C
CMatt25
Guest
Tantum, if you can’t see how I believe the Church downsizing a bit on how She “decorates” would allow for even greater service to the poor, then I can’t help you understand. God bless you.
"Catholic social teaching finds Church teaching lacking." by Bishop Dowling
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Matt, you make a lot of charges that simply don’t stand up. You can’t even prove a causality that one ‘less’ cappa magna would result in ‘greater service to the poor’.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I agree. I was sort of surprised by this. Anyone who’s been reading the statements of JPII and BXVI would know they are much more liberal than the U.S. so-called liberals or progressives. They are right on the dot with Church Social Teachings, BXVI even more so than JPII (who was probably recoiling a bit from bad experiences with communist Russia/Poland – but was none-the-less much more liberal and into social justice than American liberals/progressives). Of course, that doesn’t quite come up the to the level of JC Himself, who was totally radical, a true and thorough care & share Person.
Or from a different perspective, I think Church teachings (Social and otherwise) instruct us to be exceeding conservative personally – e.g., abstain from immoral sex, abortions, cheating/fraud, plus (if we seek perfection) to be self-denying or detached even in legimate worldly pleasures and desires, etc; but exceeding radical socially in the love, mercy, kindness, and help we extend to others. That’s actually sort of hard. I remember a nun who must have had a really tough novitiate, and was tough/mean with me (a layperson in the parish).
So we’re supposed to be tough as nails with ourselves, self-denial, detachment from worldly goods and pleasures, always looking at our own sins under the microscope, always repentant for our multitude of sins and imperfections; but generous, magnanimous, loving, and all-forgiving with others.
Only with God’s grace is that possible. It takes a veritable saint to come to this understanding, then cap in on this abundant grace.
RE the pomp and ritual – I think I’ve been as spiritually uplifted in a very simple and austere Trappist monastery church (open to the laity), as I have been in very ornate ones with colorful and glittering decorations and vestments, etc.
These, in fact, are just details, and we should never take our innner eyes off Jesus. All other things, trappings and phrasings and language fade into the background in the Presence of Our Lord. That’s just my unique perspective, having been a Protestant, called to Catholicism. I do know how Protestants criticize Catholics – that we are more into meaningless rituals than the Gospels and Jesus. And we’d rather have it in Latin, so understanding will be even less clear. My husband of 40 years, raised in the 40s & 50s with the Latin Mass, won’t accept any of these complaints.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Does anybody else see the kind of false dichotomy inherent in statements like “The Church’s ‘decorating’ less would result in greater service to the poor?”
It’s as though somebody was saying, “Look, see here! Because the bishop of Alexandria is wearing a cappa magna at the Solemn High Mass, there are poor people in the state of Virginia who are being DEPRIVED by the CATHOLIC CHURCH of alms that should rightfully be given to them IN LIEU of the bishop wearing the cappa magna.’”
As though the money for the cappa magna (a DONATION to the bishop which he did not purchase, does not own, and which will serve for generations, as opposed to say a ‘cheaper’ tweed robe which would wear out in a matter of a few years and have to be replaced, and replaced, and replaced) is somehow being ‘stolen’ from the poor. As though you either have to give to the poor OR donate something to God that is not ‘food for the poor’, and that if you donate anything to God other than food for the poor you’re depriving the POOR. Oh, how wicked and wasteful the Catholic Church is when it does anything deemed by individual Catholics to be ‘beyond’ their personal opinion of what is ‘suitable’. . .
It’s as though somebody was saying, “Look, see here! Because the bishop of Alexandria is wearing a cappa magna at the Solemn High Mass, there are poor people in the state of Virginia who are being DEPRIVED by the CATHOLIC CHURCH of alms that should rightfully be given to them IN LIEU of the bishop wearing the cappa magna.’”
As though the money for the cappa magna (a DONATION to the bishop which he did not purchase, does not own, and which will serve for generations, as opposed to say a ‘cheaper’ tweed robe which would wear out in a matter of a few years and have to be replaced, and replaced, and replaced) is somehow being ‘stolen’ from the poor. As though you either have to give to the poor OR donate something to God that is not ‘food for the poor’, and that if you donate anything to God other than food for the poor you’re depriving the POOR. Oh, how wicked and wasteful the Catholic Church is when it does anything deemed by individual Catholics to be ‘beyond’ their personal opinion of what is ‘suitable’. . .
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Hi tpw,
I see a lot of talking past each other here, so I’ll try to avoid that. I would like to address a couple of your points though.
I see a lot of talking past each other here, so I’ll try to avoid that. I would like to address a couple of your points though.
