Saturday, August 22, 2009

AM I SEEING THINGS?

Or is that Vishnu on Mrs. Schori's left shoulder?

45 comments:

Jim Olson said...

Seriously. Without being critical of her politics or theology or anything else. Who dresses her? I have never once seen her in vestments that are not too loud, inappropriate, badly made or just plain mismatched. A white stole, a brick red cope, a gold mitre and an alb with a simply awful baggy collar? Please. She needs a makeover or an intervention or at least a gay assistant who will tell her that she looks like she got dressed in the bargain bin of used vestments at the local Goodwill.

Elephantschild said...

That *thing* on her head looks rather like a perfectly folded slice of Kraft American Cheese.

And while we're talking cheese, (mmmm.... cheese!)her cope seems rather tomato-soup colored.

I think I know what I'll fix for lunch today.

Matt A. said...

Sorry, Catholic here - but who exactly is this woman? And why on earth does she seem to be such a regular "guest" on this blog?

Jim Olson said...

This is The Most. Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori, current Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA. A controversial choice for some.

Matt A. said...

well that explains who she is...unfortunately, not why she seems to show up on this site with such regular frequency.

Jim Olson said...

Well, the blogger appears to be from that tradition, and she does provide such egregious examples for discussion here.

The Bovina Bloviator said...

Love that color!

TAAAAXI!

Where to, Mack?

To hell in a handbasket and make it quick!

Anonymous said...

I agree that she makes an excellent target in fashion terms, but what's this "Mrs. Schori" crap? She IS the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, that is not her name, and she deserves more respect, even from snarkier-than-thou bloggers.

I've disliked the last several presidents of the United States, but at least I bear the office in mind while berating the individual.

I hope you'll consider doing the same, thus avoiding drawing attention from your wholly valid criticisms of her poor taste in vestments.

Jim Olson said...

Well, thats what I'd hoped to encourage by identifying her with her proper ecclesiastical title. "snarkier-than-thou" I like that. ;)

Damian said...

Anon:

The reason some of us do not refer to Mrs. Schori with a clerical title is because we do not believe she is clergy. To refer to her as such would be to legitimise her claim to be an ordained bishop. We aren't being snarky; we're being honest!

The Presidency, on the other hand, is all about choices and differences of opinion. We have a process which allows individuals of differing ideologies - who meet a set of Constitutionally mandated criteria, just as traditionalists believe being male is a criterion for being clergy - to hold elected office. There is no reason to refer to President Obama without his title (unless one is, ironically, using Mr. as a perfectly acceptable alternative title) because he was duly elected President of the United States, even if we may think he's a horrible leader.

With Schori, her title is meaningless, because traditional Anglicans do not oppose women's ordination, they simply don't believe it exists. Saying we oppose women's ordination is like saying we oppose riding unicorns; you can't oppose what isn't real.

I hope that clarified things!

Jim Olson said...

Very clear, Damian. It is still disrespectful. She is ordained by rites properly approved by the ECUSA, was properly elected Presiding Bishop, and is therefore entitled to the same ecclesiastical respect granted to all who hold this office. Rome does not recognise the ordination of women either, but whenever women ordained in other traditions are formally invited by the Holy See to various events, they are always afforded the courtesy of the use of their eccesiastical titles.

Those who do not believe that women should be ordained might not agree or like it, but everyone should at least be polite to one another and use proper etiquette. This particular individual may be a fashion nightmare, a bad leader and have questionable theology, (and these things can and should be pointed out), but she is still the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA and should be afforded the same courtesy due to her office.

muerk said...

Either way, the Presiding Bishop is wearing unholstery.

Elephantschild said...

Despite my tomato-soup comment above, I do rather like the red tones on the cope.

I make no such qualifications on the cheeze-slice miter, though!

Damian said...

The problem is, you're approaching this from the perspective of the Rules of Men. Those of us approaching it from the Rules of God (at least in the Anglo-Catholic/Roman Catholic/Orthodox tradition) believe she is not the Presiding Bishop. She is an impostor. A woman will never, ever, ever, ever being the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church because there is no such thing as a female member of the clergy in those Churches which claim to have Apostolic Succession.

Every single heretical vote by the Episcopal Church's General Conventions should be disregarded by true believers of the faith. The vote to ordain women, as far as I am concerned, is completely meaningless. Saying that she is "properly elected" Presiding Bishop is like saying a can of tomato soup was "properly elected" Presiding Bishop, even if General Convention votes to allow for the ordination of tomato soup cans.

There is no Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church right now, and every single diocese currently led by a woman claiming to be a Bishop (or any man who was consecrated by women, with no legitimate male Bishops) is without a leader.

Schori deserves no respect with regard to a title which is a fraud. Period.

Anonymous said...

