|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vestment article.|
|WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Eastern / Anglicanism / Lutheranism||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Fashion||(Rated C-class)|
None of the things listed under this section are really vestments at all. Yes they're distinctively clerical garments, but they're street wear and not clothing reserved specifically for services. One does not "vest" in a podryasnik, one simply puts it on.
In Orthodoxy, at least, a useful distinction is that if you have to bless it, or have it blessed, before you can wear it, it's a vestment. Otherwise, it's just clothes. Csernica 20:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good point; I've moved those items to a new Clerical clothing page, which can also be used for non-Orthodox. I will try to integrate your comment into that article; you make a useful distinction. JHCC 14:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've just made an update to the article, and in the process it seemed to me that we ought not include anything not actually a vestment even if appears to be of interest, like the staff ("crozier") or the orlets. The article says they're not "strictly speaking" vestments, but they're not even vestments loosely speaking! I'm therefore cutting this material from the article, but I'm pasting it in here so as not to lose it. Someone more enterprising than myself can insert it into a more appropriate article. Csernica 07:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've added some Greek where I could find definitive spellings, but since I have no Greek to speak of I'm unsure of the grammar. I suppose these should all be in the nominative case. If I got any of them wrong, I invite anyone who knows better to make corrections. Csernica 20:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cut from article
The bishop also uses the following items during services, even though they are not, strictly speaking, vestments:
- Pateritsa (патерица)/Zhezl(жезл)/Crozier - the staff; may be tau-style (T-shaped), with the crossbeam bent and surmounted by a cross, or serpent-style, showing two intertwined serpents, also surmounted by a cross.
Some of the descriptions contained explanations that are derived from sentimental/devotional explanations rather than the simple descriptions. For example, explaining the significance of a maniple as "living a life of tears" is strictly sentimental and has no basis in fact; it merely began as a cloth to wipe away sweat and gradually became more and more decorative as its original function was forgotten. I removed these "ferverinos."
I just reorganized the Eastern Orthodox section so that the different vestments are not broken out by clerical rank. This is partly to reflect that, absent an anomaly or two, vestments are generally added atop old ones or "reconfigured" as new ranks are attained. (For example, to move from deacon to priest the orarion is theoretically thrown about the neck, belted down with the zone, and a phelonion is thrown over the top of it all.) It's also partly to conform better with the style instituted in the previous section, and to eliminate redundant entries.
However, I wonder if there's not just too much material here. I think we'd be better off with one-line definitions as in the section for Western vestments and save the lengthier explanations for full articles. There are, after all, plenty of red links there. At the moment I don't have the time to undertake this, but perhaps if someone else agrees with me he or she can begin the process. Csernica 19:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've made a start; let me know what you think. JHCC 20:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, you did quite a bit! I'm impressed. Csernica 20:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- Amazing what you can do with a little cut-and-paste. JHCC 22:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that's exactly the kind of thing I find too tedious to even think about doing most days. Csernica 06:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Eastern -> Orthodox
I'm not going to change it back since I don't feel all that strongly about it, but "Eastern" was used to be inclusive of the Uniates who use the same style vestments as the Orthodox. Csernica 21:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
In treating Eastern Church vestments, the article states, "The three forms of stole (Orarion, Epitrachelion, and Omophorion) are marks of rank." I think this is incorrect. Rank refers to an individual's place within the order of precedence. Rank is determined by date of Ordination and any honors presented (Gold Cross, Archpriest, etc.). Even the article linked-to by the word "rank" (Catholic Church hierarchy) treats its subject matter accordingly. Rather than rank, it seems a better term would be "office" or "order," which refer to the three-fold ministry found in Scripture: Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. Within each of these orders multiple ranks or honorary titles may be given; but ultimately, a Bishop is a Bishop, whether he is styled "Patriarch" or "Diocesan." MishaPan 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Rite of Versailles?
What is the Neo-Gallican of Versailles? I have studied the liturgical rites of both the East and the West for over thirty years and have even had my own work on the Christian liturgy published in theological journals and I have never heard of any Neo-Gallican Rite of Versailles. Versailles was only a small village until Louis XIV rebuilt his father's hunting lodge into the greatest of European royal palaces--long after Charlemagne imposed the Roman Rite on his empire. With the exception of Rite of Lyons what was later known as the Gallican rites were little more than a few local diocesan customs such the bishop's blessing given before Communion (never a part of the Roman mass outside of France) that Pope John Paul II's allowed to be restore in those French dioceses that had had them before they had been suppressed in 17th century because of their unfortunate associations with French antimontanism. In any case there was never any ancient French diocese in Versailles for any medieval traditions to survive from to be repressed and therefore, restored.188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If Mormons wear no vestments, and if the Temple garments are "not strictly vestments", then why mention them here? Garments that are not vestments are irrelevant to an article about vestments, no? The only possible reason I can think of for this section is to promote Mormonism. I have therefore cut it. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)