 |
| A Catholic Mass |
I thought that I would write about something in a lighter vein so I picked the topic of vestments. Now I am not going to give a blow by blow account of the Vestarian Controversy of the sixteenth century or the fierce debate over the Ornaments Rubric in the nineteenth century. Rather I am going to take a look at contemporary attitudes toward vestments.
The worship renewal movement of the late twentieth century sparked interest in Catholic liturgical practices in evangelical and charismatic denominations as well as mainline ones. This interest was not confined to pre-Reformation Catholic liturgical practices but included post-Reformation ones. It took an uncritical view of these practices, which ignored the Catholic doctrine associated with the practices and shrugged off the incongruity of the practices with the longstanding doctrine of the denominations affected. It made unsubstantiated claims about how such practices would transform the worship of the local church. It would produce a new generation of ritualists.
The late Robert E. Webber who was a leading figure in the worship renewal movement encouraged Protestant clergy to adopt Catholic liturgical practices without regard for their compatibility with the theological tradition to which these clergy belonged. He maintained that Protestant churches had impoverished their worship when they had abandoned the practices. He stressed their long history in the Western and Eastern Churches. He also claimed that they would enrich the worship of Protestant churches that had no past history of using them. He inferred that their use would advance the cause of ecumenism.
To some Protestant clergy Webber’s arguments were persuasive. I have read a number of his books. He is very enthusiastic in championing his views. I can see how his ideas gained popularity. He also taps into what is a resurgence of interest in liturgy and liturgical practices. However, he overlooks the fact that a number of the practices that he was encouraging others to adopt, while they may be ancient, have gathered strata of doctrine over the centuries and cannot be separated from this doctrine. They are theologically-loaded.
The practice of wearing vestments, particularly the chasuble, is one of them. The parties involved the disputes that I mentioned earlier would have not agreed with the modern view that vestments are theologically-neutral and they do not hold the significance for today’s congregations that they once did. This view, I am afraid, is wishful thinking. Vestments are not theologically neutral. They say a lot more than we might wish them to say. For a number of modern day congregations they do hold the same meaning as they did for earlier congregations.
A number of Anglican and Episcopal priests have gone out of their way to draw the significance of what they are wearing to the attention of their congregations. These little tidbits of information have been passed on as if they are Holy Writ! What better way to entertain the ladies of the altar guild when called upon to give a talk. When enough material for the sermon is lacking, an exposition of the priest’s vestments comes in handy.
When I visited my old parish, the church that I helped to plant and which had fallen on hard times and become a mission again, I caught the interim in the middle of sermon series on the saints of the liturgical calendar. Very edifying stuff! Priests do this sort of thing. The potted sermons that lay readers are encouraged to read when a church does not have a priest do it too. So let us stop pretending that the visitor who walks through the church door on Sunday morning has no inkling of the significance of the vestments that the priest is wearing. Some may not. Others do.
What message is a priest conveying when he struts around in full regalia on Sunday morning like a mannequin on the catwalk? Male peacocks seek to attract a mate with their spread feathers? What is the priest seeking to do with his finery? The vestments say, “Look at me. I am special. I am in a different class from you folks in the pews.” He is certainly not conveying the impression that he is a humble messenger, watchman, and steward of the Lord.
Some priests may protest. “The congregation expects me to dress that way. It lends dignity to the service. It adds color.”
Perhaps the congregation needs to be gently instructed in the proper role of a priest. It is not that of a clothes horse.
The congregation may also need to be disabused of the idea that Anglican and Episcopal priests have always worn eucharistic vestments. The reintroduction of eucharistic vestments in the late nineteenth century was marked by heated controversy. To this day Anglicans are divided on the appropriateness of their use. It is an issue that has not been settled to the satisfaction of all parties.
At the time of the English Reformation the Church of England discarded most vestments with two exceptions. They were the surplice and the cope. Both vestments had been worn by laypeople as well as clergy before the Reformation. They had no association with the medieval Catholic sacerdotal role of the priest. They were choir vestments. The section leaders of cathedral and college choirs wore copes on the major festivals of the church year and other feasts. Copes were also worn during solemn processions.
During the early part of the reign of Elizabeth I most copes were sold or converted into covers for the Lord’s Table. Later in her reign the principal officiant at celebrations of Holy Communion at cathedrals and college chapels was authorized to wear a cope. All other clergy taking part in the service were required to wear surplices. The practice of cathedral and college choir section leaders wearing copes on special occasions was also restored. The practice of wearing copes quickly fell into desuetude. They were hot and heavy.
The surplice would become the principal vestment in the reformed Church of England. Some clergy wore a black preaching gown when they preached. They would remove their surplice and don the preaching gown before they entered the pulpit. Preaching tabs and tippets, or black preach scarves were also worn. The clergy’s wearing of a surplice and a tippet during church services was the practice enforced in the Church of England from the Reformation to the late nineteenth century.