You (and the bishop) make a link between the moral authority of the celebrant, and the vestments they wear. Of course wearing a fancy vestment doesn’t give the bishop more authority. But the point we’re making here is that the purpose of the vestments is to glorify Christ, not to glorify the bishop or give him more authority. I feel like you didn’t understand what any of us were saying in that regard.
I agree with you that young people are interested in social justice, and thats wonderful. However, is there any evidence that young people are turned off by nice vestments? I think young people are more turned off by old people trying to make the mass “cool” by dressing “hip”. Although I don’t have any data to back that up. If you have data I would be willing to read it.
I’ve noticed a trend with those against fancy vestments to talk about how it makes them feel, or how it affects them during the mass. While those things are important, what the other side is trying to say is that its not about making us feel good, its about worshipping God. We’re giving a gift to God. It’s like leaving flowers at a shrine… sure they may be pretty, but the flowers are a gift to God or to a saint, not to make us enjoy the atmosphere there more. I hope you understand what I’m saying.
It’s true, I hope I’m not talking past you here.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
I believe Christ expanded the old testatment…fullfilled if you will. He didn’t believe in an eye for an eye but rather turning the other cheek. He broadened the understanding of a vengeful God into a loving father. He called him Abba when the Jews would not utter the name of God outloud. He said it wasn’t about all the don’t of the ten commandments. THat part was easy to follow. He gave us the Beatitudes, which we can clearly demonstrate are not that easy to follow. He told us the greatest commandment was to love one another and love God above all else. He dressed as a simple man, much to the disappointment of those who were awaiting the King and warrior.
I agree with this. What part of this is against the Church? Where did he ever intimate his followers dress in kingly clothes. Is that what you want me to believe?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
But His followers do not dress in ‘kingly clothes’ 24/7. . . anymore than Aaron (remember him?) wore the High priest’s ceremonial vestments save at assisting at the Holy of Holies. . .
where did God change the requirements that priests assisting at the Holy of Holies and say that they should not dress in sumptuous robes while performing their priestly duties?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
An interesting point which the Gospels speak of is that when Christ was crucified, His garments were taken from Him.
It was the practice for the Roman soldiers to ‘divide’ the garments of a convicted felon and to sell them. (even into the 19th century ‘rag and bone men’ were the descendents of those who took cast off clothing and rags and sold them).
But when it came to Jesus’ tunic. . .which was seamless and ‘well made’ --IOW, a fine piece of clothing. . . the soldiers did not cut it into ‘portions’ the way they did with other garments. It was worth so much that they kept it WHOLE and GAMBLED for it–one person to ‘win’ the entire thing as it was that worthwhile.
So . . . Jesus may have dressed simply, but (as many are aware) simplicity does not have to be cheap and shoddy. Jesus’ tunic was well made, not rags, not even the equivalent of ‘generic’ clothing. He may have been a carpenter (not exactly the ‘lowest’ occupation either of His time), He may have traveled about (after all He only had 3 years to give His message) rather than living in a settled home–but then, many other people of the time lived in a ‘nomadic’ life style. . .but He did not necessarily dress in ‘humble’, that is ‘cheap’ attire, but rather well-made, simple but not cheap clothing.
And of course, as King of Kings, He is clothed (as we are told) in the finest raiment. Why, even at the Transfiguration we are told that He appeared to Peter, James and John in robes of “dazzling white”. . .as a sign to help STRENGTHEN them. Why would He show Himself dressed in FINE ARRAY to His disciples if He wanted them (in performing their priestly function) to wear humble cheap clothes?
It was the practice for the Roman soldiers to ‘divide’ the garments of a convicted felon and to sell them. (even into the 19th century ‘rag and bone men’ were the descendents of those who took cast off clothing and rags and sold them).
But when it came to Jesus’ tunic. . .which was seamless and ‘well made’ --IOW, a fine piece of clothing. . . the soldiers did not cut it into ‘portions’ the way they did with other garments. It was worth so much that they kept it WHOLE and GAMBLED for it–one person to ‘win’ the entire thing as it was that worthwhile.
So . . . Jesus may have dressed simply, but (as many are aware) simplicity does not have to be cheap and shoddy. Jesus’ tunic was well made, not rags, not even the equivalent of ‘generic’ clothing. He may have been a carpenter (not exactly the ‘lowest’ occupation either of His time), He may have traveled about (after all He only had 3 years to give His message) rather than living in a settled home–but then, many other people of the time lived in a ‘nomadic’ life style. . .but He did not necessarily dress in ‘humble’, that is ‘cheap’ attire, but rather well-made, simple but not cheap clothing.
