't know. It is almost universal practice in my Anglican and Orthodox experience, and commonly understood to the point where I don't know that I have ever heard it explicitly discussed, (which, of course, leads to people never having heard it discussed and so being unaware of it). I suppose you notice it more if you happen to be in the vestry/sacristy and see watches being removed. When a priest vests to serve liturgically at the altar of God, he puts on the vestments of his office and removes personal adornment - certainly watches, which are indicators of time in what is an entry into eternity.

The exceptions to this, in my Anglican experience, have been female clergy, who have usually retained ear-rings, and a Sunday during the Pride weekend one year, when the principal celebrant and two concelebrants extended their arms in the orans position, for the sleeves of their albs to ride up and reveal three fluorescent wrist-bands, (of the sort that usually serve as tickets for the kind of festivals that go on for a few days because people are expected to leave and return a few times for the duration).

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Contrariwise, I have seen RC churches in Spain and France with grandfather clocks in the sanctuary. I assume they have been there for some time although whether long enough to qualify as 'traditional' by FSSP standards I know not!

Perhaps they have been "grandfathered in". [Big Grin]

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

I think if I took my wedding ring off, the tan line on my finger would be apparent, and people might think I'd separated from my husband or something... To my mind, that's removing one distraction to create another!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The exceptions to this, in my Anglican experience, have been female clergy, who have usually retained ear-rings, and a Sunday during the Pride weekend one year, when the principal celebrant and two concelebrants extended their arms in the orans position, for the sleeves of their albs to ride up and reveal three fluorescent wrist-bands, (of the sort that usually serve as tickets for the kind of festivals that go on for a few days because people are expected to leave and return a few times for the duration).

That isn't showing off. That is a witness greatly to be encouraged in defiance of the stupid teaching coming out from the establishment at present.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The exceptions to this, in my Anglican experience, have been female clergy, who have usually retained ear-rings, and a Sunday during the Pride weekend one year, when the principal celebrant and two concelebrants extended their arms in the orans position, for the sleeves of their albs to ride up and reveal three fluorescent wrist-bands, (of the sort that usually serve as tickets for the kind of festivals that go on for a few days because people are expected to leave and return a few times for the duration).
That isn't showing off. That is a witness greatly to be encouraged in defiance of the stupid teaching coming out from the establishment at present.

I think it's more the case that those sorts of bands can only be cut off, which invalidates them as tickets, so if you want to visit another day of whatever the event is, you have to keep it on.

I just found it amusing.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I think that would rate among my top ten comedy liturgical moments, had I seen it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Is there a liturgically-approved variant of YMCA?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

One of the few times I wear a watch is when I'm zipping round my three services on a Sunday morning. Why a watch should be considered inappropriate in the sanctuary, I can't begin to imagine. Fear of witchcraft - 'magic disc tell time operated by the devil's goblins....'?

For years I angsted over long-earrings, bracelets, rings etc in the sanctuary. I tend to keep bracelets and big rings for when I'm blinging up for a non-sacred occasion anyway. But if anyone has got the time, energy and mind-set to worry about the length of my earrings, knock yourself out, is what I say.

So long as it's not obscene or gargantuan there have got to be more important things to spend one's attention on when approaching the sacrament, than a bit of jewellery.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
One of the few times I wear a watch is when I'm zipping round my three services on a Sunday morning. Why a watch should be considered inappropriate in the sanctuary, I can't begin to imagine. Fear of witchcraft - 'magic disc tell time operated by the devil's goblins....'?

I think the argument is more that watches are a reminder of what Geoffrey Hill would doubtless call 'carnal time' during the liturgy, which should be reminder of sacramental, eschatological, time.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So long as it's not obscene or gargantuan there have got to be more important things to spend one's attention on when approaching the sacrament, than a bit of jewellery.

This makes sense to me. (And I do get the point (S)pike Couchant makes about time, although the terms with which I'm familiar are kairos and kronos.) Many of the responses above seemed to be pointing to a sort of unnecessary legalism. The goal should be to not be distracting -- yet understanding that distraction is a very subjective thing. I might not be distracted by a pair of pretty earrings but be startled by cuff links, no matter how tasteful they are. (And the business about removing wedding rings is just silly, IMO.)

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

In the case of a rather low church/MOTR sort of priest like myself, with no particular conviction or resonance for the practice, it would just be an affectation. However, I can certainly respect this interesting custom, and the liturgical/theological idea behind it. It's new to me so I'm glad to have learnt another little snippet of knowledge.