The practice of wearing any kind of vestments had its critics during Elizabeth’s reign and later. At issue was whether vestments belonged to the realm of adiophora—matters that are not essential to faith but which are permissible for Christians or allowable in churches. If they did belong to this realm, were they edifying—that is, did they build up the faith of the congregation. The clergy who opposed the wearing of the surplice had been influenced by the anti-vestment sentiments of the Church of Geneva. They argued that wearing the surplice was a vestige of papalism and had no warrant in Scripture. They wore street clothes and hats during church services.
While later writers have described the Puritans as anti-vestments to a man, this description is inaccurate. A number of Puritan clergy did wear the surplice. Even those who were opposed to wearing the surplice had no bones about wearing the black Genevan or pulpit gown, a form of academic gown. They did not consider this gown a vestment. It would later become a common vestment in Reformed churches and Church of England ministers would wear it in the pulpit.
The proponents of the surplice contended that its use was adiophora. The surplice was the most ancient vestment worn by Christian ministers. The Scriptures did not forbid the wearing of the surplice. The Scriptures also contained references to the redeemed wearing white gowns.
Their arguments supporting the surplice's use were similar to the arguments that Archbishop Thomas Cranmer makes in his essay, “Of Ceremonies, Why Some Be Abolished, and Some retained” for the retention of certain ceremonies. Its use served “a decent order and a godly discipline.” Unlike the wearing of eucharistic vestments, its use had not been abused to the point where “the abuses could not well be taken away, the thing remaining still.” As long as eucharistic vestments were worn, the abuses connected with their use would persist. Like Cranmer, the proponents of the surplice saw no reason to do away with the old where it might be well used.
Among the abuses connected with the wearing of eucharistic vestments was the medieval Catholic sacerdotal view of the priesthood. The priest or pastor who wears eucharistic vestment may not subscribe to that view but his attire nonetheless conveys the message that he is different from the rest of the Christian assembly and points in that direction. On the other hand, wearing a surplice does not convey quite the same message since the other ministers are also wearing surplices and these ministers often as not are laypeople.
The controversy over vestments during Elizabeth’s reign was one of a number of controversies that affected the English Church. These controversies included the controversies over the use of the Book of Common Prayer and the form of church government. During the reign of Charles I they would lead to a brutal civil war.
As for dignity, it is a matter of the priest’s deportment, and not his attire. The manner in which he performs his part in the service is what lends dignity to the service. Does he go about the task of a messenger, watchman, and steward with the seriousness and humility that the task requires? Are his words and actions those of a man who is endeavoring to sanctify and shape his life according to the rule and teaching of Christ and to be a godly and wholesome example to the congregation? Does he say the prayers at an unhurried pace, with reverence and expectancy, and from the heart? Can the congregation hear what he is saying clearly and distinctly? Are his gestures restrained and appropriate to what he is saying? Does he join whole-heartedly in the hymns and worship songs?
Color can be added to the service without making the priest the center of attention. The Lord’s Table and the pulpit-lectern can be adorned with brightly-colored paraments. Brightly-colored fabric can be stretched over rectangular wooden frames and these panels can be hung like paintings from the walls. Brightly-colored fabric streamers crisscrossing each other can be suspended from the ceiling. Weighted cylindrical baskets of seasonal flowers can be placed strategically around the room, particular in the area where the congregation sits. Ceramic chalices and patens also add a touch of color. So will brightly-colored fabric covers on the liturgical books and brightly-colored fabric book cushions on the Lord’s Table. All that is required is imagination and creativity and perhaps a visit to the nearest mall. The common spaces of a mall are often a good source of ideas for decorating a non-traditional worship setting.
People react differently to vestments. Anglicans and Episcopalians often naively assume that others feel the same way toward vestments as they do. The possibility that someone might be creeped out by them does not enter their mind. To this day I have vivid recollections of what happened one Easter Eve when my mother and I brought my youngest niece and one of her girlfriends to the Easter Vigil at my mother’s church. We arrived late and went up into the choir loft so as not to disturb the service. The nave and chancel were in darkness except for the light of candles. The priest and several other liturgical ministers were wearing copes. A cantor was singing the Exultet. A thurifer was swinging a smoking censer of incense. My niece’s girlfriend who, like my niece, was in the sixth grade, was terrified. She fled down the stairs and out the building. My niece and I had to run after her. We were not able to persuade her to go back in the building. She attended a local Church of Christ church. The service was too weird for her—the men in long cloaks, the incense smoke, the flickering candles, and the chanting.
On separate occasion a visitor was entering a side door of the building of the church with which I am now involved. It was a Communion Sunday. He took one look at the priest in his eucharist vestments, turned around, walked back to his car, and drove off. We have also had a large family group who accompanied an older couple who sometimes attend the church change their minds in the lobby and go to another church, leaving behind the older couple and a grandson. They saw one of the ministers in his surplice and decided that we were not their kind of church.