And of course, as King of Kings, He is clothed (as we are told) in the finest raiment. Why, even at the Transfiguration we are told that He appeared to Peter, James and John in robes of “dazzling white”. . .as a sign to help STRENGTHEN them. Why would He show Himself dressed in FINE ARRAY to His disciples if He wanted them (in performing their priestly function) to wear humble cheap clothes?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Here’s a little story from summer 1970, a few years after Vatican II when people were really into new things. We were away from home for a summer semester elsewhere, and we knew one of the priests who introduced us to the others in this 6-8 priest church.
This lady calls up the rectory, thinking she’s talking to the receptionist, to complain that Fr. S&So was wearing blue jeans under his cassock. Fr. answers back, “Well, I’m Fr. So&So, and what were you doing looking up my cassock.”
Another story – these were the wild days of the late 60s/early 70s – a priest friend of my husband’s takes out a fountain pen, opens it, pulls out a marijuana joint and offers it to him. My husband is shocked, and says, “Fr., what would your superiors say?” Fr. replies: “Oh, they have their own supply.”
But it was a good summer re homilies. One priest in his homily told how he was explaining to a hippy on the college campus about the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The hippy replies, “Wow, man. You really believe it’s God. Wow. If I really believed that, I wouldn’t come sauntering into church making an off-handed sign of the cross, like swatting flies. I’d get down on my belly and crawl up the aisle of the church to God.”
Sing a new song unto the Lord…
L
lynnvinc
Guest
The seamless garment. One nonbiblical story is that Mary wove it for him.
It is also a beautiful metaphor that ties in all the moral issues surrounding pro-life. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bernardin#Seamless_garment re:
[Cardinal Bernardin’s] response to living in an age in which he believed modern technologies threatened the sanctity of human life. Bernardin’s CLE philosophy is sometimes called the seamless garment of life, a reference from John 19:23 to the seamless robe of Jesus. The seamless garment philosophy holds that issues such as abortion, capital punishment, militarism, euthanasia, social injustice and economic injustice all demand a consistent application of moral principles that value the sacredness of human life (as defined by the Catholic Church). In response to critiques from some pro-life activists, Bernardin clarified that the ethic never meant that all threats to life were equal, from a societal or political standpoint (see paragraph 11, section II of his statement)
A wonderous and beautiful garment – remember the woman who touched it was cured…
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
When Jesus performed the first mass at the last supper and showed us how to perfectly adore and praise God. How was Jesus dressed at the last supper. I wish you would drop the Aaron thing…it’s getting old.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I agree with your assessment, but I would quibble on one item. We have to be careful about what we consider to be “liberal/progressive” from a Church perspective when it comes to the poor. The radical level of love towards our neighbor does not translate to bloated social welfare programs run by the State. In fact, the Social Doctrine of the Church teaches against such programs because they are contrary to human dignity. Rather, we are to get our hands dirty, so to say, and use our time, treasures and talents to serve others. This is the belief of most “conservative” Catholics I know, and there is nothing anti-poor about it.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Christ did make some changes. And He mentioned them, talked about them. And He left some things the same. And of those, He did not mention all of them.
Moreover, not everything the Church teaches is in Sacred Scirpture. This is extremely important: we are not Protestants thinking that everything is in Scripture. In fact, Scripture itself says that not everything could be fitted in.
The Church teaches that her teachings are like a stool: one leg is Scripture, one is Tradition, and one is the Magisterium. The Truth is in the Church, not in one or the other of the “legs.” And the Church has through out Her history shown glory to God in many ways, one of which is to beautify the place where the liturgy occurred and the liturgy itself.
We have been talking about a priest acting in persona Christi wearing very fancy clothing, 20 yards of silk. As in the other thread, one has to ask where is the injustice? We owe more to God than to any of His creatures. To show in one way that we honor Him is in no way taking anything away from the poor, and might, as I pointed out pages ago on this thread, inspire people to give more to the poor.
I have often heard that Protestants comment that if they believed in Trasubstantiation they would be at Mass every day so as to be in the Lord’s Presence. By making Mass, the church (building), and everything which centers around God beautiful, we not only glorify God, we also show the world what we think about God. We think that He is worth 20 yards of silk! We think He is worth stained glass windows, copper roofs, statues, paintings, gold plates and chalices! We think that the Christi in Whose persona the priests are is worth silk, tapestry, embroidery, lace, gold threads!
And we *also *think that His people, each and every human who ever lived and ever will live, is also worth a lot. The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. The Church set the standard for care for the poor. Mother Theresa went out and picked up sick beggars, stinking from open sores, and carried them herself to hospitals and when the hospitals wouldn’t take them, she opened up places which would, and found people who would also carry them. And they do this for the glory of God!
