Requirement for Vestments in the Mass

[michaelhager]

I’m a fairly new Catholic, having been confirmed at Easter Vigil 2010. I came to the church through logic and reason relating to Church teachings and their relationship to the Bible. In general, I have come to believe that there is no Church teaching that is not rooted in the scriptures or at least supported by the sacred writings.

Until now.

At a recent youth retreat, our teens were sorely disappointed that we could not celebrate Mass because, through a series of unfortunate events, nobody had thought to bring vestments for the priest.

I have researched this fairly extensively in the Catechism, the Rubrics and several other Catholic sources and I have a clear understanding of the rules… You need the Holy Vestments to celebrate mass and to consecrate the host. I get the rubrics, I get the instructions, I get the prohibitions against, but I cannot find out the WHY.

I teach my teens to question everything, believing there is a logical answer to everything. They are questioning this, and I cannot answer to their, or my own satisfaction. I’m the Bible Catholic guy. I love the confidence it gives me to say to doubters, “it’s here, in the Bible.” but this one has me stumped.

Any help will be greatly appreciated!
.
.

 

[Erich]

God commanded that vestments be used in the Old Testament (see Exodus 28). Since Jesus is our High Priest (see Hebrews 4:14), it seems reasonable to conclude that He wore priestly vestments.

This article,by a Lutheran author, may also give some context. In particular:

Jesus, like other Jews of the day, wore the uniform of the* tzitzit*. The gospels report that more than once people grasped them to be healed (Mt. 14:6, Lk 8:44). This may have come from the idea that the messiah would come with “healing in his wings” (Mal. 4:2), with “wings” (kanafim) also meaning “corners”, where the tzitzit were placed.

When Jesus criticized the religious leaders for making their tassels large (Mt 23:5), he wasn’t protesting against their wearing them. Because social status was shown through the hem and tassels, by enlarging them they were claiming honor and prestige from their piety. While they were supposed to be clear in their commitment by wearing their tassels, they weren’t supposed to use them to their own social gain.

 

[Usige]

Redemptionis Sacramentum makes a very strong statement in paragraph 126 against offering the mass without sacred vestments. In particular it states:

The abuse is reprobated whereby the sacred ministers celebrate Holy Mass or other rites without sacred vestments or with only a stole over the monastic cowl or the common habit of religious or ordinary clothes, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books, even when there is only one minister participating. In order that such abuses be corrected as quickly as possible, Ordinaries should take care that in all churches and oratories subject to their jurisdiction there is present an adequate supply of liturgical vestments made in accordance with the norms.

The fact that it calls the practice of not using vestments an abuse and reprobate are very clear that vestments are not just a nice to have.

If you looked at the vesting prayers, each piece of the vestments has a specific symbolism attached to it. Wearing special garments removes us from the ordinary and reminds us that the liturgical actions are for a specific purpose.

While it is unfortunate that this happened it is 1,000% in keeping with what should have happened.

 

[michaelhager]

Redemptionis Sacramentum makes a very strong statement in paragraph 126 against offering the mass without sacred vestments. In particular it states:

The fact that it calls the practice of not using vestments an abuse and reprobate are very clear that vestments are not just a nice to have.

If you looked at the vesting prayers, each piece of the vestments has a specific symbolism attached to it. Wearing special garments removes us from the ordinary and reminds us that the liturgical actions are for a specific purpose.

While it is unfortunate that this happened it is 1,000% in keeping with what should have happened.

Well, we’re getting close to the answer and this bit of history makes sense, but do you have any leads as to the Catholic understanding of these rubrics? I can’t tell my teens “Well, there’s a Protestant guy who says this and that.”

Thanks, and God bless!

 

[michaelhager]

Redemptionis Sacramentum makes a very strong statement in paragraph 126 against offering the mass without sacred vestments. In particular it states:

The fact that it calls the practice of not using vestments an abuse and reprobate are very clear that vestments are not just a nice to have.

If you looked at the vesting prayers, each piece of the vestments has a specific symbolism attached to it. Wearing special garments removes us from the ordinary and reminds us that the liturgical actions are for a specific purpose.

While it is unfortunate that this happened it is 1,000% in keeping with what should have happened.

I’m not questioning the rules, only asking for understanding. My experience so far as a Catholic is that there is no teaching or practice of the Church that does not have a reason and an explanation.

I just can’t seem to find a satisfying answer to this one yet…

God bless…

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not questioning the rules, only asking for understanding. My experience so far as a Catholic is that there is no teaching or practice of the Church that does not have a reason and an explanation.

I just can’t seem to find a satisfying answer to this one yet…

God bless…

Tell them that it’s a sacred moment and ‘special’ clothes are required.

We do this all the time in our everyday society. We expect (indeed sometimes demand) that people who have a certain role be dressed a certain way.

Imagine a military funeral where the honor guard renders military honors dressed in shorts, jeans, t-shirts, etc. instead of in-uniform. The family would have every right to feel cheated.

Judges wear robes in court. Granted, in minor situations, that’s not an absolute, but the idea still holds.

