Sounds as if climate not theology would most influence the choice of vesture anyway! I doubt if I would wear a chasuble in 40 degrees.
Madame and I were in an inland town* one February. The temp at 7.30 pm on Ash Wednesday was still in the high 30s. The morning service had been held in the main church, but we went to the evening one in a small suburb - a church built from corrugated iron. The priest came out beforehand to say that all the chasubles were hot, the Lenten purple particularly so, and he'd not be wearing it. So he wore cassock and stole, with sandaled feet. Who knows what was underneath that. But it looked timeless, back to the eastern Mediterranean of any age - a suitable showing of reverence with practicality.
And as Rossweisse says, what a bad change in the NT.
*Not in Sydney diocese, about a thousand km inland and nearly at the western boundary of the State.
Our friend DD, having commenced his ministry in the tropics, often celebrated in sandals below alb and stole. On occasion, when the dew was heavy, he was barefooted so as not to track wet grass clippings into the chapel.
It has long seemed to me that the Sinny "Anglicans" are mostly a bunch of unregenerate Calvinists who pretend to be Anglican in order to hang onto the real estate. True Anglicanism, I believe, accepts some diversity in worship; the Sinny boys (and the ones in charge are all boys) demand lockstep conformity. Fie!
Oh, Rossweisse! There are times that you give me my best laugh of the day. Thank you for the palate cleanser. You and I are on page.
Yes, no women in ministry here. Some slight softening around the edges suggests that one day - it may be 50 years, maybe 75 years hence - we'll see a woman ordained as a priest; then the floodgates will be open.
Apart from 'we've always done it this way', 'I like to see a priest properly dressed and wearing what I expect to see him or her wearing', or 'wearing/not wearing X demonstrates that that he/she is/isn't one of us/them', why does it matter to some people that the celebrant does or must never wear a chasuble?
After all, I grew up in a CofE where clergy usually wore a cassock, surplice and black scarf for morning and evening prayer, but might change the black scarf for a coloured stole for communion. Clergy who were fairly high church or doing some sort of civic thing might wear some coloured garment over the top. One was aware that this might be a bit suspicious as being popish.
I still don't really get why,
a. Some people totally reject chasubles etc - apart from suspicion of popish ornamentation, or
b. For others, including clearly some Shipmates, it's really important that the person celebrating should be wearing one.
Whatever your personal take on what happens to the bread and the wine, obviously it happens to them just the same whether the celebrant is or is not wearing one.
I feel I ought to know and understand this, but I don't really. Apart from the reasons I've quoted in the first paragraph above, is there another that genuinely matters?
Ok, so it's a tunicle. But then my point stands; that proper Anglo-Catholic traditions are indeed unwelcome in the diocese. It just seems weird in a city with over 4 million people.
I guess it’s because in Sydney Anglo-Catholic traditions are officially not seen as ‘proper’, and those who would prefer to observe them nonetheless rank obedience to their episcopal hierarchy as being of more importance.
Ok, so it's a tunicle. But then my point stands; that proper Anglo-Catholic traditions are indeed unwelcome in the diocese. It just seems weird in a city with over 4 million people.
Really? Try to find an Anglo-Catholic parish in Ohio. Or Virginia. Or North Carolina. There are millions of Anglicans far out of driving distance to a monstrance.
Ok, so it's a tunicle. But then my point stands; that proper Anglo-Catholic traditions are indeed unwelcome in the diocese. It just seems weird in a city with over 4 million people.
I explained above how Sydney remained low church at a time when it could reasonably have been expected to join the Oxford Movement. But to think the reverse - there are proportionally probably fewer low church parishes in Brisbane (or Chichester).
Chasubles are banned in the Church in Ireland too. The Anglican Church there is likewise very low church, though they were also one of the first Anglican churches to ordain women - my impression is of a more old-fashioned low church style than the Moore College types. To me as an A-C, losing the old-fashioned low church and MOTR set in Sydney seems like a much bigger loss than chasubles, which as has been pointed out would often be dispensed with due to heat anyway. I don't think a single diocese should take it upon themselves to ban them, but they are not in themselves the sole arbiters of what it means to be Anglo-Catholic. I imagine RC priests in Australia ditch the chasubles frequently due to the heat.
Ok, so it's a tunicle. But then my point stands; that proper Anglo-Catholic traditions are indeed unwelcome in the diocese. It just seems weird in a city with over 4 million people.
Really? Try to find an Anglo-Catholic parish in Ohio. Or Virginia. Or North Carolina. There are millions of Anglicans far out of driving distance to a monstrance.
Chasubles are banned in the Church in Ireland too. The Anglican Church there is likewise very low church, though they were also one of the first Anglican churches to ordain women - my impression is of a more old-fashioned low church style than the Moore College types. To me as an A-C, losing the old-fashioned low church and MOTR set in Sydney seems like a much bigger loss than chasubles, which as has been pointed out would often be dispensed with due to heat anyway. I don't think a single diocese should take it upon themselves to ban them, but they are not in themselves the sole arbiters of what it means to be Anglo-Catholic. I imagine RC priests in Australia ditch the chasubles frequently due to the heat.
The problem is the ban, and the reason for it. The ban is a direct rejection of the Anglo-Catholic heritage. For priests are indeed, well, priests.
Ok, so it's a tunicle. But then my point stands; that proper Anglo-Catholic traditions are indeed unwelcome in the diocese. It just seems weird in a city with over 4 million people.