These experiences and familiarity with the different attitudes that people have toward vestments has convinced me that pastors and other church leaders need to study the community before they decide on what style of worship they are going to adopt and what type of vestments, if any, the ministers are going to wear. They need to study the community’s culture and subcultures, its values, its widely-held prejudices, and the like—what Ed Stetzer describes as the “language” of the community. Otherwise, they may be needlessly creating barriers between the church and the community. This is one of the reasons why articles on the dangers of putting ecclesial practice before missional engagement particularly resonate with me. I have seen what happens when clergy and congregations put their preferences first.
I was previously involved with a growing non-denominational church that adopted a policy of deliberately avoiding anything associated with what is viewed as “traditional church” in the region. The rationale is that many people who are unchurched but who come from a church background have had negative experiences with the region’s “traditional churches” and such trappings may evoke painful memories of their negative experiences and inadvertently affect their attitude toward the church. Among these trappings are robes.
From my conversations with a number of the members of the church this rationale to a large extent has validity. They have had negative experiences in one or more of the region’s “traditional churches.” They have found the non-denominational church significantly different from these churches that they chose to become a member.
At the same time I have discerned what may be an anti-vestment prejudice in the senior pastor. This prejudice is not uncommon in the denominational background from which he comes and has its roots in the vestment controversies of the past. It may go back as far as the Puritans. In that particular denomination pastors normally wear street clothes and churches have been known to split over the issue of choir robes. It is also a prejudice that is widespread in a number of the denominations represented in the region.
Baptist, Church of Christ, and United Methodist churches are ubiquitous in western Kentucky. Most communities have one of these churches in the community or on its outskirts. Of the three denominations, only in United Methodist churches is one likely to see a pastor wearing a pulpit gown and in all likelihood that pastor will be a woman.
Based upon the latest US Census, Roman Catholics form barely 2% of the region’s population. Episcopalians and Lutherans together form less than 1% of the population. Continuing Anglicans form an even tinier population segment—so small that it is not listed in the results of the census. Their churches are the only ones in which the clergy were vestments like a cassock-alb with a stole or a cassock-alb and a chasuble with a stole. In a region in which a large segment of the population has at some point attended a church and in which an anti-vestment prejudice is widespread, wearing eucharistic vestments is not an asset. It is a liability. It creates an unnecessary barrier between a church and the community.
I know of only two exceptions. The first is Paducah and the second is Murray. Paducah is the largest urban area in the region. The population was 24,941 in 2017. The population is relatively diverse compared to the rest of the Jackson Purchase. Paducah is home to a community college and branches of two state universities. It also has a sizable community of creatives in music and the arts. Murray is a college town. The city's population was 17,741 during the 2010 U.S. Census and its micropolitan area's population is 37,191. Like Paducah, the population is relatively diverse in comparison with the rest of the region. These demographic factors have enabled an Episcopal church to establish a niche for itself in Paducah and an Episcopal church and a Lutheran church to establish a niche for themselves in Murray. The worship of all three churches is characterized by the use of Catholic liturgical practices, including eucharistic vestments. But it must be added that these churches are only reaching a small segment of the community’s population, a much smaller segment than the so-called non-liturgical churches.
A number of factors may account for the decline of the other Episcopal, Lutheran, and Continuing Anglican churches in the region. Being a poor fit with their respective communities worship-wise and in other ways is one of them. Too often a priest or pastor will let his enthusiasm for a particular style of worship or a particular set of practices to color his judgment. He will tailor the worship of the church not to the community but to his own preferences. He will make an already tediously long service longer with unnecessary devotions and superfluous ritual. He will wear vestments that a large segment of the community’s population associates with a church that this population segment may not regard as Christian.
In communities and regions in which a large part of the population has no aversion to vestments, I recommend the use of the traditional Anglican surplice by all ministers, clerical and lay, during church services with exception of the younger servers. It is long and flowing and falls to the ankles. It also has wide sleeves. For these youngsters I recommend a plain white alb with or without hood and a white rope cincture. As a possible alternative vestment for ministers, I recommend what is known as a concelebration alb with or without hood. Like the traditional Anglican surplice it is loose-fitting and ankle-length with full sleeves. Where it differs from the traditional Anglican surplice is that it can be worn by itself. It has a high collar and a zipper at its shoulder while the traditional Anglican surplice has a wide yoke collar. In selecting a concelebration alb, looseness, length, and wideness of sleeves are important considerations. Tight-fitting concelebration albs with narrow sleeves should be avoided. In communities and regions that do have an aversion to vestments, I recommend street clothes. In some cases casual dress may be appropriate.
I did not mention the black cassock in this article because it originally was not a vestment. It was the outer wear of clergy in sixteenth century England. In Elizabethan England clergy were required to wear distinct street attire which included the cassock. Like the mandatory wearing of the surplice for church services, the mandatory wearing of such attire was a cause of controversy. The arguments marshaled against the wearing of distinct street attire were similar to those used against the wearing of the surplice. Conforming clergy, when taking part in a church service, simply threw their surplice over their cassock. Sixteenth century English churches were unheated and cassocks were sometimes lined with fur.
No comments:
Post a Comment