The Priesthood, Sacraments, Signs and Symbols

Traffic lights can have several additional lig...
Image via Wikipedia

There is a difference between a “sign” and a “symbol.” A sign is merely a signifier, it stands in for something else— a stop light is a good example of a sign. A red light has no power to stop me, it merely serves to remind me of my social obligation to drive safely and of the consequences if I don’t. A sign has no power in and of itself. The sign’s power depends on something else and an absent something else at that.

A symbol (anthropologically and in Orthodox theology) is different from a sign. A symbol doesn’t point beyond itself to some other (absent) reality but draws and holds together many things. In this sense, we can say that the Eucharist is a symbol, it draws and holds together in Christ different men and women, from different time and cultures as One Body.

Symbols are also ALWAYS polyvalent. In any given symbol there are many different levels of meaning operating concurrently. Again the Eucharist is a good example. Though we are one in Christ our unity does not preclude our differences but presupposes them. Yes, the Eucharist is objectively one—there are not multiple “Eucharists” even if there are multiple celebrations. But in the Eucharist our unity does not come at the expense of our diversity; neither does our diversity dissolve our unity. The unity of the Eucharist is a convergence of a diversity of subjective meanings; unity and diversity are held together so that neither our unity nor diversity suffers. (And before any object, look at St Paul on the Church as the Body of Christ.)

But what does this have to do with the the human formation of the priesthood?

Returning to an earlier concern, clerical attire points beyond itself to a reality whose meaning is polyvalent, or (if you prefer) symbolic and Eucharistic. The value of clerical attire is only relative, its real power being as a reminder that the man I’ve encountered is an embodied and enacted symbol of the presence of Christ in human affairs. Both as a priest and for those who encounter me, holy orders (as with all the sacraments) is a provocation, an affront to my desire for control, for a life lived within the limits of my own ego. And how can it be otherwise? Sacraments transcend the merely human and draw together any number of subjective meanings not all of them positive or even mutually compatible.

The pastoral problem that I pointed to, however, still remains to be addressed. Whether the individual does nor does not wear traditional clerical attire, the question of clerical dress brings to the fore the clergyman’s emotional and spiritual maturity and can highlight the deficits of his personal formation.

On the one hand, the personal struggles of the priest are just that, his personal struggles. Negotiating the varies levels of meaning inherent in the office of priest is a complex tasks that requires a great deal of personal and spiritual maturity. It is the work of a life time to be sure.

When a priest, for example, I respond habitually with hostility to what are the to be expected questions about my attire, this signals a potentially serious and worrisome deficit in my personal formation. Left uncorrected it can develop into a serious, and potentially fatal, flaw in my ministry.

On the surface the flaw in my character maybe a garden variety narcissism. I want to not only present myself as special (in a positive sense) I also demand you acknowledge my specialness. (This type of narcissism, let me take pains to point out, is not the exclusive problem to those wear cassocks or clergy suits or even to clergy.)

But I need to be discerning. The more prone I am to behave in a manner that singles me out from my neighbor the more my well-being is in danger. This does not mean that Christians should not stand out, We should. But we should be known for our virtue not our clothing (see Mt 6:25-34).

My interest here is not in clothing as such, but clothing as an illustration. Clothing has the unique quality of being able to separate me from others. This separation isn’t necessarily bad or wrong, but neither is it a good thing. Yes how I dress can be a sign to others (and to me) that I am a priest, an ambassador of Christ and a man for others. But it can also be a means of imposing my own ego on the world of persons, events and things. In any particular priest it is probably some mixture of the two and it is precisely because of this that the personal human formation of clergy is so important. Unfortunately, I fear this formation is almost wholly absent in the current practice of the Church.