Really? Try to find an Anglo-Catholic parish in Ohio. Or Virginia. Or North Carolina. There are millions of Anglicans far out of driving distance to a monstrance.
You've come up with a half dozen churches for an area with a population rather more than that of Sydney. And don't forget that the Anglican population of Sydney is under 1m. Only about 16% of Australians generally say that they are Anglicans, and the observing portion of those is very small.
Ok, so it's a tunicle. But then my point stands; that proper Anglo-Catholic traditions are indeed unwelcome in the diocese. It just seems weird in a city with over 4 million people.
Really? Try to find an Anglo-Catholic parish in Ohio. Or Virginia. Or North Carolina. There are millions of Anglicans far out of driving distance to a monstrance.
St. Mary’s Asheville and St. Timothy’s are in my experience the two parishes most likely to be mentioned if one is looking for Anglo-Catholic churches in a state where Episcopal churches (numbering around 250) tend to be neither too high nor too low. Historically, North Carolina Episcopalians have tended to be okay with practices that were fairly high church by the standards of the mid-19th C, such as candles on the altar, but not with practices considered “Romish,” especially after the second bishop of NC swam the Tiber. (Chasubles seem to have become very common in recent decades.)
I’m not familiar with St. Timothy’s aside from knowing a little of its reputation, which is indeed full-blown Anglo-Catholic. I am somewhat familiar with St. Mary’s. Western North Carolina has tended on the whole to be a bit higher church than the rest of the state. (The Diocese of Western North Carolina is the only one of NC’s three dioceses to have a cathedral, and it went 70+ years without one.) St. Mary’s does describe itself as Anglo-Catholic, and it is unquestionably high by NC Episcopal standards (and nosebleed high by Virginia standards), but I don’t think it gets anywhere near Biretta Belt (or perhaps St. Timothy’s W-S) standards.
st. Mary’s is a smells and bells place; they have auricular confession. I know that they have sometimes had benediction and adoration in the past, but I’m not sure how often they do now. On the other hand, their Maundy Thursday service, as I understand it, takes place in the parish hall in the context of a meal, and they do not observe the Easter vigil, nor do they have daily Mass or daily Office. And St. Mary’s has a calendar, not a kalendar.
Yes the ban is annoying, but it sounds as if Sydney was naturally low church in the first place. It's likely there wouldn't be many chasubles regardless.
Sydney Anglicans have many, many faults theologically-speaking, in my opinion - but to zero in on the chasuble ban alone is a little strange to me. I disagree with it but you can be a priest without them. I live in an English diocese where the bishop would be only too happy to ban them if he could though, so perhaps for me it's just a case of choosing your battles.
For me this is where I get rather annoyed with many Anglo-Catholics - we are not the only ones who lose when conservative evangelicals dominate to such a degree. MOTR churches struggling to flourish is a problem even if it doesn't directly affect us. I'm also wary of the Moore College influence in the CoE via Oakhill and affiliated churches...I know there are Moore College trained clergy in England. Funnily enough the HTB influence will probably curtail that to a degree - Calvinism is much less marketable, particularly a 'no girls allowed' brand - but still not something I'm thrilled to see here.
Really? Try to find an Anglo-Catholic parish in Ohio. Or Virginia. Or North Carolina. There are millions of Anglicans far out of driving distance to a monstrance.
My mother grew up in an Anglo-Catholic parish in Charleston, South Carolina. They're rare, but they're there.
I disagree with it but you can be a priest without them.
Yes, but the problem is the reason it was banned. It was not banned because it is too hot and many priests ditched them anyway. It was banned because of its Catholic and sacrificial connotations. But these connotations are intrinsic to not just the Roman Catholic tradition but also the Anglo-Catholic one. The ban, therefore, is a direct rejection of the Anglo-Catholic heritage.
So after having this discussion I am not less convinced that Anglo-Catholics are actually unwanted in the Sydney diocese but more. Of course they probably will not say that outright but actions speak louder than words.
Where am I wrong? Is the argument for the ban not that it carries sacrificial connotations? And if so, is that not an affront to the Anglo-Catholic tradition?
Where am I wrong? Is the argument for the ban not that it carries sacrificial connotations? And if so, is that not an affront to the Anglo-Catholic tradition?
You're not wrong, but (if you'll forgive me for saying this) you seem maybe a little naïve when it comes to the history and general ethos of the Diocese of Sydney. I'm no expert (and far less of one than many who have replied to you), but I know enough to be wholly unsurprised that Sydney does not exactly embrace Anglo-Catholicism at the diocesan level, although a few individual parishes are very much a different story.
I'm a bit baffled that 'some parts of the Anglican Communion have an issue with chasubles' is such breaking news. Like er, yes I know they're banned because of the Catholic connotations. But also there likely wouldn't be many of them in Sydney anyway. Likewise Ireland. The city I live in has a single Anglo-Catholic church for a population of ~124,000 people plus surrounding villages - even the cathedral is at most MOTR. It just happens to be a solidly evangelical area in terms of Anglicanism. That some parts of the Anglican Communion are like this is a surprise to many Anglicans (not least Anglican Shippies) is....surprising to me.
Which means that Anglo-Catholics who wants to hold on to their whole tradition is indeed unwanted in the diocese. That was my claim but that claim was contested.
...So it's hard to extrapolate directly from Sydney, but there's no doubt that there's very little non-Sydney presence from the South Australian border north, now.
Judging from what I know of Sinny, that's pretty horrible.
