It is often said you cannot judge a book on its cover. I am not so sure! Certainly we must not judge on covers alone, but it is equally true that how we choose to present ourselves says much about what we are. For example those meeting me for the first time will soon discern, quite correctly, that I lack discipline as regards my diet! My greed is expressed in my podgy frame every bit as much as the prematurely aged face of the homeless or addict gives testament to the misfortunes of their lives. How we dress and how we look after ourselves says much about our outlook on life and ability to care for others.
But what of the garments worn by priests called vestments? Do they reveal anything? I believe they do, but first let us remember why they are worn in the first place. Vestments are traditionally worn to strip the priest of ego that he might better represent Christ at the altar. The colours will reflect the theme of the Mass and not the taste of the incumbent. Hence green is worn in ordinary time, gold at Christmas and Easter, purple in times of penitence and so on and so forth.
When I said Mass this morning then, Ed Tomlinson the man – with his penchant for rugby shirts and jeans- was covered up by the vestments of the Church. I withdrew that the priest, in persona Christi, might come forth. It was, after all, Jesus and not me that my parishioners came to visit. When we understand this we also see why it is that the sacrament is never invalidated by a sinful priest– though it is totally invalidated by a pure soul not ordained! It is the office and not the man who is required at this moment.* At Mass we are not there to look pretty nor to make bold statements about ‘self’. Now look at my lead photograph at the top of this page and see just how anonymous the priests in this concelebration have become. They are gather as one body, a united priesthood. They are not simply a gathering of distinct individuals.
Ok! Now take a peek at Katherine Jefferts-Schori, head of the American Episcopal Church. As is the case with so many of her theologically liberal counterparts her vestments are turning into clothes. She stands adorned, in what I can only describe as a foul duvet from the 1970’s, next to a man robed in red. Just what was the occasion being celebrated??! Red suggest a martyr’s feast but her purple contradicts this, suggesting Lent or Advent. Only one conclusion can be made. The desire to reflect the holy days of the Christians Kalendar has been abandoned in favour of a personal statement of fashion. A desire to obey the teaching of the Church gives way to an expression of self belief. It is lamentable but very revealing about what is befalling many within the church at this time.
And if you think me cruel here is another shot taken only last week at the consecration of Anders Redwyj in Sweden. (Another controversial moment for the Church which will lead to difference of opinion, as she is a partnered lesbian with children) I do not wish to make any statement here about her sexuality, merely her clothes. Once again we discover a huge collection of foul horse blankets, in all the colours of the rainbow, when white or gold is the only option deemed appropriate according to the teaching of the church. Worship of man eclipses obedience to God once again. Could it get worse? Of course! I recently heard of an ordinand wanting Winnie-the-Poo sewn onto her stole as an expression of her identity. A ‘look at me’ liturgical moment in this decadent age of ‘self’ and individualism.
NB: CLEARIFICATION: Some comments suggest I was merely mourning poor taste. Far from it! What the post is trying to suggest is that we become what we pray, we eventually embody what we believe. Hence that wing of our church that sees fit to ignore historic church teaching regarding holy orders, et al in order to rejoice in an inclusive celebration of mankind, soon manifests this celebration of ‘self’ in the vestments and liturgies it opts for. Hope that clears things up a bit….
(*That is not to say his maleness is not important. For the priest represents Christ whose own male nature is revelatory and not incidental. He comes to us in the Mass as the groom – to marry his bride the holy church (we his people) , to impregnate us with his word that we may give birth to the fruits of his Spirit. Hence orthodox priests grow long hair and beards, to even better represent Christ at the altar. Their maleness emphasises his, their personal desire for short hair or shaven chin surrendered that He might be better represented.)
Careful, your prejudice is showing! Of course, it’s just a complete coincidence that the examples you choose are of women / gays / liberals / take your pick. Anything to tar them with, right? Cheap shot. Do you really want to get into a hideous vestment competition, because I’ve plenty of Catholic and con. AC ones that will burn your eyeballs? Face it, bad vestments are not unique to anyone. And I do find it amusing that those who can’t get enough of prancing around in lace from nipples to nadgers (in a manly way of course!) accuse others of feeding their egos.
(And, as I’m sure you’re aware – uniform liturgical colours are a very late, mainly Western, introduction.)