We expect academic robes at college graduations and most high schools. Again, the more important the event, the more we expect it.

At very formal events, we expect people to dress a certain way. Would someone attend a governor’s inauguration ball dressed in khakis and golf shirt if the invitation reads “black tie”?

We do this all the time in everyday life. We expect people who have specific roles to dress in certain ways. It goes beyond just rules or convention; it’s part of who we are as human beings. Every human society has customs and even laws regarding people who have roles wearing clothing or symbols of their office. Whether it’s the village chief who wears an exclusive necklace or the famous Beefeaters at Buckingham Palace, every human society has certain clothing that expresses the role of the wearer. The point is that we expect this all the time, but we just don’t always think about it. This isn’t just Catholic, it’s part of how we behave as human beings across all religions, cultures and times.

Imagine if this guy showed up for duty one day and said “I forgot my uniform today, so I guess I’ll just wear whatever I’m already wearing.”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Would we consider that acceptable? I doubt it. In fact, I guarantee that he wouldn’t dare try.

Well, then why should we accept it if a priest celebrates Mass wearing “whatever I happen to have on”?

I don’t mean the questions to be sarcastic, but didactic. This is part of how to explain it to the teens. We expect certain people to dress certain ways. And when that does not happen, we feel cheated, we know that something important is missing.

 

[e_c]

What a (Latin) priest wears at Mass was once just normal Roman clothing. It is used as a testimony to the dignity (through the “specialness” of it) and antiquity (through recalling that this is as old as the kind of clothing being worn) of the Mass.

Here’s a neat vid that talks about some of this that your youth would probably enjoy a lot:

youtube.com/watch?v=jqkqc2-iteQ

 

[e_c]

Also take a look at the extreme detail of the liturgical vesture given in the Torah.

It’s obviously something important… And this is the NT version, more or less.

And to be clear - one can still validly confect the Eucharist without vestments, but it is illegal. Now, if you are stuck in a prison camp or are marooned on a desert island or something, perhaps you just try to get along with whatever you have. Otherwise it is a pretty serious obligation.

 

[Erich]

do you have any leads as to the Catholic understanding of these rubrics? I can’t tell my teens “Well, there’s a Protestant guy who says this and that.”

You could just say, “it goes all the way back to the Old Testament… and remember that Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but fulfill it” – and also point out the (few) verses in the New Testament that refer to Jesus’ clothing, e.g. the ‘seamless’ undergarment (John 19:23), the ‘fringe’ of his outer garment (Mathew 9:20), etc.

Also, remember what the Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” I suppose it is possible that the facial appearance of Jews could generally be differentiated from the Samaritans but it seems more likely that his dress made it evident to the woman.

Finally, Jesus is addressed as “Teacher” dozens of times in the Gospels. The web link I was trying to find yesterday had, as I recall, several Scriptural references to Jesus being addressed as “Teacher” by folks who didn’t already know him, and basically asked/answered the question, “How did they know He was a teacher? By the special articles of clothing He wore that identified him as such!”

One thing I learned recently that I was not aware of… Jesus didn’t start his public ministry until age 30 because that was the traditional age at which one was accepted as a rabbi. Younger than that, and he would only have been considered a “rabbi in training” by the general public. Of course, Jesus (being the Word Incarnate) didn’t need to be told what was contained in the Word… recall that, when He was twelve, he was “in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions, and everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding.” Almost like he was teaching the teachers – and this at an age when other twelve-year-old boys would have only been preparing for their Bar Mitzvah! How many twelve-year-olds do we know today who exhibit such profound understanding!

 

[Erich]

Imagine if this guy showed up for duty one day and said “I forgot my uniform today, so I guess I’ll just wear whatever I’m already wearing.”
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/80/be/3e/filename-100-0858-jpg.jpg

Would we consider that acceptable? I doubt it. In fact, I guarantee that he wouldn’t dare try.

Years ago I read something somewhere that said these jobs were patrimony jobs, i.e. it’s this guy’s job to guard this particular door, because it was his father’s job before that, and his grandfather’s job before that, back through the generations. Well, one day, one of the Queen’s Guards started researching his family tree to find out which of his ancestors was the first one given the honor of guarding “his” particular door generations earlier, only to find out it was because some guy said, “Hey, you… yeah, you… I just finished painting this door, and I don’t want anyone to mess up the paint job, so I want you to stand here and guard the door and don’t let anyone through until I come back” – and he never came back

 

[e_c]

Tell them that it’s a sacred moment and ‘special’ clothes are required.

We do this all the time in our everyday society. We expect (indeed sometimes demand) that people who have a certain role be dressed a certain way.

Imagine a military funeral where the honor guard renders military honors dressed in shorts, jeans, t-shirts, etc. instead of in-uniform. The family would have every right to feel cheated.

Judges wear robes in court. Granted, in minor situations, that’s not an absolute, but the idea still holds.

We expect academic robes at college graduations and most high schools. Again, the more important the event, the more we expect it.