Is the time I spend with a sick neighbor time stolen from the poor? Is the time spent in missionary activity stolen from the poor? Is the time spent visiting the imprisoned stolen from the poor?
Is money given to help the handicapped stolen from the poor? Is the money donated to pro-life causes stolen from the poor? Is the money given to hospitals stolen from the poor?
In that case, why do you act as if the money given for other ways of glorifying God was stolen from the poor?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Okay, to continue this talk about garments. What about young Fr. So&So’s butterfly vestments (in the 1970s) – and he’d explain how butterfies sort of represent rebirth into the Lord or something like that. I forget. It had some shiny silver spots on the wings. I think cute Sr.Such&Such made it for him. They’d go off on his motor cycle together. Wonder whatever happened to them. Hope they stuck to their vocations.
It never bothered me, but the old philosophy professor, a Catholic, was constantly critiquing Fr’s garb and homilies, how Fr wasn’t steeped in theology enough or something. You know how professors are, esp old ones.
I was just a new convert to Catholicism, in a state of awe, and longing to learn about the saints, so I didn’t have much knowledge with which to critique anyone or anything. I still don’t have much knowledge to criticize priests, liturgies, etc. And despite the old prof telling me I learn about the saints thru osmosis (or something), I found out I had to do the digging myself. But now that I’m an old professor, I do criticize lots of other things. Esp other people’s sins. Ole crotchety me.
It never bothered me, but the old philosophy professor, a Catholic, was constantly critiquing Fr’s garb and homilies, how Fr wasn’t steeped in theology enough or something. You know how professors are, esp old ones.
I was just a new convert to Catholicism, in a state of awe, and longing to learn about the saints, so I didn’t have much knowledge with which to critique anyone or anything. I still don’t have much knowledge to criticize priests, liturgies, etc. And despite the old prof telling me I learn about the saints thru osmosis (or something), I found out I had to do the digging myself. But now that I’m an old professor, I do criticize lots of other things. Esp other people’s sins. Ole crotchety me.
S
St_Francis
Guest
And of course what did the Three Kings give to Christ? They came finely dressed to worship Him, and gave Him gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You mean you believe that Aaron (the first high priest) has absolutely nothing at all to do with Jesus? You can WISH I’d drop it but why should I? It’s germane to the discussion.
And we know that Jesus was wearing that rather well-made tunic (don’'t we?) which was worth enough that the soldiers, rather than ‘cut it’ as they did with less costly clothes, actually gambled for it because it was worth it to keep it intact, because it was taken from Him at the cross. . .
And we know that He now reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that Peter, James and John saw his "transfigured’ body in a robe of dazzling white. . .
Where did Jesus say that His priests would somehow be expected to dress ‘plainly’ in performing their priestly duties, as opposed to the God-given mandate of the Levite priests whom God required to dress in costly attire?
Now granted that in conditions of dire poverty or necessity (people who are being persecuted, people who have been victims of natural disasters, etc.) there might not be ‘appropriate vestments’ for a certain period of time, and that certainly the priest or bishop can celebrate even if he is in real rags if there is absolutely nothing else. . .but since when did exceptions become a rule?
I’m still waiting for people to tell me all about the history of the Catholic Church, the symbolism of vestments and their history, the history of the Church in regarding to buildings, furnishings, vessels, etc. in order to support their theory that Christ has ordered nothing but ‘plain attire’, no ‘decorations’, no ‘costly furnishings’, and that the use of any of those is ‘extravagance’ that ‘deprives the poor’. . .
T
Tigg
Guest
I’m going to say this out of honesty. After re-reading certain segments of this article (as above,) I find it disturbing, even dangerous and could easily be mis-construed as an open invitation to rebellion and disobedience to the Holy Father. Thank you, Bishop, but I will stick to my orthodoxy and the deposit of faith and the statements coming from Rome. In fact, I hang on every word coming from our beloved Benedict.
I’ll say one other thing. We are already, and in many circumstances, seeing where the bishops are not united in their teaching and leadership role. The orthodox against the progressives as it’s been all along, but becoming much more pronounced. Want an example? Bishop Sample not allowing another auxiliary bishop into his diocese to speak to a social justice group because of his liberal stance on homosexuality.
Woe and sadness!
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
Is it possible that you are wrong and that your pride is getting in the way of admitting that you are wrong?
C
CMatt25
Guest
Tantum, again you totally miss the entire point. “One less” is symbolic for much more. Again, it just appears you simply can not see where if the Church cut down some on Her decorative splendor it would mean She would have even more to serve the poor. Just imagine. A win win situation. A win for the poor. And a win for those Rush Catholics. Less they’d have to render to Caesar if the Church were chippin in even more.
Peace to you Tantum.
C
CMatt25
Guest
- Status