I believe that I am starting to understand you.I’m sure you didnt mean to insinuate that wearing an amice is somehow an abuse. So your little comparison there is ludicrous and completely irrelevant. And remember, giving alms as penance is different than charging for absolution.
I disagree; the amice had, and continues to have for those well-minded enough to continue using it, a symbolic meaning completely different from that of the alb. All priests should continue to wear it, whether it is optional or not, because of its symbolic and traditional meaning, which should never be lost.
The highest source of authority in the Catholic Church is our traditions. No one, not the Pope, nor the Magisterium, nor some near-useless council of national bishops has the authority to subtract anything from that. I, in turn, submit that whenever the USCCB chooses to ignore tradition, not only are THEY being vain and arrogant, but they are overstepping any legitimate authority they may have had.
I refer to “indulgences” which, a long time ago, did occur. The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.“absolution” is a part of the sacrament of penance – FAR more than a mere “tradition.” Do you happen to have a credible source that notes the charging for absolution? You seem to be wrong here.
The sales of indulgences – as rare as they were, was NOT the same as selling absolution!I refer to “indulgences” which, a long time ago, did occur. The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.
I sincerely never meant to imply that absolution was mearly tradition - if that’s what it read like - I apologize. I was simply trying to make a point (through example) that just because “It’s what we’ve always done - it’s tradition” doesn’t make it good or a law.
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I am interested in knowing what you think it was…HOWEVER, I do think that you should start a new string if you wish to discuss this further. Again, I am always interested in learning/beneficial debate.The sales of indulgences – as rare as they were, was NOT the same as selling absolution!
As you know, each vestment we use today descended from an ordinary peice of clothing with a functional purpose. The amice was originally a type of hood and was used to protect the precious material of the chasuble and stole from being worn down, and possibly to keep the priest’s throat warm so he could chant the mass in the cold medeival churches.Please reference a source if you choose to answer - I am always willing to learn.
- Exactly what do you think the “symbolic and traditional meaning” of the amice is? I think that is where the confusion seems to be.
While he washes his hands, let him say:
Give strength to my hands, Lord, to wipe away all stain, so that I may be able to serve Thee in purity of mind and body.
As he places the amice over his head, let him say:
Lord, set the helmet of salvation on my head to fend off all the assaults of the devil.
As he puts on the alb:
Purify me, Lord, and cleanse my heart so that, washed in the Blood of the Lamb, I may enjoy eternal bliss.
(source : catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/TextContents/TextIndex/15)etc, etc.
The Amice, far beyond being a traditional vestment (which alone should be a sufficient argument for its retention) is a beautiful and very spirritual reference to the mystical power which God gives to his priests, and to the difficult and sacred duty for which they have been consecrated.13 Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace: 16 In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. 17 And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). 18 By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints: 19 And for me, that speech may be given me, that I may open my mouth with confidence, to make known the mystery of the gospel. 20 For which I am an ambassador in a chain, so that therein I may be bold to speak according as I ought.
You lose:As you know, each vestment we use today descended from an ordinary peice of clothing with a functional purpose. The amice was originally a type of hood and was used to protect the precious material of the chasuble and stole from being worn down, and possibly to keep the priest’s throat warm so he could chant the mass in the cold medeival churches.
(blog which references this in more detail: slatts.blogspot.com/2007/10/amice-alb-and-cincture.html)
As you also know, over time, each vestment took on a symbolic meaning, and each vestment has a prayer associated with it which is said when vesting. These prayers emphasize the symbolism of each vestments.
All the vestments came to symbolically represent the “Armor of God,” which is refered to in Ephesians. The Alb (from Latin ‘Albus,’ ‘white’) symbolizes the purification from sin of baptism. The Amice came to represent the “helmet of salvation.”
This can be seen in the traditional vesting prayers, from the 1962 Missal:
(source : catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/TextContents/TextIndex/15)
These vesting prayers refer to the bible, specifically Ephesians 6:13-20:
The Amice, far beyond being a traditional vestment (which alone should be a sufficient argument for its retention) is a beautiful and very spirritual reference to the mystical power which God gives to his priests, and to the difficult and sacred duty for which they have been consecrated.
Losing the amice risks losing that connection, that symbolism. That is why I for one believe that the amice should always be worn, even if it is now optional.