ETA: Response to (S)pike Coucant.

[ 01. September 2012, 22:04: Message edited by: Anselmina ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I don't generally wear blingy earrings anyway, but when I'm assisting I usually tone it down even more. (To me a pierced but un-earringed ear would be more distracting than an ear carrying a modest earring.)

I agree with Anselmina that anyone who wants to worry about clergy earrings really needs to start thinking about other things during worship.

Jewelry I have found disturbingly bling-y: A Synodically Authorized Minister who wears a pectoral cross that seems larger than our Presiding Bishop's. He looks like a pasty-faced rap musician with it on.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

A good friend of mine is a server in a prominent London A-C shrine and has a pierced ear (formerly two piercings in one ear). He used to wear liturgically coloured studs in them, but he now takes them out to serve, despite the parish priest saying that he rather liked having 'a bit of bling in the sanctuary' (his words, not mine). I'm inclined to agree with the priest: after all, without my friends earrings, this particular parish would look a bit drab up front, with nothing shiny except for the diamonds on the chalice, the silver sanctuary lamps, six to sixteen silver-plated candlesticks and (on great feasts only), cloth of gold vestments and a gold lavbo set. Well, the entire eastern wall is gilded, but you see what I mean. For many people, too much austerity is a distraction. So bring on the (liturgically appropriate) bling.

[That said, I once saw a Eucharistic minister in a low-MotR Anglican church who wore a large beaded necklace OVER her cassock-alb [Projectile]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

We skirted quite close to a couple of Dead Horses up there - no need for that, thanks very much.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

With all that said, the now former pastor of my own parish who was as traditional as one could expect wore both a watch and a wedding ring. Being a consecrated religious, the ring was part of the habit of his order, and he was not allowed to remove it while in public.

As to the watch, I have no idea. I suppose it was to keep all the masses flowing. With four masses back-to-back, I suppose it's more important to keep them all on time.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Wedding ring and watch only -- even when baptising.

I'm also conscious that the way I dress could be distracting so try not to draw attention to myself in that way. No aftershave either -- such things are often persoanl tastes.

By the way, as per up thread, cufflinks are ok, but please please not masonic ones as I've seen on the officiant when receiving communion on a couple of occasions.

and therefore not wearing any clothes that mig

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
..... without my friends earrings, this particular parish would look a bit drab up front, with nothing shiny except for the diamonds on the chalice, the silver sanctuary lamps, six to sixteen silver-plated candlesticks and (on great feasts only), cloth of gold vestments and a gold lavbo set. Well, the entire eastern wall is gilded, but you see what I mean. For many people, too much austerity is a distraction ....

Please tell me that this is a wind up or that this is being collected to sell for the cause of justice and the poor.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
..... without my friends earrings, this particular parish would look a bit drab up front, with nothing shiny except for the diamonds on the chalice, the silver sanctuary lamps, six to sixteen silver-plated candlesticks and (on great feasts only), cloth of gold vestments and a gold lavbo set. Well, the entire eastern wall is gilded, but you see what I mean. For many people, too much austerity is a distraction ....
Please tell me that this is a wind up or that this is being collected to sell for the cause of justice and the poor.

I may have been being slightly ironic (it's been known to happen), although the description is accurate enough. Beautiful church.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I'm one of those who's in agreement with Aidan Kavanagh on this. I think a certain austerity - or to use one of Kavanagh's ideas, a kind of liturgical ascetic - is a good thing. It's often said that one of the things that vestments do is to anonymise the priest; and it's difficult to see how jewellery does anything but the opposite.

I'd also question the use of wristwatches. After all, does an orchestra conductor need a watch to tell if a symphony is running "to time"? No, a conductor has acquired the skill of feeling the natural pace, speed, rhythm and variation of the music - what Wagner called the Takt. Surely a skilled and experienced liturgical minister can learn to feel the Takt of the liturgy?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Many Protestant churches have the watch question sussed. A large clock fairly high up on the back wall does equally well.

There is however no truth in the rumour that the churches started worship at 11:00 a.m. because it struck with Alleluia at 12:00 noon.

Jengie

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
One of the few times I wear a watch is when I'm zipping round my three services on a Sunday morning. Why a watch should be considered inappropriate in the sanctuary, I can't begin to imagine. Fear of witchcraft - 'magic disc tell time operated by the devil's goblins....'?