Yes
FWIW, regulations aside, the response of the Moore/GAFCON set in Sydney is probably more that ACs are weird and irrelevant, whereas "Libruls" are downright counter-gospel. But Libruls don't have an objective focal point to define them - like a chasuble.
The "low church" form of librul, in various shades of social action but un-flamboyant, un-sacramental liturgy, a strong unfluence in little old NZ next door, tend not to exist in Oz-Anglicanism, though they are well-represented in the Uniting Church. A "low" (the terms re useless) Moore/GAFCONite would largely ignore liturgical forms, and as noted above, consider open neck shirt and closed shoes to be formal liturgical attire. As we well know penises are compulsory for leading worship and teaching, and their use is strictly limited to insertion in a vagina ... of course only between the time of marriage to the vagina's owner and her death, though it is possible in that parenthesis of time to enjoy recreational rather than only precreational use of the respective implements. Probably not auto-use, though.
A divorced "minister" in Sydney will not be licensed.
The word "priest" is of course frowned upon ... I'm never likely to attend an ordination in Sydney so I'm not sure how they wriggle round the prayer-book terminology. Most of the few AC clergy in Sydney have trained elsewhere, not Moore (though some Moore graduates have climbed the candle and/or bucked the trend over the decades).
Which means that Anglo-Catholics who wants to hold on to their whole tradition is indeed unwanted in the diocese. That was my claim but that claim was contested.
No, it means that Anglo-Catholics largely do not exist in the diocese in the first place. You seem to be imagining a great battle between the hierarchy and Anglo-Catholics in Sydney which just doesn't exist, and that's what's being contested - including by actual Australians.
Which means that Anglo-Catholics who wants to hold on to their whole tradition is indeed unwanted in the diocese. That was my claim but that claim was contested.
No, it means that Anglo-Catholics largely do not exist in the diocese in the first place.
And, if I understand correctly, those relatively few Anglo-Catholics who do exist in the diocese have decided that obedience to the bishop and compliance with diocesan canons is more important than fighting over the chasuble, and they’ve figured out how to live with and work around the ban on chasubles.
Am I totally mistaken in recalling that until maybe 50 or so years ago, chasubles were technically not permitted in the CofE, and whether a priest could nevertheless wear one was pretty much totally dependent on whether his bishop was willing to not enforce the prohibition? Am I totally off on that?
I don't know about that, but certainly they've only been a mainstream vestment in the CoE for a pretty short amount of time. If they were banned in Sydney in 1911, that's well before they were particularly widespread outside London and Oxford in England. I find the issue of 'heritage' to be a bit odd from that perspective - it's just not a heritage that Anglicans in Sydney have.
Speaking personally, I wouldn't like a chasuble ban but obedience to the bishop is more important to me as an Anglo-Catholic. Going to the RCs over vestments seems pretty silly to me. Cassock, alb, stole, and cope seems like a perfectly respectable compromise. Let's face it, being Anglo-Catholic in Sydney diocese must be enough of a hassle without breaking the rules on vestments. It doesn't seem like it would be worth it.
Where am I wrong? Is the argument for the ban not that it carries sacrificial connotations? And if so, is that not an affront to the Anglo-Catholic tradition?
Where am I wrong? Is the argument for the ban not that it carries sacrificial connotations? And if so, is that not an affront to the Anglo-Catholic tradition?
Just read the whole of this thread, slowly.
I have. Are you saying that the chasuble wasn't banned because of its connotations to the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass? If not, what was the reason?
Going to the RCs over vestments seems pretty silly to me.
My point is not the vestment itself but what the vestment represents, and why it was banned. If it was banned of its sacrificial connotations, this is about much more than a piece of clothing. The Eucharistic sacrifice is an integral part of the Anglo-Catholic tradition. A ban of the chasuble, based on its sacrificial connotations would therefore represent a rejection of the Anglo-Catholic tradition.
So it's not just about vestments but about what these vestments represent and the theological implications of the ban.
Of course the Anglo-Catholics in Sydney may not believe in the Eucharistic sacrifice. But if that is the case, they aren't Anglo-Catholics. They might be high church Anglicans but they wouldn't be Anglo-Catholics.
Where am I wrong? Is the argument for the ban not that it carries sacrificial connotations? And if so, is that not an affront to the Anglo-Catholic tradition?
Just read the whole of this thread, slowly.
I have. Are you saying that the chasuble wasn't banned because of its connotations to the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass? If not, what was the reason?
Going to the RCs over vestments seems pretty silly to me.
My point is not the vestment itself but what the vestment represents, and why it was banned. If it was banned of its sacrificial connotations, this is about much more than a piece of clothing. The Eucharistic sacrifice is an integral part of the Anglo-Catholic tradition. A ban of the chasuble, based on its sacrificial connotations would therefore represent a rejection of the Anglo-Catholic tradition.
So it's not just about vestments but about what these vestments represent and the theological implications of the ban.
Of course the Anglo-Catholics in Sydney may not believe in the Eucharistic sacrifice. But if that is the case, they aren't Anglo-Catholics. They might be high church Anglicans but they wouldn't be Anglo-Catholics.
I rather suspect that the Anglo-Catholics of Christ Church St. Lawrence think that they can believe in the Eucharistic sacrifice without wearing chasubles. They probably file the chasuble ban under the long list of things that are tolerable, even if not ideal. I find that quite a lot of things in life end up in that category.
Or, if you're asking how they can have a different Eucharistic theology than their bishop, then I think the answer is "Anglicanism." Seriously, it's an entire Christian tradition based in large on accommodating different understandings of the Eucharist.