Damian, kindly leave it outside. Spare us your misogynistic insecurities; we've all heard the "Girls Have Cooties" arguments too many times to want to go through it again. There's ample evidence for female leadership in the early Church.

I don't believe that Joseph Ratzinger is Christ's Vicar on Earth, but I still accord him the use of his proper titles. Only a jerk would fail to do the same for ++KJS.

Can we just stick to the mutual fun of mocking ugly vestments, please? Thanks.

SB said...

Damian & Co: Unless you also believe that women cannot also be scientists, and that a woman gives up any right to her own identity upon marrying (which seems perfectly possible given your comments), her name still is not "Mrs. Schori." It's "Dr. Jefferts-Schori."

This does seem to show a deeper antipathy toward women than just insisting that a real priest or bishop must have a penis and testicles to be acceptable in God's (undoubtedly masculine) eyes.

SB

Anonymous said...

All the typical "offense" mongering put aside, your argument shows a deep antipathy toward the catholic (small C) faith. Or, you're ignorant to the teaching of the larger Church for 2000+ years. Either or. Ultimately, the argument for the male diaconate/presbyteriate/episcopate has less to do with genitalia as it does with the different giftedness of the sexes. (Along with the nature of the priesthood, etc.)

At any rate, it doesn't matter what you call ++++++++++KJS. Her organisation is crumbling, due to its non-Christian teaching and her heavy-handed management techniques. TEc is bleeding members.

And it doesn't help that she appears like some sort of demented cartoon character whenever she wears vestments in public.

Anonymous said...

Where's TUaD when you need him?

Anonymous said...

Spare us your misogynistic insecurities; we've all heard the "Girls Have Cooties" arguments too many times to want to go through it again.

Not to speak for Damian, but consider, Anon, how Daniel felt. Are you saying he and his friends should have bowed down before Nebuchadnezzer and call him a god since that was his proper title?

Why do consider people's egos to be the most important thing on earth, that we are obligated to stroke them and pander to them when they claim for themselves titles to which they have no claim. Certainly someone is being an arrogant jerk, but I don't think it's Daniel or Damian.

Don't you believe in a transcendent God? Why is this woman's ego so important to you? She probably doesn't even read this blog, although strategically it would be a good idea, since it might enable her to avoid any more fashion crimes.

Jim Olson said...

And where, precisely, Damian, does God say that women cannot be ordained? Biblical? I don't think so. Tradition? Then you are arguing rules of men again. Misogyny by any other name...

Traditionalists may choose not to recognise her ordination or the ordination of other women, but it just makes you all look petty and small minded. Let's hold her up for richly deserved ridicule for bad fashion sense, bad leadership and bad theology, but please, lets not get distracted by whether or not her apostolic succession is valid. There is no way to prove that anyone has a direct, pure, unbroken line back to Peter.

Anonymous said...

And then there's Junia, well-known among the apostles...

I do believe in a transcendent God, Anonymous Misogynist. Do you?

Thanks, Jim Olson, for interjecting sanity into the discussion.

++KJS has incredibly bad taste in vestments. I was under the impression that the horrible vestments were the topic on this blog. Too bad the nutcases can't stick with that.

Massive Ferguson said...

Oh, that poor woman! Like Miz Scarlett and the window curtains after the burning of Atlanta this, um, person has to wear bits of somebody's grandmother's old sofa!

SB said...

And what IS her mitre made of?

SB

Anonymous said...

I do believe in a transcendent God, Anonymous Misogynist.
Then how did you come to consider Schori's ego to be transcendent or Godlike, O Anonymous Narcissist? What is so transcendent about the spoiled brat-like desire to hold an office to which you are not entitled?

Do you?
Of course, here's how you can too. If you read chapter one of Romans and take it to heart, it will prevent you from mistaking yourself or any other human being for something worthy of worship.

Too bad the nutcases can't stick with that.
Heh. And who derailed the thread onto that subject in the first place? ;) Don't be so hard on yourself, you're probably not a nut, just another uptight, immature liberal.

Jim Olson said...

Right, so this was sort of fun, looking at various liturgical fashion faux pas, but now it's just deteriorated into childishness. Not surprising, really. I shall check back in less frequently.

SB said...

Same here. It's a variation on Gresham's Law: Bad posts drive out good. Nice going, Damian and Co.

SB

Anonymous said...

The narcissists are the guys who make God in their own image - as a prick. Thanks for killing the fun.

Anonymous said...

The narcissists are the guys who make God in their own image - as a prick. Thanks for killing the fun.
I answered you at your own level, according to your own folly. I'm glad you don't like what you see. It may be the first step to curing you of your mindset. There's more to this universe than your fragile ego (or Schori's for that matter). I honestly hope you realize that before long.

Same here.
erm.. ever consider that Jim might have been talking about you? Ya think?
It's a variation on Gresham's Law: Bad posts drive out good. Nice going, Damian and Co.