How does he lose? From my understanding, you are saying that the GIRM says that an amice only must be worn when street clothes aren’t covered by the alb. Fine and dandy. Belgianwaffles is saying that he feels that it should be worn whenever liturgical vestments are worn, due to the symbolism. While the GIRM doesn’t require that this point of view be taken, there’s certainly nothing wrong with Belgianwaffle’s preference.You lose:
GIRM 336. The sacred garment common to ordained and instituted ministers of any rank is the alb, to be tied at the waist with a cincture unless it is made so as to fit even without such. Before the alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be put on. The alb may not be replaced by a surplice, not even over a cassock, on occasions when a chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when, according to the norms, only a stole is worn without a chasuble or dalmatic.
*
Quad Erat Demonstrata*
No, I don’t.You lose:
GIRM 336. The sacred garment common to ordained and instituted ministers of any rank is the alb, to be tied at the waist with a cincture unless it is made so as to fit even without such. Before the alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be put on. The alb may not be replaced by a surplice, not even over a cassock, on occasions when a chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when, according to the norms, only a stole is worn without a chasuble or dalmatic.
*
Quad Erat Demonstrata*
As long as he says wearing amice with an alb doesn’t require one is his personal preference then that’s fine – even if it doesn’t provide a function and even if it looks weird.How does he lose? From my understanding, you are saying that the GIRM says that an amice only must be worn when street clothes aren’t covered by the alb. Fine and dandy. Belgianwaffles is saying that he feels that it should be worn whenever liturgical vestments are worn, due to the symbolism. While the GIRM doesn’t require that this point of view be taken, there’s certainly nothing wrong with Belgianwaffle’s preference.
Sadly you are still clearly wrong even with your current attempt at spin.No, I don’t.
As eager as you must have been to try and prove me wrong, i urge you to think harder before you try and do that in the future, because your argument falls apart. The GIRM does NOT forbid the wearing of the amice, even with an alb which covers all clothes. Priests always retain the option and the right to wear the amice, and i have explained why i feel they should always chose to do so.
You keep quoting the same text over and over, trying to re-interpret it every time to prove i am wrong. Better luck next time, Spiller. Maybe you’ll get it someday.
He has received a great deal of help within this thread, and i have offered advice in a private message as well. If the OP dislikes the way this is going, i urge him to voice that opinion. Otherwise, i urge you to keep yours to yourself. Useless, petty comments like yours are the reason many here stray from debating questions of importance.AHEM! The point of this thread is to help the gentleman find a certain type of alb. Please help him find what he’s looking for and stop squabbling about amices. Arguments like this are why people like me don’t post here often.
The bathrobe comment was very bad form.Thanks everyone for the links and advice. I am looking into several of them now!
Ahhhhh, the route this thread has taken makes me feel like I am back in the seminary refectory. It’s like two seminarians yelling back and forth and finally coming to blows over the proper way to tie a cincture. Good times.
Spiller, **I don’t think refering to the current albs of my parish as bathrobes reflects negatively on a seminarian at all. **They quite literally look like bathrobes. How else could I describe them and still be accurate and succinct?
I also did not anywhere make a claim that the alb I was looking for was “more traditional.” I am not a traditionalist. I merely stated that I had a personal preference for that style as I personally find it more noble; no magisterial pronouncement was meant or implied.
Thanks everyone for your help!
Which style of alb looks better is an issue of taste, and completely up to the individual. You like ones with closed necks, he likes ones with square necks. Whats the problem with that? Both are perfectly fine!The bathrobe comment was very bad form.
**Newly designed albs simply look better **than old ones when it comes to the neck area. Amices look odd; they are rarely worn correctly and they are typically only worn by those trying to put on a show.
Or it could be that it is an alb, since that’s what it is labeled as by the manufacturer. I had to go back to the website and double-check too. Besides, rochet’s are not that long, and usually more decorated.It could be that the vestment pictured in the opening post is actually neither a surplice nor alb, but a ROCHET.
Your insulting commentary is completely out of line with my simple request to get this thread back on track.Otherwise, i urge you to keep yours to yourself. Useless, petty comments like yours are the reason many here stray from debating questions of importance.
I literally burst out laughing when I read this. So far, you have labeled three of us, plus the entire USCCB, as arrogant. If you had read my comment carefully, you will notice that I did not mention any particular poster in this debate, but you assumed I was referring to you. Could this be …umm … arrogance?You remain free to ignore this thread if it doesn’t please you. Where you found the self-righteous arrogance to make such a trifling complaint is beyond me.
After your little showing here, I’m quite inclined to continue discussions like this so long as they have the happy effect of keeping you as far from them as possible.