To be clear, and to forestall the inevitable reply, I am absolutely not suggesting that the Diocese of Sydney is a shining exemplar of Anglican breadth. It's not. But people make it work.
...To be clear, and to forestall the inevitable reply, I am absolutely not suggesting that the Diocese of Sydney is a shining exemplar of Anglican breadth. It's not. But people make it work.
Between the ban on certain traditionally Anglican vestments and other aspects of worship and the vile treatment of those who believe that women are fully human, it doesn't sound particularly Anglican to me at all. It sounds misogynistic, intolerant, and utterly Calvinist (which is to say, like my idea of hell).
...To be clear, and to forestall the inevitable reply, I am absolutely not suggesting that the Diocese of Sydney is a shining exemplar of Anglican breadth. It's not. But people make it work.
Between the ban on certain traditionally Anglican vestments and other aspects of worship and the vile treatment of those who believe that women are fully human, it doesn't sound particularly Anglican to me at all. It sounds misogynistic, intolerant, and utterly Calvinist (which is to say, like my idea of hell).
The diocese is both misogynistic and intolerant; I'd dispute that it is utterly Calvinist. If it has any of the leading reformers of the early C16 to look back to for its eucharistic theology, it is to Zwingli rather than Calvin. Even then, it's Zwingli modified.
I doubt very much thought was given to the sacrificial nature of the eucharist when the chasuble was banned. When the first ban was announced, it was on the basis that the chasuble was not a vestment permitted in 1552, and it was popish. The later canon was enacted because the chasuble was still seen as popish, little or no thought being given to why.
It seems to me to be very flimsy and limited to base your theology on wearing a vestment. As Columba-in-a-Currach says, people make it work.
I rather suspect that the Anglo-Catholics of Christ Church St. Lawrence think that they can believe in the Eucharistic sacrifice without wearing chasubles.
That's not my point. My point is that the ban itself is a rejection of the Eucharistic sacrifice. It was banned precisely because of its sacrificial connotations. Which is what I have been told by people in Australia.
And no, Gee D, no one is 'basing their theology on wearing a vestment' (except, perhaps, the ones who introduced the ban and the ones who uphold it). I have ditched the chasuble from time to time myself. But when the reason for its ban is theological, and that reason implies a rejection of the core of one's theology, it becomes a major issue.
As I said, the initial ban by the then Abp was on the basis that the chasuble was not a vestment permitted in the Anglican Church. I got the year wrong in that - permitted vestments were those permitted in the 2nd year of the boy king's reign, which was 1549. This edict came from Abp Parker on the Elizabethan settlement. In doing so, he relied upon the Bp of Lincoln's case. There was no reference by him, at least as far as I can recall reading, to the theology of a chasuble. Archdeacon Hammond then sought to entrench this ruling by the passing of a Diocesan Ordinance. Anything I've read on this has confirmed my comment that the use of a chasuble was a reversion to popish vestments; again no reference to the theology of a chasuble. On neither occasion was the ban "precisely because of its sacrificial connotations".
So far, there's only been your assertion to the contrary. I'm happy for you to show where I've been wrong. There's been some slight movement under the present Abp on allowing women ordained in other dioceses to act as priests. Rather than chase vesting, most of us would like to take this policy forward. We see the ordination of women of far greater importance.
...To be clear, and to forestall the inevitable reply, I am absolutely not suggesting that the Diocese of Sydney is a shining exemplar of Anglican breadth. It's not. But people make it work.
Between the ban on certain traditionally Anglican vestments and other aspects of worship and the vile treatment of those who believe that women are fully human, it doesn't sound particularly Anglican to me at all. It sounds misogynistic, intolerant, and utterly Calvinist (which is to say, like my idea of hell).
Do you understand what Calvinism is? It isn't based upon a lack of chasubles or the ordination of women. It has a specific meaning. GAFCON-ers in general tend to be Zwinglian not Calvinist.
Calvinists may not like vestments in general (though in no universe is the chasuble traditionally Anglican) but views on the ordination of women vary; to equate Calvinism with misogyny in itself seems rather bizarre and prejudiced. I'm not a Calvinist but that seems unnecessary.
At the last meeting of our RCIA group (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) I asked as a sort of trivia question at the end of our course: ' What is the name of the poncho like garment which the priest wears at Mass ?' No-one in the group, including some who have come to the church for years, knew. This morning I asked the same question of an Irish friend. He hasn't been to church for a long time, but he was at one time an R.E. teacher. He didn't know either.
So it would seem on the other side of the Tiber that the chasuble is not a big deal.
PS I did ask,at the end of an Ascension day Mass, our parish priest the same question.
Now he did give a correct answer.
(though in no universe is the chasuble traditionally Anglican)
I suppose that depends on when you date Anglicanism from. If from the English reformation, you'd be right. If from the mission of St Augustine of Canterbury or (conversely) from the foundation of the Anglican Communion with the first Lambeth Conference in 1867 then that becomes a little more complex. At both points in time the chasuble, while not universal, is certainly part of the Anglican tradition.
...To be clear, and to forestall the inevitable reply, I am absolutely not suggesting that the Diocese of Sydney is a shining exemplar of Anglican breadth. It's not. But people make it work.
Between the ban on certain traditionally Anglican vestments and other aspects of worship and the vile treatment of those who believe that women are fully human, it doesn't sound particularly Anglican to me at all. It sounds misogynistic, intolerant, and utterly Calvinist (which is to say, like my idea of hell).