I think you need to look again the photographs show both men and women from my vantage point! Besides there is a connection…
I did say “women / gays / liberals / take your pick” – I’m sure you’d place everyone in the photos in one or more of those camps.
Pray tell, what is this ‘connection’ of which you speak? And if there is one, then why can I show you ‘conservative’ (Anglo) Catholics in hideous vestments and ‘liberal’ (Anglo) Catholics in ones of which you’d no doubt approve?
The worst offenders in the egotistical ‘dressing-up’ department are without doubt conservative ACs – you’ll get laughed out of the chancel if your man-lace isn’t up to scratch.
Your only reason for posting this is to have another cheap dig at the ‘enemy’ – after recently posting yet another plea for all sides to show love and respect for one another. You just can’t help caricaturing can you?
While I would tacitly agree with your sentiments, a part of me would also point out that I know many a good Anglo-catholic priest who relishes wearing lacy cottas and brocade chasubles. Just because the vestments are in good taste does not mean they are not misused for self-aggrandizement.
Anglican please keep your comments moderate. I am sorry if this offended you but you are wrong to imply this is a simple ‘cheap shot’.
What the post is trying to suggest is that we become what we pray, we eventually embody what we believe. Hence that wing of our church that sees fit to ignore historic church teaching regarding holy orders, human sexuality et al begins and is doing so to rejoice in the inclusive celebration of mankind, soon manifests this celebration of ‘self’ in the vestments and use of church liturgies and property.
If this were as purile as simply noting nasty tatt- you are entirely right to point out culprits accross the theological spectrum. That said the caricature you mention – all lace and gigles- tends to be found amongst the ‘high church’ as opposed to Anglo-Papalists. Just my observations…..
I guess His Holiness was just having a bad day here then?
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1730229_1564024,00.html
perhaps- or maybe he had presided over a Marian Mass which would necessitate the blue. My point is not, as I have stressed, about the taste of the vestments- it is about their inappropriate use. The photo of the consecration shows a rainbow of colours- can you explain the liturgical significnce to me? Else show a photograph of the Pope wearing floral designs IN CONTRAST to the liturgical colours of the day
Maybe he was off to Sweden?
Dear Fr Ed
You need to get the facts right. The picture from Sweden shows Archbishop Wejryd (spelling) consecrating Eva Brunne, who is indeed a married lesbian with children. I suspect you are being a little mischievous in mentioning that she is a lesbian with children, since – in your eyes – she is already in grave error by believing herself to be a priest.
All the best
John
Actually John my intention was quite the reverse. By mentioning the controversy surrounding this event, and underlining that this was NOT why I was mentioning it, I was seeking to ensure the ensuing comments remained focused on vestments and not matters of human sexuality. As to the error- I made a mistake, not being terribly well informed on matters in the Swedish church
As I pointed out before, the uniform liturgical 4-colour scheme is a recent, and Roman invention. For many centuries there was NO colour scheme – the clergy simply wore their ‘best’ vestments. Even when colour schemes began to emerge in the medieval West they varied widely from place to place, and usually were only fully followed in the Cathedrals. Parish churches often simply had a ‘best’ and an ‘ordinary’ set. The best set was used on festivals, immaterial of its colour.
That being said, only in the RC Church is the 4-colour scheme canonically obligatory. Neither in TEC nor the Church of Sweden is any colour scheme enforced – merely suggested. Whether you agree or not, the clergy shown are nor breaking any canon law, nor setting any kind of historical liturgical precedent. You merely disapprove because some non-Romans aren’t vesting like Romans.
In any case, your point here is merely to take a couple of examples and from them damn all ‘liberals’ as playing to their own ego and involved in the ‘worship of man’, based on the ‘evidence’ supplied. Like I said, a cheap shot. You’ve shown a couple of examples – I can show you hundreds of others of ‘liberals’ vesting perfectly ‘appropriately’.
But, as you keep pointing out, it’s not all about dressing up. Is it?
Anglican you speak a half truth. The recent Roman invention merely refers to the current choice of colour for each festival. The practice of using colours in vestments goes back at least to the 9th Century and probably before that. It was just less detailed. So my point stands.
That photo of BXVI shows him a few years ago in a polyester horse-blanket chosen for him by the now thankfully exiled Bugninite Piero Marini. He hasn’t been seen in anything remotely approaching that tat since.
