Posted on 03/23/2008 1:40:54 PM PDT by count-your-change
What do you believe Scripture shows as far as the structure of Christian Churches during the Apostolic Era? Do you believe the Apostles were heads of church's and if so which ones?
I thought you might find this topic interesting.
Does having a clergy with special titles, vestments and adornments violate Jesus command at Matt. 23:1-10?
It may help to remind you that I'm a member of a Church in which on Ash Wednesday we hear the advice about not disfiguring one's face if one is fasting -- and then go get ashes smudged on our foreheads! I think that we are right to do this because we know that the sin is not in the ashes, but in the pride of someone who bears them pridefully.
As to vestments, I think the problem is again that a thing is considered evil when it is rather the corruption of the soul that should get our attention. To put on the cheap polyester vestments or the wrinkled, raggedy, and/or dirty vestments one finds in some churches can be an act of humility IMHO. I have seen more pride in a pair of torn jeans than in Honk Kong silks to die for. (
I'm interested in textiles and I notice vestments. Leaving other considerations aside, they provide an opportunity for the exercise of creativity and art which it would be a shame to lose, just as the Campbellite thinking about music in church would have deprived us of much of the world's most astonishingly beautiful works.
So, short answer is, no I don't think Jesus gave a command against broad phylacteries, but rather against the pride that makes both wearing and not wearing them spiritually perilous. "Rend your hearts and not your garments," is good advice, I think, and the command not to be like the Pharisees is not a fashion dictum. More or less mutatis mutandis for titles and "adornments".
Did the early congregations follow this command and Jesus example?
Despite the Jesuit, I don't think we know enough about the early congregations to give a certain answer. Certainly things evolved, and I'd bet we don't see the maniple as a part of clergy attire until Christianity is legalized. I wonder what Jesus would think of $500 suits or $60 neckties.
Also, while acorns have an appeal, an acorn that remains an acorn is a shame. A growing and flourishing oak is a fine thing. The acorn is no less an oak than the tree is, but no more an oak either.
The "primitive" church was "primitive" -- certainly no less than a church, but no more either. It could not be primitive for ever.
I like the story of the Anglican Christians in Uganda under the tyrant Amin. When asked what they wanted they responded, "Clerical collars, so that when we are being martyred we can quickly identify our clergy so we can be with them."
Is Matt. 23 “ambiguous”?
Yup. I wouldn't have said so, but when I see that some people think that broad phylacteries are the problem rather than the heart of the man wearing them, I'll go with "ambiguous".
I do think that lots of people don't "get" that vestments can work against pride, and uniforms are convenient and enable one to keep one's mind on more important things. A vested priest is no longer "Jim" but has submerged "Jim" so as to get our of the way of my prayers. In that sense a vestment is like the screen in the confessional (another of your favorite institutions I'm sure.) Most of the time, I want to confess to Fr. So-and-So because he is kind enough to have spent time helping me understand not only my sins and sinful inclinations and habits, but also the way the Spirit is working in me to eradicate them, or at least mitigate their effects on me and those close to me. But for some people the anonymity of the screen is a help. They don't want to know personally the "confessor" because their main deal is that they are confessing to God.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but I'd ask you to think of particular Protestant pastors who build up a ministry around their own personal gifts. People go to such and such a church because Pastor (or Brother or Reverend or Doctor -- which means teacher) gives such a wonderful message.
While I think often but not often enough for the current three guys at our shoppe, I don't go to Mass for Father So-and-so. I go for Jesus.
Thanks, I’ll try the link and get back to you.
Thanks for your thoughts. Jesus and $500 neckties? You suppose He might tell the wearer to enjoy the tie, it might be the only reward he gets? Good day to you.
I meant to type $500 suits, but the point still stands (or falls).
If I achieve my personal fantasy of uniting in myself the office of Pope and the rank of Emperor of the Galaxy (just give me time ...) I'm going to make it a rule that a congregation cannot buy vestments (or ornaments for their church) unless and until they spend 4 times as much on "corporal works of mercy" like feeding the sick or curing the hungry, uh, well, you know.
And you also: May God fill your day with the joyous knowledge of His love!
The Galaxy expects you to dress well for the part. Cheers!
Thanks for the link!
I think I grasp the basics of what is being said.
Every baptized and confirmed member is a “priest” in that
the member exercises his priestly function by service.
This doesn’t make them a part of the hierarchy that includes priests, bishops, etc.
At 1546 ref. #20 points us to Rev. 5:9-10, vs. 10 speaking of being a kingdom of priests, also being kings and ruling the earth. What is your thinking on how they are to rule as kings? and over whom, and so forth?
There is only one king I’d like to be like, and He seemed to be wearing a crown of thorns. Sounds rough, but I think if ruling is in my future, I’d like to rule as He does.
Thanks for your comments!
But what about this article ? Why don’t you deconstruct it and point out the errors rather than try to discredit the author.
Also, if you like the arrangement of the clergy-laity then why not make your own argument for it ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.