Do you understand what Calvinism is? It isn't based upon a lack of chasubles or the ordination of women. It has a specific meaning. GAFCON-ers in general tend to be Zwinglian not Calvinist.
Calvinists may not like vestments in general (though in no universe is the chasuble traditionally Anglican) but views on the ordination of women vary; to equate Calvinism with misogyny in itself seems rather bizarre and prejudiced. I'm not a Calvinist but that seems unnecessary.
I rather suspect that the Anglo-Catholics of Christ Church St. Lawrence think that they can believe in the Eucharistic sacrifice without wearing chasubles.
That's not my point. My point is that the ban itself is a rejection of the Eucharistic sacrifice. It was banned precisely because of its sacrificial connotations. Which is what I have been told by people in Australia.
And no, Gee D, no one is 'basing their theology on wearing a vestment' (except, perhaps, the ones who introduced the ban and the ones who uphold it). I have ditched the chasuble from time to time myself. But when the reason for its ban is theological, and that reason implies a rejection of the core of one's theology, it becomes a major issue.
But, @kmann that's what was at the bottom of the questions which I posed upthread, and which nobody, from either side of this debate, has answered.
I assume 'obviously' you don't think that a Eucharist/Mass/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread Service/Divine Liturgy which you celebrate was less sacrificial when you weren't wearing a chasuble than when you were. Besides, unless my memory is fooling me, I seem to remember that you're actually a Norwegian Lutheran anyway. So your relationship with the Diocese of Sydney is through the four Northern European Anglican and Porvoo churches rather than direct.
In which case, we're back with the core of my question which was, 'why is it so important'?
For me, the chasuble is important as a priestly garment in representing the sacrifice of the Mass, and it making real for us the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. It's a signpost as to what a priest is therefore, just as a maniple is a signpost to what a deacon is. However - although I would consider a chasuble to be an ordinary part of a priest's vestments, there may be a time where it is not suitable or when it has been requested not to be worn for a particular reason. Within reason (ie, not because someone doesn't like the colour or something), putting it aside is also a signpost towards how a priest is supposed to care for others. In the case of Sydney, I see this as putting aside a stumbling block for a weaker brother. Creating a big fuss over it would only widen the gap between Anglo-Catholics and the Sydney hierarchy; quietly getting on with the business of being a priest while obeying the letter of the law at least is by far the more mature route, in my opinion.
Priests have to set aside various vestments for many practical reasons (bedside ministry in hospital, for instance), this is just one more reason. Cassock, alb, stole, and cope at least for feasts if possible (weather permitting) seems like a dignified alternative.
In the case of Sydney, I see this as putting aside a stumbling block for a weaker brother. Creating a big fuss over it would only widen the gap between Anglo-Catholics and the Sydney hierarchy; quietly getting on with the business of being a priest while obeying the letter of the law at least is by far the more mature route, in my opinion.
Priests have to set aside various vestments for many practical reasons (bedside ministry in hospital, for instance), this is just one more reason. Cassock, alb, stole, and cope at least for feasts if possible (weather permitting) seems like a dignified alternative.
Thank you for both those points.
Enoch, There is no direct link between the Anglican Church of Australia and the Scandinavian churches in the Porvoo agreement - both are in communion with the CoE.
It's the same as there being no direct communion between the CoE and the ELCA or the Lutheran Church of Canada.
The first banning of the chasuble was in 1911, by the the Abp. In the late '40s Synod passed a canon formalising the ban.
Is this still in effect? If so, how do Anglo-Catholics vest in the diocese? Or do they simply ignore the ban?
If I could post a picture of how we do it, I would. I suspect you already know. 😃
My theory is that all the vestments help to keep my very tall, reed-thin Anglo-Catholic Episcopal priest from falling over when he elevates the monstrance for eucharistic benediction.
Do you understand what Calvinism is? It isn't based upon a lack of chasubles or the ordination of women. It has a specific meaning. ...
Yes, it's an unpleasant (in my view) theology based on the notions of predestination, election, and an unfortunate tendency to believe in Biblical inerrancy.
My late father, raised in a Presbyterian church, was informed in his early teens by the men in charge that he was definitely not among the elect. He abandoned religion as a result. Fortunately, he met, fell in love with, and married my very Anglican mother, and became a pillar of his parish who truly lived his faith. By the end of his life, at the age of almost 92, I suspect that even those judgmental Calvinist elders would have found him blameless. But perhaps not.
Do you understand what Calvinism is? It isn't based upon a lack of chasubles or the ordination of women. It has a specific meaning. ...
Yes, it's an unpleasant (in my view) theology based on the notions of predestination, election, and an unfortunate tendency to believe in Biblical inerrancy.
My late father, raised in a Presbyterian church, was informed in his early teens by the men in charge that he was definitely not among the elect. He abandoned religion as a result. Fortunately, he met, fell in love with, and married my very Anglican mother, and became a pillar of his parish who truly lived his faith. By the end of his life, at the age of almost 92, I suspect that even those judgmental Calvinist elders would have found him blameless. But perhaps not.
I'm sorry about those experiences but they are not all like that at all.
Sorry for the brief comment as I was travelling - there are notable liberal movements within Presbyterianism, which I think can fairly be called a Calvinist denomination even if not all members would identify as such. I am not a Calvinist myself, but there is so clearly a huge difference between say the theology of the current PC(USA) (one of the largest Christian denominations to permit same-sex marriage) and the theology of Moore College and stricter Calvinists. I find that distinguishing between Calvinists and neo-Calvinists (who should rightly be called neo-Zwinglians) is helpful. Calvin himself believed in the Real Presence! In many ways neo-Calvinists and what one might call classical Calvinists are very different.
