Curious about the "rules"

[macwilkin]

Actually I don't think that is the case, Academic gowns are worn to show a qualification, or a position within the college, or one of learning.
Liturgical garments are almost always worn to show the postion or status of the wearer.
Both of these types of garments are worn precisely to show the wearer is different from others, they do show some sort of status within the respective organisations, with I would suggest some suggestion that the wearer should be looked up to and respected.

I'm sorry, Paul, but I have the proof. I am a member of the International Order of St. Vincent, which is a guild for those who serve at the altar in the various Anglican churches. The Order, which was established in the 1880's, is well-respected in the Episcopal Church for its knowledge of all things liturgical. The reference I made comes from its booklet, Serving Basics. My copy is at home at the moment, but I will be happy to provide a page reference when I return later this evening.

While you are correct that there are different forms & items in liturgical dress that distinguish laity and clergy and their roles, the wearing of liturgical garments makes all serving at the Altar equal, and allows the congregation and other observers to focus on the Mass rather than the individual garments of said servers (my summary of the OSV's arguement).

T.

[Paul Henry]

Todd, my point was never about the clergy wearing robes , they all do to make them different from the congregation,precisely to show separation from them and to indicate of the roles that they have , ie, the priest is attired differently from the servers and so on.The reason why many of the robes of the servers are attired in robes is to cover up the individual, but why are there so many different roles for deacons/subdeacons/readers etc if everyone is of the same standing

I'm not sure why you raised this though as the general point of the thread was that wearing white tie to formal events( for example) was one of social levelling and the fact that a priest would often wear expensive embroidered robes is precisely the opposite of social levelling.

sorry to the OP but this does seem to have drifted a little

[macwilkin]

Todd, my point was never about the clergy wearing robes , they all do to make them different from the congregation,precisely to show separation from them and to indicate of the roles that they have , ie, the priest is attired differently from the servers and so on.The reason why many of the robes of the servers are attired in robes is to cover up the individual, but why are there so many different roles for deacons/subdeacons/readers etc if everyone is of the same standing

I'm not sure why you raised this though as the general point of the thread was that wearing white tie to formal events( for example) was one of social levelling and the fact that a priest would often wear expensive embroidered robes is precisely the opposite of social levelling.

sorry to the OP but this does seem to have drifted a little

I was reminded of the OSV statement because of this post by Jeff:

Well put, Scott. It is often a difficult concept to grasp and convey but you did it well. Too often I think people believe that dress "codes" for events are somewhow meant to separate the haves from the have nots, when in fact they are, as you said, more designed to put everyone on equal social footing, at least for the duration of the event, regardless of percieved overall social standing.

Emphasis on "...more designed to put everyone on equal social footing", which is another reason why altar servers, especially children and young adults, who may come from different socio-economic backgrounds, wear liturgical garb.

And my priest would disagree with you regarding his standing; he frequently reminds us of the laity who serve at the Altar that he is "first among equals". Yes, he is authorized to do things that we cannot do, such as perform the Mass, but that doesn't mean he is "better" than us.

I didn't realize that we were so stricly limited in our observations. I'll do better to remember that in the future.

T.

[Detroitpete]

I don't know if this parallel makes sense, but I'll give'r a go:

MY grandfather gave me advice when I was a young teen farm boy. I was used to wearing work pants and flannels along with work boots, almost everywhere. When it came time for social functions when this attire would simply not do. His teaching has been a foundation--up to and including my military service. When I began wearing a kilt to other than just while competing in Highland Games--his advice seemed to at least make philosophical sense--the rest was helped by the good lads here.

Here's a bit of granddad's advice:

Be pressed and clean-always.
Shine your own shoes--often.
Match your shoes, belt and watch band if you are able to. If they are leather (belt and watch band) shine them too.
Learn how to tie your own tie--bowtie included. When in doubt, wear a tie.
Always have clean white oxford shirts pressed and ready.
A good quality crewneck sweater is important
Don't by fad collar shirts or fad-cut pants. Stick to traditional basics.
Cashmere sweaters, tweed jackets, wool suits and broadcloth shirts are all worth the price. They will last and look smart if you take care of them.

When in doubt--stick to traditional basics in anything.

At first I thought he was just being old and conservative. Now I see how wise he was. I really miss him.

[Bugbear]

I am assuming that Kilted Wolfman really wants to know and, since he alluded to tying a double Windsor knot, some of his questions were designed to give us thought and talking points, not to wax revolutionary. I would like to thank all who contributed to this thread. Lately, this forum has been a little quiet and I am grateful for any discussion. Who else has a great topic?