For years I angsted over long-earrings, bracelets, rings etc in the sanctuary. I tend to keep bracelets and big rings for when I'm blinging up for a non-sacred occasion anyway. But if anyone has got the time, energy and mind-set to worry about the length of my earrings, knock yourself out, is what I say.

So long as it's not obscene or gargantuan there have got to be more important things to spend one's attention on when approaching the sacrament, than a bit of jewellery.

As I have only the vaguest notion of time, I sympathize with Anselmina's plight. Her idea that watches are run by the efforts of small goblins is one which I quite like and will now adopt.

My bracelet reference finds its origin in a visit to a TEC outlet in Florida where an assisting priest had at least two or three bracelets, all fairly large, sliding down her arms and requiring frequent adjusting. The bracelets matched her earrings. The difficulty comes when we have to decide over what is large and gargantuan. Judging by this cleric's Tammy Bakker-like approach to makeup, she likely felt that her jewelry was subtle and restrained. Wondering if a bit of gilt and carved plastic will be shooting into the chalice distracted me-- but I have a notoriously rickety attention span.

Issue wristbands/bracelets, simply, don't have a place within the altar rails. In my time, I have seen clerical support for the troops, the police, cancer, pride, muscular dystrophy, and a particular zoning battle (a friend of mine has recently seen a small red square enamel pin on a chasuble-- supporting Québec students facing tuition hikes and, in the current provincial election, opposition to at least one political party). Certainly in the Canadian context, these things are sometimes read as support for a specific political party or an individual politician.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
With all that said, the now former pastor of my own parish who was as traditional as one could expect wore both a watch and a wedding ring. Being a consecrated religious, the ring was part of the habit of his order, and he was not allowed to remove it while in public.

How can this priest be both married AND "a consecrated religious"? [Confused]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Ceremonial, many religious refer to the ring they wear as their "wedding ring", since it is a sign of their spousal relationship to the Bridegroom.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
With all that said, the now former pastor of my own parish who was as traditional as one could expect wore both a watch and a wedding ring. Being a consecrated religious, the ring was part of the habit of his order, and he was not allowed to remove it while in public.
How can this priest be both married AND "a consecrated religious"?

See above, but also there are also married religious in a few Orders. The Anglican Order of Preachers (Dominican) professes married members and not just to the Third Order.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
A good friend of mine is a server in a prominent London A-C shrine and has a pierced ear (formerly two piercings in one ear). He used to wear liturgically coloured studs in them, but he now takes them out to serve, despite the parish priest saying that he rather liked having 'a bit of bling in the sanctuary'

What about pierced tongues?

Quite discoverting when administering Holy Communion on to them.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
...The Anglican Order of Preachers (Dominican) professes married members and not just to the Third Order.

I never cease to be amazed at the sheer eclectic genius of Anglicanism. Anglican Dominicans! Got and Anglican Jesuits?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
..... without my friends earrings, this particular parish would look a bit drab up front, with nothing shiny except for the diamonds on the chalice, the silver sanctuary lamps, six to sixteen silver-plated candlesticks and (on great feasts only), cloth of gold vestments and a gold lavbo set. Well, the entire eastern wall is gilded, but you see what I mean. For many people, too much austerity is a distraction ....
Please tell me that this is a wind up or that this is being collected to sell for the cause of justice and the poor.

Now remind me again, which disciple was it who said something similar about IIRC a jar of perfume? [Biased]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'd also question the use of wristwatches. After all, does an orchestra conductor need a watch to tell if a symphony is running "to time"? No, a conductor has acquired the skill of feeling the natural pace, speed, rhythm and variation of the music - what Wagner called the Takt. Surely a skilled and experienced liturgical minister can learn to feel the Takt of the liturgy?

You're right that once you've spent a fair amount of time with the same routines on a Sunday morning, someone could set their watch by some minister's timing of the services. I forget to put my watch on at least frequently enough to have to let the thing flow at what feels like the right pace, and it seems to work okay.

But for me the issue isn't 'why have the watch' but 'why not?' - at least in my case. I understand that for some priests they have a particular theological sensibility about the symbolism of eternal time vs. finite time as evidenced by a wristwatch. But I don't. A watch is a watch and I really doubt hardly anyone in my own congregations even notices whether I've got one on, or that it sends any kind of message beyond 'oh look a watch'. I'm sure it would be different if I had a particular kind of training, or ministered in a particular kind of church. But watch-wearing just isn't an issue anywhere I've been (so far as I know).