I do find that Calvinism outside its natural habitat (eg in Anglican churches) tends to be neo-Calvinist in nature.
Do you understand what Calvinism is? It isn't based upon a lack of chasubles or the ordination of women. It has a specific meaning. ...
Yes, it's an unpleasant (in my view) theology based on the notions of predestination, election, and an unfortunate tendency to believe in Biblical inerrancy.
My late father, raised in a Presbyterian church, was informed in his early teens by the men in charge that he was definitely not among the elect. He abandoned religion as a result. Fortunately, he met, fell in love with, and married my very Anglican mother, and became a pillar of his parish who truly lived his faith. By the end of his life, at the age of almost 92, I suspect that even those judgmental Calvinist elders would have found him blameless. But perhaps not.
Like Pomona, I too am sorry for, and appalled by, your father’s experience. But—and I say this as a lifelong Presbyterian, descended from generations of Presbyterians and Reformed Christians, with more than my fair share of Presbyterian ministers and elders in the family (including both parents, my wife and me), who has spent decades studying Reformed confessions, theology and ecclesiology—what your father experienced was not mainstream Calvinism. As in any tradition of any size, the Reformed tradition/Calvinism has its fringes and subgroups that get fixated on certain ideas and distort the theological framework as a whole. I know people like those your father grew up among are out there; I don’t deny that all. But in 5+ decades of moving in wide Presbyterian circles that have included conservatives, liberals and everything in between from a variety of Reformed denominations, I haven’t personally encountered them.
If Calvinism is based on predestination and election, then Calvin was not a Calvinist, because his theology was not based on those things. His attention to predestination and election was primarily pastoral—his aim was to reassure people fearful for their salvation and relieve them from the worry of whether they were good enough or in a sufficient state of grace.
I’m sure you’d take issue, and rightly so, if someone defined and judged Anglicanism only on the basis of Sydney Anglicanism. Please do not define and judge all of us based on the people your father encountered. Remember that the Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian tradition that produced them is the same tradition that produced Presbyterian minister Fred Rogers, who at his ordination was charged by the Presbytery of Pittsburgh with ministering to children through television.
I find that distinguishing between Calvinists and neo-Calvinists (who should rightly be called neo-Zwinglians) is helpful. Calvin himself believed in the Real Presence! In many ways neo-Calvinists and what one might call classical Calvinists are very different.
I would agree with this.
I do find that Calvinism outside its natural habitat (eg in Anglican churches) tends to be neo-Calvinist in nature.
And I would generally agree about this. I'm not sure, though, that I'd give Anglican churches a blanket exclusion from Calvinism's natural habitat. The 39 Articles are just one example of Calvinism was once very much at home in Anglicanism, or at least Anglicanism's next door neighbor. That may be harder to discern in many places from this side of the Oxford Movement.
Yes, that's a fair comment. I wonder if there is almost a Counter Oxford Movement in Anglicanism - not necessarily a recent thing, but certainly a counter-movement of ahem, stridently heterosexual masculinity seems to have taken place in some evangelical quarters within Anglicanism.
Comments
Madame and I were in an inland town* one February. The temp at 7.30 pm on Ash Wednesday was still in the high 30s. The morning service had been held in the main church, but we went to the evening one in a small suburb - a church built from corrugated iron. The priest came out beforehand to say that all the chasubles were hot, the Lenten purple particularly so, and he'd not be wearing it. So he wore cassock and stole, with sandaled feet. Who knows what was underneath that. But it looked timeless, back to the eastern Mediterranean of any age - a suitable showing of reverence with practicality.
And as Rossweisse says, what a bad change in the NT.
*Not in Sydney diocese, about a thousand km inland and nearly at the western boundary of the State.
Oh, Rossweisse! There are times that you give me my best laugh of the day. Thank you for the palate cleanser. You and I are on page.
Apart from 'we've always done it this way', 'I like to see a priest properly dressed and wearing what I expect to see him or her wearing', or 'wearing/not wearing X demonstrates that that he/she is/isn't one of us/them', why does it matter to some people that the celebrant does or must never wear a chasuble?
After all, I grew up in a CofE where clergy usually wore a cassock, surplice and black scarf for morning and evening prayer, but might change the black scarf for a coloured stole for communion. Clergy who were fairly high church or doing some sort of civic thing might wear some coloured garment over the top. One was aware that this might be a bit suspicious as being popish.
I still don't really get why,
a. Some people totally reject chasubles etc - apart from suspicion of popish ornamentation, or
b. For others, including clearly some Shipmates, it's really important that the person celebrating should be wearing one.
Whatever your personal take on what happens to the bread and the wine, obviously it happens to them just the same whether the celebrant is or is not wearing one.
I feel I ought to know and understand this, but I don't really. Apart from the reasons I've quoted in the first paragraph above, is there another that genuinely matters?
Really? Try to find an Anglo-Catholic parish in Ohio. Or Virginia. Or North Carolina. There are millions of Anglicans far out of driving distance to a monstrance.
I explained above how Sydney remained low church at a time when it could reasonably have been expected to join the Oxford Movement. But to think the reverse - there are proportionally probably fewer low church parishes in Brisbane (or Chichester).