In my next two posts I want to address one aspect of a sound human formation for clergy, the virtue of obedience. Until then, and as always, your comments, questions and criticism are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/10 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
The Priesthood, Sacraments, Signs and Symbols, 4.0 out of 10 based on 4 ratings
  • http://fathergregory.wordpress.com/ Fr. Gregory Wassen

    I am reminded of something I read and posted on facebook a little while ago:

    “… we should wear only what is in keeping with the humility of our profession and the character of the climate, so that the whole point of our clothing may not consist in strangeness of apparel, which might be offensive to persons of this world, but in decent simplicity.” St. John Cassian, Institutes, Bk. 1, x.

    I wonder what you make of it? Cassian is obviously arguing (in the larger context) he wants his monks to dress in such a way that their dress corresponds to their inner state (which he will spend the rest of the book describing and guiding his reader to achieve). It seems (to me) you and him are of the same mind?

    Fr. Gregory
    .-= Fr. Gregory Wassen´s last blog ..Transfiguration =-.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • http://fathergregory.wordpress.com Fr. Gregory Wassen

    I am reminded of something I read and posted on facebook a little while ago:

    “… we should wear only what is in keeping with the humility of our profession and the character of the climate, so that the whole point of our clothing may not consist in strangeness of apparel, which might be offensive to persons of this world, but in decent simplicity.” St. John Cassian, Institutes, Bk. 1, x.

    I wonder what you make of it? Cassian is obviously arguing (in the larger context) he wants his monks to dress in such a way that their dress corresponds to their inner state (which he will spend the rest of the book describing and guiding his reader to achieve). It seems (to me) you and him are of the same mind?

    Fr. Gregory
    .-= Fr. Gregory Wassen´s last blog ..Transfiguration =-.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Fr Gregory Jensen

    Fr Gregory,

    YES! I am trying to say what Cassian says–he just says it better.

    We have it rather backwards I think. Too many men are simply not able to bear (psychologically or spiritually) the symbolic weight of the priesthood. For some clergy and laity, especially in an earlier time, this might of meant fleeing from traditional clerical attire and traditional elements of clerical behavior (like giving a blessing to a layperson). Today, I’m afraid, we have some clergy and laity who flee the symbolic weight of the priesthood by a rigid adherence to the same externals that we once thought we’d be better off without.

    But in both cases, the real concern is not the externals but a heart that is not able to bear up under the demands of the Gospel. If the scandals of the last several years have revealed anything to us about the Church it is that we have been focused on appearance at the expense of substance. Again, it ain’t about clothing people–its about the Gospel.

    Your thoughts?

    Thanks again for the comment Father.

    In Christ,

    FrG

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Fr Gregory Jensen

    Fr Gregory,

    YES! I am trying to say what Cassian says–he just says it better.

    We have it rather backwards I think. Too many men are simply not able to bear (psychologically or spiritually) the symbolic weight of the priesthood. For some clergy and laity, especially in an earlier time, this might of meant fleeing from traditional clerical attire and traditional elements of clerical behavior (like giving a blessing to a layperson). Today, I’m afraid, we have some clergy and laity who flee the symbolic weight of the priesthood by a rigid adherence to the same externals that we once thought we’d be better off without.

    But in both cases, the real concern is not the externals but a heart that is not able to bear up under the demands of the Gospel. If the scandals of the last several years have revealed anything to us about the Church it is that we have been focused on appearance at the expense of substance. Again, it ain’t about clothing people–its about the Gospel.

    Your thoughts?

    Thanks again for the comment Father.

    In Christ,

    FrG

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Midget

    I am not questioning a priests decisions to marry and to back out of priesthood but what I am questioning is what is this called and what process does a priest go through . In a marriage there is divorce and annulment. Whatt occurs when a priest stops being a priest? Can they return in the future and take up their role as priest. I thought once ordained always ordained.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Guest

    Father, your clothing is important.  Please google and see if you can get a copy of the book “Our Lady Speaks to Her Beloved Priests”, detailed locutions to Father Gobbi.  She specifically indicates the importance of the clergy wearing the clerical garb.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)