The clergy-woman wearing a beady necklace over her cassock-alb is, however, just wrong! And clinky, jingly-jangly bracelets. Or earrings long enough to end up being intincted in the chalice. I did wonder about after-shave. I think I probably would be distracted by that, but as I like a splash of good scent on a bloke, I don't think it would annoy me. Is that bad?! [Biased]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Anselmina, I agree with all three of your paragraphs, and thank you for your earlier comment which reassured me that it wasn't just me who had not encountered the foible about watches before.

On odouriferous servers etc, why should it be all right for them to smell of stale sweat, or for the odour to be masked by a great swingy thing with smoke coming out of it, but not aftershave or deodorant?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But for me the issue isn't 'why have the watch' but 'why not?'

Speaking for myself, I just think that one of the worst things you could hear from a priest is, "In the same way, after supper he took the cup. He gave it to them saying ... oh crap, I've missed my bus."

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
With all that said, the now former pastor of my own parish who was as traditional as one could expect wore both a watch and a wedding ring. Being a consecrated religious, the ring was part of the habit of his order, and he was not allowed to remove it while in public.
How can this priest be both married AND "a consecrated religious"?
See above, but also there are also married religious in a few Orders. The Anglican Order of Preachers (Dominican) professes married members and not just to the Third Order.

A recent modern Anglican novelty, to be sure. Even most Anglican orders historically have provided for such, since the two states of life (Third Order is something rather different) are, by their very nature, mutually exclusive. The rule of St. Augustine certainly does not provide for it, nor do any of St. Dominic's decrees. In short, this is an innovation of recent decades that a handful of dying Anglican orders took on, as they had nowhere else to turn. The rest of the Church, both Eastern and Western--including most of Anglicanism, for that matter--continues to understand the difference between the two states of life.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

My bracelet reference finds its origin in a visit to a TEC outlet in Florida where an assisting priest had at least two or three bracelets, all fairly large, sliding down her arms and requiring frequent adjusting. The bracelets matched her earrings. The difficulty comes when we have to decide over what is large and gargantuan. Judging by this cleric's Tammy Bakker-like approach to makeup, she likely felt that her jewelry was subtle and restrained. Wondering if a bit of gilt and carved plastic will be shooting into the chalice distracted me-- but I have a notoriously rickety attention span.

This may just be a cultural difference -- in the South folks tend to expect their women of God to dress like that (as they expect their men of God to dress like Mr. Bakker). Kind of like how here in Oregon we expect our ordained leaders to be wearing messenger bags and vegan shoes.

The only place I've ever been where jewelery on the worship staff was not only approved, but encouraged, was amongst our siblings in Christ who followed a Name It And Claim It theology. There, they were judged not to be worthy if God hadn't blessed them with an abundance of gold, diamonds, and expensive timepieces.

Most of those commenting here (I presume) are from the kinds of churches where a preacher rolling up in a brand new Mercedes Benz (or even a slightly newer station wagon) is greeted with suspicion and a suggestion the parish Treasurer take a look at the books. Ostentatiousness isn't exactly what we look for in our clergy.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

In my case that would be turn up on a new push bike!

PD

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[QUOTE] a preacher rolling up in a brand new Mercedes Benz (or even a slightly newer station wagon) is greeted with suspicion and a suggestion the parish Treasurer take a look at the books. Ostentatiousness isn't exactly what we look for in our clergy.

I'm the owner of the oldest rustist car in the car park (17 years old). Does that fit the bill?

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[QUOTE] a preacher rolling up in a brand new Mercedes Benz (or even a slightly newer station wagon) is greeted with suspicion and a suggestion the parish Treasurer take a look at the books. Ostentatiousness isn't exactly what we look for in our clergy.
I'm the owner of the oldest rustist car in the car park (17 years old). Does that fit the bill?

I don't honestly care what you drive, whether you're the President or the preacher. I have heard others get sniffly about the priest's mode de transportacion, though, at which point I usually play my Portland trump card, "I don't own a car."

(Really, though, when your priest has kids, I'd rather the priest be driving something new-ish because, you know, airbags.)

[ 03. September 2012, 05:32: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0