Saint James Episcopal Church in Columbus, Ohio
Grace Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia
St Bride's Episcopal Church in Chesapeake, Virginia
St. Mary's Church in Asheville, North Carolina
St Timothy's Episcopal Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina
You've come up with a half dozen churches for an area with a population rather more than that of Sydney. And don't forget that the Anglican population of Sydney is under 1m. Only about 16% of Australians generally say that they are Anglicans, and the observing portion of those is very small.
I’m not familiar with St. Timothy’s aside from knowing a little of its reputation, which is indeed full-blown Anglo-Catholic. I am somewhat familiar with St. Mary’s. Western North Carolina has tended on the whole to be a bit higher church than the rest of the state. (The Diocese of Western North Carolina is the only one of NC’s three dioceses to have a cathedral, and it went 70+ years without one.) St. Mary’s does describe itself as Anglo-Catholic, and it is unquestionably high by NC Episcopal standards (and nosebleed high by Virginia standards), but I don’t think it gets anywhere near Biretta Belt (or perhaps St. Timothy’s W-S) standards.
st. Mary’s is a smells and bells place; they have auricular confession. I know that they have sometimes had benediction and adoration in the past, but I’m not sure how often they do now. On the other hand, their Maundy Thursday service, as I understand it, takes place in the parish hall in the context of a meal, and they do not observe the Easter vigil, nor do they have daily Mass or daily Office. And St. Mary’s has a calendar, not a kalendar.
FWIW (if anything).
Sydney Anglicans have many, many faults theologically-speaking, in my opinion - but to zero in on the chasuble ban alone is a little strange to me. I disagree with it but you can be a priest without them. I live in an English diocese where the bishop would be only too happy to ban them if he could though, so perhaps for me it's just a case of choosing your battles.
For me this is where I get rather annoyed with many Anglo-Catholics - we are not the only ones who lose when conservative evangelicals dominate to such a degree. MOTR churches struggling to flourish is a problem even if it doesn't directly affect us. I'm also wary of the Moore College influence in the CoE via Oakhill and affiliated churches...I know there are Moore College trained clergy in England. Funnily enough the HTB influence will probably curtail that to a degree - Calvinism is much less marketable, particularly a 'no girls allowed' brand - but still not something I'm thrilled to see here.
Yes, but the problem is the reason it was banned. It was not banned because it is too hot and many priests ditched them anyway. It was banned because of its Catholic and sacrificial connotations. But these connotations are intrinsic to not just the Roman Catholic tradition but also the Anglo-Catholic one. The ban, therefore, is a direct rejection of the Anglo-Catholic heritage.
So after having this discussion I am not less convinced that Anglo-Catholics are actually unwanted in the Sydney diocese but more. Of course they probably will not say that outright but actions speak louder than words.
You're not wrong, but (if you'll forgive me for saying this) you seem maybe a little naïve when it comes to the history and general ethos of the Diocese of Sydney. I'm no expert (and far less of one than many who have replied to you), but I know enough to be wholly unsurprised that Sydney does not exactly embrace Anglo-Catholicism at the diocesan level, although a few individual parishes are very much a different story.
Yes
FWIW, regulations aside, the response of the Moore/GAFCON set in Sydney is probably more that ACs are weird and irrelevant, whereas "Libruls" are downright counter-gospel. But Libruls don't have an objective focal point to define them - like a chasuble.
The "low church" form of librul, in various shades of social action but un-flamboyant, un-sacramental liturgy, a strong unfluence in little old NZ next door, tend not to exist in Oz-Anglicanism, though they are well-represented in the Uniting Church. A "low" (the terms re useless) Moore/GAFCONite would largely ignore liturgical forms, and as noted above, consider open neck shirt and closed shoes to be formal liturgical attire. As we well know penises are compulsory for leading worship and teaching, and their use is strictly limited to insertion in a vagina ... of course only between the time of marriage to the vagina's owner and her death, though it is possible in that parenthesis of time to enjoy recreational rather than only precreational use of the respective implements. Probably not auto-use, though.
A divorced "minister" in Sydney will not be licensed.
The word "priest" is of course frowned upon ... I'm never likely to attend an ordination in Sydney so I'm not sure how they wriggle round the prayer-book terminology. Most of the few AC clergy in Sydney have trained elsewhere, not Moore (though some Moore graduates have climbed the candle and/or bucked the trend over the decades).
No, it means that Anglo-Catholics largely do not exist in the diocese in the first place. You seem to be imagining a great battle between the hierarchy and Anglo-Catholics in Sydney which just doesn't exist, and that's what's being contested - including by actual Australians.
Am I totally mistaken in recalling that until maybe 50 or so years ago, chasubles were technically not permitted in the CofE, and whether a priest could nevertheless wear one was pretty much totally dependent on whether his bishop was willing to not enforce the prohibition? Am I totally off on that?
Speaking personally, I wouldn't like a chasuble ban but obedience to the bishop is more important to me as an Anglo-Catholic. Going to the RCs over vestments seems pretty silly to me. Cassock, alb, stole, and cope seems like a perfectly respectable compromise. Let's face it, being Anglo-Catholic in Sydney diocese must be enough of a hassle without breaking the rules on vestments. It doesn't seem like it would be worth it.
Just read the whole of this thread, slowly.
My point is not the vestment itself but what the vestment represents, and why it was banned. If it was banned of its sacrificial connotations, this is about much more than a piece of clothing. The Eucharistic sacrifice is an integral part of the Anglo-Catholic tradition. A ban of the chasuble, based on its sacrificial connotations would therefore represent a rejection of the Anglo-Catholic tradition.
