Re: [liturgy-l] Why vestments?
- Vestments are a symbolic type of clothing. They serve to make a statement about oneself or the nature of the event. One must always make conscious decisions about what to wear to a public event. Christians early on decided that they would wear their "Sunday best." This is not surprising. The Sunday meeting was probably like a Greco-Roman symposium, that is, a formal dinner party. The leaders continued to wear the older styles when clothing styles changed (e.g. from the long, flowing Roman robes to the short, close-cut tunics of the Germans). The decision to not wear older styles of clothing is also a conscious choice. So the Reformed clergy in the 16th century only wore their ordinary clerical street attire. Again, styles changed and what the leaders wore did not. Today if Pastor Timothy Wright at the Church of Joy decides to wear a Hawaiian shirt and biege slacks, that is also a conscious choice. I'm sure he doesn't wear Hawaiian shirts or biege slacks as everyday attire.
If the leader decides to wear jeans like most of the rest of the congregation, that is also a conscious choice. The point is that vestment is a conscious choice decision designed to make a statement and no public gathering will take place that doesn't require such a decision.
Frank C. Senn
Tom Poelker <TomPoelker@...> wrote:
I have never heard a full discussion on the question of "why have
vestments", this forum seems a likely place to hear various sides of the
It seems to me that vestments make sense if the ministers are a separate
caste or are the cast of some performance put on for observers, but if
the congregation is small and the space intimate, why have vestments at
all, even the minimal stole over civies?
St. Louis, Missouri
An unemployed jester is nobody's fool.
>Incidentally, if repentance, prayer, and devotion areVisit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
>to be kept completely private, (as indicated in the
>Gospel of Matthew) then why have a communal liturgy,
>vestments, or even buildings that are identifiably
>ecclesiastic? I would argue that we have these things
>as a sign of that the Kingdom of God has come near,
>and that fact has changed everything...
>Pr. Jerry Kliner
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Relevant information might include that chapters and verses weren't
supplied until printers did so. The incipits and excipits were how a
passage was cited or specified for the readings in lists. I don't know
when liturgical lectionaries were used instead of finding the day's
passage in the one bible the community had.
Calligraphers do not use the printer's terminology of "upper case" or
the "lower case" which is how printers stored their type for composing
the lines of type for a certain document. Calligraphers call the
capital letters "uncials" and the smaller letters are called
"minuscule." Uncials were used for inscriptions, in stone for example,
and tend to have straight lines. Minuscules approach cursive writing
and are designed to conserve the material used for the writing surface,
parchment, papyrus, vellum, paper, etc. There is usually very little
"white space" on manuscripts because the biggest investment was in the
My guess, therefore, is the incipits and excipits were taken from any of
the various lists of liturgical readings. (So there is the connection
to our group's liturgical subject matter.) They were calligraphed in
uncials because that was the "other" way of writing and would make them
stand out when one was searching for the passage. I would guess that
the length of the incipit was determined either by the traditional
citation phrase or was what it took to distinguish one passage from any
St. Louis, Missouri
An unemployed jester is nobody's fool.
>St. John's Abbey here in Minnesota has commissioned a Bible to be
>hand-lettered and illuminated in the medieval style. If you have not
>heard of or wish information about the St. John's Bible (which is a
>project of absolutely, unquestionably fascinating complexity, faith,
>and resolution), you can look here: http://www.saintjohnsbible.org/. An
>exhibit featuring actual pages from the manuscript, along with a wealth
>of information about the manuscript tradition, caligraphy, and the
>project itself is now traveling around the country, and if you have a
>chance to see it, please treat yourself. (The theological and
>liturgical sophistication and sensitivity is breathtaking.)
> In reviewing some of the pages of the St. John's Bible again yesterday
>at the Abbey, I ran across an old question, and I hope that someone on
>this list may be able to enlighten me (as the staff person at the Hill
>Manuscript Library was not able to do): "Incipits" are the beginning
>text of a manuscript. It is tradition to place them in all capital
>letters (as also the excipits). And so the handlettered St. John's
>Bible features them so (when a book is deemed to have them, which not
>all the Bible's books are not).
> Can you tell me how the incipit of a book of the Bible is determined?
>Some books have quite long incipits; some, quite short; some, not at
>all. How does the overseer of the project know what the incipits (and
> Do you have any information about why manuscript tradition shows the
>incipits and excipits in all caps?
> I realize that this may have ancillary relevance to the subject of
>this listserv, but after all, it is the Bible.
> Grace and peace
> Dwight Penas
> We take for granted the slow miracle whereby water in the irrigation
>of a vineyard becomes wine. It is only when Christ turns water into
>wine, in a quick motion, as it were, that we stand amazed. -- Saint
>Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
>Yahoo! Groups Links