Thanking in advance, I remain,

m'll

I'm working on it, MacLowlife; hatching a new thread for you, that is.

Just remember, I was not raised with these traditions, and feel very much out of place in this forum and discussion.
I blame it all on that chrome plated goose...

[Pyper]

The "rules" for wearing highland attire are pretty much like the rules for any other sort of attire. You wear what you wear because you want to fit into a group.

So if you want to wear Highland attire, you should find out what the "rules" are, and then decide how you want to follow -- and/or break -- them.

Certainly one of the rules used to be that kilts are wool and kilts are tartan, but today at any Highland games in the USA you'll see plenty of people wearing kilts that are neither. Opinions will vary on that, and this thread really isn't the place for that discussion -- the point is, those people are doing the same thing as the others -- they're wearing a certain garment a certain way to show they are part of a particular group.

It's all very tribal.

Contra-intuitively, one also signifies being part of a particular group by not following the rules of a group (if you dress unlike those in the group then one is part of the group called "outsider"). Frank Lloyd Wright was a great example of this. He deliberately set himself apart as not being part of the group (the group called "normal") by designing clothing for himself that was unique.

[wildrover]

Certainly one of the rules used to be that kilts are wool and kilts are tartan, but today at any Highland games in the USA you'll see plenty of people wearing kilts that are neither. Opinions will vary on that, and this thread really isn't the place for that discussion -- the point is, those people are doing the same thing as the others -- they're wearing a certain garment a certain way to show they are part of a particular group.

Isn't it? Emphasis mine.

That discussion has been attempted before, and generally goes nowhere. My own personal opinion is that our forum is on one hand too open-minded about what constitutes a kilt, and on the other hand too reluctant to post the strong opinions that may eventually be refined in to meaningful and intelligent discussions...or perhaps unable to move past them.

Even within our community, people wear certain garments certain ways to show inclusion in cultural and social groups, to demonstrate their individuality within a group, or to show their decision to exclude themselves from a group. I took the time yesterday to thoughtfully read this entire thread, as well as another which did not seem related at first:
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...sle-3-a-62611/

The simple act of asking about "The Rules" comes about by a desire for inclusion. People judge based on appearances...it is human. Our ability to set appearance aside requires conscious effort, and there is certainly no shame in admitting to it. Whether you are wearing a suit, kilt, or duck cloth and boots, your appearance suggests that either you are of, or desire inclusion in, a particular group. Appearances different from or in contrast to another group might even result in hostility between groups...or respect, or indifference, or amusement.

Even the advice of Pete's granddad can find itself out of place...but the sentiments behind it apply to punk shows as well as whatever opera house might assume music to be best appreciated while wearing spats.

-Sean

[wildrover]

Anyway Sean, the snow's been great up in the pass, 14-22 degrees all day and nice light stuff. Nature doesn't seem to much care whether we are socially connected, well-versed in dress rules or attractive to the fairer gender. The rules are simple physics, lol. Let me know if you want to play avy bingo with that board of yours sometime

Nice! How's the coverage? I'd hate to have to run ptex so early in the season, and it's a new board...really that's why I haven't hit the hills yet for all that a couple buddies have said ABay has been decent despite so few runs open. I'd be afraid of winning the bingo game...but it's early season now. Warm, too.

The link that CMcG posted...this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040401721.html

...I looked up the tune Chaconne:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040401721.html

Wish I'd been there. Not much time to listen to the music, during the morning rush...probably they'd have better luck on a Saturday afternoon. It didn't take long to realize why I enjoy that piece so much...it is similar in feel and composition to a piobaireachd, and in fact there is an excellent recording of Bonnie Rideout playing "The MacDougal Gathering" on viola, with didgeridoo accompaniment providing a classic, but curiously alien, drone.

-Sean

[Pyper]

Isn't it? Emphasis mine.

My thinking is that this thread (per the original poster) is primarily about the nature of the the rules, not the content of the rules.

Of course threads do tend to drift, but it seems like if we went off and started discussing the rules themselves we'd quickly loose sight of the topic the OP is interested in.

[Tobus]

My thinking is that this thread (per the original poster) is primarily about the nature of the the rules, not the content of the rules.

Good point. But given that the content of the rules are a function of the nature of the rules (and each 'rule' evolved differently), the two subjects seem to be irrevocably intertwined. It would be difficult to discuss the generalities of the rules without specific examples.