So it's not just about vestments but about what these vestments represent and the theological implications of the ban.
Of course the Anglo-Catholics in Sydney may not believe in the Eucharistic sacrifice. But if that is the case, they aren't Anglo-Catholics. They might be high church Anglicans but they wouldn't be Anglo-Catholics.
I rather suspect that the Anglo-Catholics of Christ Church St. Lawrence think that they can believe in the Eucharistic sacrifice without wearing chasubles. They probably file the chasuble ban under the long list of things that are tolerable, even if not ideal. I find that quite a lot of things in life end up in that category.
Or, if you're asking how they can have a different Eucharistic theology than their bishop, then I think the answer is "Anglicanism." Seriously, it's an entire Christian tradition based in large on accommodating different understandings of the Eucharist.
To be clear, and to forestall the inevitable reply, I am absolutely not suggesting that the Diocese of Sydney is a shining exemplar of Anglican breadth. It's not. But people make it work.
The diocese is both misogynistic and intolerant; I'd dispute that it is utterly Calvinist. If it has any of the leading reformers of the early C16 to look back to for its eucharistic theology, it is to Zwingli rather than Calvin. Even then, it's Zwingli modified.
I doubt very much thought was given to the sacrificial nature of the eucharist when the chasuble was banned. When the first ban was announced, it was on the basis that the chasuble was not a vestment permitted in 1552, and it was popish. The later canon was enacted because the chasuble was still seen as popish, little or no thought being given to why.
It seems to me to be very flimsy and limited to base your theology on wearing a vestment. As Columba-in-a-Currach says, people make it work.
And no, Gee D, no one is 'basing their theology on wearing a vestment' (except, perhaps, the ones who introduced the ban and the ones who uphold it). I have ditched the chasuble from time to time myself. But when the reason for its ban is theological, and that reason implies a rejection of the core of one's theology, it becomes a major issue.
So far, there's only been your assertion to the contrary. I'm happy for you to show where I've been wrong. There's been some slight movement under the present Abp on allowing women ordained in other dioceses to act as priests. Rather than chase vesting, most of us would like to take this policy forward. We see the ordination of women of far greater importance.
Do you understand what Calvinism is? It isn't based upon a lack of chasubles or the ordination of women. It has a specific meaning. GAFCON-ers in general tend to be Zwinglian not Calvinist.
Calvinists may not like vestments in general (though in no universe is the chasuble traditionally Anglican) but views on the ordination of women vary; to equate Calvinism with misogyny in itself seems rather bizarre and prejudiced. I'm not a Calvinist but that seems unnecessary.
So it would seem on the other side of the Tiber that the chasuble is not a big deal.
PS I did ask,at the end of an Ascension day Mass, our parish priest the same question.
Now he did give a correct answer.
I assume 'obviously' you don't think that a Eucharist/Mass/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread Service/Divine Liturgy which you celebrate was less sacrificial when you weren't wearing a chasuble than when you were. Besides, unless my memory is fooling me, I seem to remember that you're actually a Norwegian Lutheran anyway. So your relationship with the Diocese of Sydney is through the four Northern European Anglican and Porvoo churches rather than direct.
In which case, we're back with the core of my question which was, 'why is it so important'?
Priests have to set aside various vestments for many practical reasons (bedside ministry in hospital, for instance), this is just one more reason. Cassock, alb, stole, and cope at least for feasts if possible (weather permitting) seems like a dignified alternative.
Thank you for both those points.
Enoch, There is no direct link between the Anglican Church of Australia and the Scandinavian churches in the Porvoo agreement - both are in communion with the CoE.
It's the same as there being no direct communion between the CoE and the ELCA or the Lutheran Church of Canada.
If I could post a picture of how we do it, I would. I suspect you already know. 😃
My theory is that all the vestments help to keep my very tall, reed-thin Anglo-Catholic Episcopal priest from falling over when he elevates the monstrance for eucharistic benediction.
My late father, raised in a Presbyterian church, was informed in his early teens by the men in charge that he was definitely not among the elect. He abandoned religion as a result. Fortunately, he met, fell in love with, and married my very Anglican mother, and became a pillar of his parish who truly lived his faith. By the end of his life, at the age of almost 92, I suspect that even those judgmental Calvinist elders would have found him blameless. But perhaps not.
I'm sorry about those experiences but they are not all like that at all.
I do find that Calvinism outside its natural habitat (eg in Anglican churches) tends to be neo-Calvinist in nature.
If Calvinism is based on predestination and election, then Calvin was not a Calvinist, because his theology was not based on those things. His attention to predestination and election was primarily pastoral—his aim was to reassure people fearful for their salvation and relieve them from the worry of whether they were good enough or in a sufficient state of grace.
I’m sure you’d take issue, and rightly so, if someone defined and judged Anglicanism only on the basis of Sydney Anglicanism. Please do not define and judge all of us based on the people your father encountered. Remember that the Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian tradition that produced them is the same tradition that produced Presbyterian minister Fred Rogers, who at his ordination was charged by the Presbytery of Pittsburgh with ministering to children through television.
And I would generally agree about this. I'm not sure, though, that I'd give Anglican churches a blanket exclusion from Calvinism's natural habitat. The 39 Articles are just one example of Calvinism was once very much at home in Anglicanism, or at least Anglicanism's next door neighbor. That may be harder to discern in many places from this side of the Oxford Movement.