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/Pics/B16_vestment_consistory.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hIv6IPelJBw/SsoxH4_RwUI/AAAAAAAAA4c/lEpIjBLhsQI/s320/Pope+Benedict+XVI-753262.jpg
http://www.maranatha.it/LetterBXVI.jpg
“Anglican you speak a half truth.”
As opposed to your ‘full truth’?
“The recent Roman invention merely refers to the current choice of colour for each festival.”
Precisely. ‘Roman invention’ – none of those pictured are Roman and are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to follow Roman schemes – hard as that may be for you to understand. As you say, it is merely Romes’s ‘current choice’.
“The practice of using colours in vestments goes back at least to the 9th Century and probably before that.”
Yes. But the point is, there were no FIXED colours that were regarded as ‘correct’. Not wearing the ‘right’ colour was not regarded as ‘worship of man’. You claim to be a traditionalist, when in fact your ‘traditions’ are relatively modern.
“It was just less detailed.”
‘Less detailed’ to the point where there were originally no rules, then much later only very vague diocesan rules which varied widely from place to place. And the relative unimportance of colour was emphasised by the fact that the best vestments were worn at festivals irrespective of colour – even if you had a worn one of the ‘appropriate’ colour. Centrally enforced colours were post-Reformation.
“So my point stands.”
Um…no. It doesn’t.
Anglican my point very clearly stands, vestments have been assigned colours to mark differing feasts and for spiritual purposes since the 9th Century at very latest and probably before. Instead of unpicking my words without really making a point- why not explain an alternative reason to the one I suggest for the reason that, at the consecration pictured, one is in orange and red, another in blue and yellow and the main woman robing as though audtioning for Joseph and his technicolour dream coat? My reason was clear- that this is the centring onf ‘self’ materialising in the liturgy and vestments. You disagree so please offer a viable alternative.
The picture from Sweden is very representative for the Church of Sweden Hierarchy. Lack of taste! And from this my experience I believe that you’re right father; as you dress, you believe!
As Our Lord said, sock it to those dykish Swedes with their infernal rainbow colours. I paraphrase.
There are some wonderful examples about including this for Christmas:
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1730229_1564020,00.html
But this one is hard to beat:
http://badvestments.blogspot.com/2009/07/would-you-like-fries-with-that.html
And this design for the former bishop-elect of Northern Michigan never saw the light of day:
http://anglicanwanderings.blogspot.com/2009/02/behold-i-am-doing-something-new.html
Someone has a blog devoted to bad vestments:
http://badvestments.blogspot.com/
No doubt vestments, like our doctrine, will continue to push the boundaries.
Well let’s face it Katherine Jefferts-Schori looks utterly ridiculous and looks like she is about to appear in pantomime.
I personally wouldn’t be able to take her seriously dressed like that, even before I heard her spout her heretic drivel.
Knew I’d seen the first one before:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,185170,00.html
Mind you, WHAT are those Americans thinking of?
‘Twin set and pearls’ as matching copes and mitres are affectionately known, have been a feature of Anglican Bishops for years and have even made their way over to the Roman obedience too now. For many, elevation to episcopacy has been the opportunity to splash out on something utterly hideous and vastly expensive, without which they are never seen at an induction etc! We are quite used to that, I suppose.
However, this new fad for matching chasubles and mitres is rather odd. Whilst it is understandable and indeed quite a good idea for a bishop to have and take a mitre, why does he (or if you are that way inclined, ‘she’) need to take a chasuble with him? The only conceivable reason must be to show off, which point I think Fr Ed is trying to make. So don’t be too hard on him!
Vestments are not meant to glorify the priest, but the Persona Christi. It would be just as bad if a bishop insisted that he brought his own 18th century Latin set with him wherever he goes (although, admittedly, that would be aesthetically infinitely more pleasing than some of the horrors we have seen!)
PS At least we’re not arguing about the ‘O’ word!
Bishopine Jepherts-Schori is seen in this photograph standing outside the once unblemished American Anglo-Catholic shrine, St Mary’s, New York. Their website shows her ‘pontificating’ in her colourful costume. Many other clerical ladies regularly celebrate there. Perhaps, in time, we shall see the same at St Barnabas, Tunbridge Wells?