Poor SB, yes, your posts here are truly brilliant, especially the one implying that conservatives would accept Drew Phoenix as a validly ordained priest. I'm not sure how theological discourse will manage to continue without them. Why not start your own blog?

Steve said...

The mitre isn't nearly as bad as what it is sitting on top of.

Bishop Hanson's orb is also a weak platform.

Anonymous said...

I suppose the people who argue for women's ordination on this thread also support referring to Kim Jong II as 'your godliness' since it's his official title. Maybe they're Anonymous Fascists? If they want to discuss the topic of WO, I wish they would argue according to scripture instead of engaging in hypocritical ad hominem.

Bob Waters said...

It would be only fitting. Hare Kali.

Anonymous said...

<< I answered you at your own level, according to your own folly. I'm glad you don't like what you see. It may be the first step to curing you of your mindset. There's more to this universe than your fragile ego (or Schori's for that matter). I honestly hope you realize that before long. >>
Look in a mirror, moron.

Anonymous said...

After you ... ;>)

Benjamin Dueholm said...

Why do people on this thread care what a purported non-bishop wears? It's not funny (or significant in any way) if ++KJS is just a fraud. If she's not clergy, this is not a vestment, and the whole thing is not even worth mockery.

Anonymous said...

Dear Benjamin Dueholm,

My amusement at weird vestments probably arises from my love of good vestments as proper accessories of good liturgy.

Also, the lack of validity of Dr KJS' purported orders would not make a mitre less a mitre were she to put it on her head, nor an alb less an alb when she might don it.

And, to disagree with you again, I believe with all my heart that she and her pathetic church have earned that mockery.

G'night, Bill

Anonymous said...

Benjamin,

I must really take issue with your statement "... It's not funny (or significant in any way) if ++KJS is just a fraud.".

On the contrary, a) her vestments are intrinsically funny, regardless of the validity of her orders, and b) it is significant since she and her church are misleading so many people, so it's proper to point out the irony when she testifies against herself with these narcissistic displays. It's similar to when people draw attention to Todd Bentley testifying against himself with his violent, vulgar displays to make people aware of what a fraud he is.

Benjamin Dueholm said...

My mistake. I thought this more about mocking something out of love rather than trashing people out of contempt. Your tender concern for the Episcopal flock is noted, however.

Anam Cara said...

Having read all the comments about what role the pictured woman fills, I see there is great disagreement on whether or not she can be called the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church since some do not believe that women can be priests.

I have no problem calling her the Presiding Bishop. I am not Jewish, but I have no problem calling someone a Rabbi. I am not Buddhist, but I recognize there is a person called the Dalai Lama, the "head" of that religion. I'm not Catholic so the Pope is not my religious authority, but I recognize that he is for some people. And on and on.


Perhaps we can all just agree that for the Episcopal Church she is the High Priestess.

See the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary:

* Main Entry: priest·ess
1 : a woman authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion
2 : a woman regarded as a leader (as of a movement)

* Main Entry: high priestess
: a chief priestess


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priestess

And that she has a fashion sense that is foreign to most of us.

Don Jon said...

The least her stylist could have done is to choose a different brocade.

Anonymous said...

So, um, it's wrong to call her Mrs (something I'd do anyway for reasons already listed but also because I honestly really don't know who she is) but it's perfectly okay to mock her clothes? Somehow that's quite the double standard.

Mira8 said...

"I wear the cheese. The cheese does not wear me."

Dave said...

These vestments are from either Canterbury Cathedral's or York Minster's collection- they were part of a large matched set of copes and mitres that a bunch of Anglican primates wore on a group visit to England.

Although Bishop Jefferts Schori's taste in vesture is unusual, this picture is not indicative of her own taste but that of an English cathedral sacristan.

Anonymous said...

Well, said sacristan should never be allowed near liturgical garments again.

Anonymous said...

Speaking as a Cathedral Sacristan I can assert that while the cope may be from the Cathedral collection the alb, stole and the Mitre were certainly not! It is not the vestments fault that the wearer has poor taste and standards.

Anonymous said...

Actually, that is not a bad miter 'auriphrygiata'. It would be most appropriate for an ordination paired with either gothic or Roman vestments.

Likewise, the cope doesn't seem to be that distasteful, except that it hardly resembles red or any other liturgical color. And the white stole may not be bad at all, as it seems to be a simple silk brocade.

I'm speaking from Roman Catholic liturgical standards, of course.

And no, Dr. (or Mrs. [Those holdings doctorates may still be titled Mr. or Mrs. {Trust me on this}]) Schori-Jefferts is no more a bishop(ess) than I am the presiding bishop of the ECUSA, the Dalai Lama, an avatar of Vishnu (except in the vaguest Brahmanistic sense), or the Last Son of Krypton. :-)

+++E.J. Adrian, DD, DLitt, PhD, DDS