At very formal events, we expect people to dress a certain way. Would someone attend a governor’s inauguration ball dressed in khakis and golf shirt if the invitation reads “black tie”?

We do this all the time in everyday life. We expect people who have specific roles to dress in certain ways. It goes beyond just rules or convention; it’s part of who we are as human beings. Every human society has customs and even laws regarding people who have roles wearing clothing or symbols of their office. Whether it’s the village chief who wears an exclusive necklace or the famous Beefeaters at Buckingham Palace, every human society has certain clothing that expresses the role of the wearer. The point is that we expect this all the time, but we just don’t always think about it. This isn’t just Catholic, it’s part of how we behave as human beings across all religions, cultures and times.

Imagine if this guy showed up for duty one day and said “I forgot my uniform today, so I guess I’ll just wear whatever I’m already wearing.”
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/80/be/3e/filename-100-0858-jpg.jpg

Would we consider that acceptable? I doubt it. In fact, I guarantee that he wouldn’t dare try.

Well, then why should we accept it if a priest celebrates Mass wearing “whatever I happen to have on”?

I don’t mean the questions to be sarcastic, but didactic. This is part of how to explain it to the teens. We expect certain people to dress certain ways. And when that does not happen, we feel cheated, we know that something important is missing.

youtube.com/watch?v=wBJ4RewuF90

 

[WilliamE]

Years ago I read something somewhere that said these jobs were patrimony jobs, i.e. it’s this guy’s job to guard this particular door, because it was his father’s job before that, and his grandfather’s job before that, back through the generations. Well, one day, one of the Queen’s Guards started researching his family tree to find out which of his ancestors was the first one given the honor of guarding “his” particular door generations earlier, only to find out it was because some guy said, “Hey, you… yeah, you… I just finished painting this door, and I don’t want anyone to mess up the paint job, so I want you to stand here and guard the door and don’t let anyone through until I come back” – and he never came back

I suspect that more than a few “sacred traditions” began in a similar manner.

 

[michaelhager]

so… we’re all just guessing, and have now gotten completely off track…

 

[michaelhager]

Tell them that it’s a sacred moment and ‘special’ clothes are required.

We do this all the time in our everyday society. We expect (indeed sometimes demand) that people who have a certain role be dressed a certain way.

Imagine a military funeral where the honor guard renders military honors dressed in shorts, jeans, t-shirts, etc. instead of in-uniform. The family would have every right to feel cheated.

Judges wear robes in court. Granted, in minor situations, that’s not an absolute, but the idea still holds.

We expect academic robes at college graduations and most high schools. Again, the more important the event, the more we expect it.

At very formal events, we expect people to dress a certain way. Would someone attend a governor’s inauguration ball dressed in khakis and golf shirt if the invitation reads “black tie”?

We do this all the time in everyday life. We expect people who have specific roles to dress in certain ways. It goes beyond just rules or convention; it’s part of who we are as human beings. Every human society has customs and even laws regarding people who have roles wearing clothing or symbols of their office. Whether it’s the village chief who wears an exclusive necklace or the famous Beefeaters at Buckingham Palace, every human society has certain clothing that expresses the role of the wearer. The point is that we expect this all the time, but we just don’t always think about it. This isn’t just Catholic, it’s part of how we behave as human beings across all religions, cultures and times.

Well, then why should we accept it if a priest celebrates Mass wearing “whatever I happen to have on”?

I don’t mean the questions to be sarcastic, but didactic. This is part of how to explain it to the teens. We expect certain people to dress certain ways. And when that does not happen, we feel cheated, we know that something important is missing.

They get all that and are not questioning the validity, just the history. It’s more like , “Huh… That’s interesting, I wonder what the historical basis of that is?” And yet, so far, none have answered well. My teens go pretty deep. Telling them that a soldier wouldn’t show up out of uniform is rather shallow and obvious. They don’t expect a priest to show up without vestments, they just want to know the historical and biblical reasons for this. Can we go deeper?

 

[Della]

I did a quick Google search and these resources came up: google.com/search?q=history+of+mass+vestments&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8. I hope you find the answers you’re looking for.

 

[twf]

Vestments also help remind us that the priest is not acting as himself - that’s not just Fr. Joe or Fr. David up at the altar…when he enters into the sacred mysteries of the liturgy, the priest acts in the person of Christ Himself. Vestments help remind both us and the priest that he, as a mortal man, is to disappear into the ritual…he must diminish so that Christ can increase. I have seen priests celebrate holy Mass without proper vestments…its actually the exact opposite of humility (whatever some may say)…it screams “LOOK AT ME!”. He emphasizes himself as an individual rather than his priestly role as “another Christ”.

 

[1ke]

In general, I have come to believe that there is no Church teaching that is not rooted in the scriptures or at least supported by the sacred writings.

The requirements surrounding vestments at Mass are not teachings-- not doctrinal-- but rather disciplinary. If this were a doctrinal or theological matter, then vestments would be tied to validity of the Mass and of the consecration of the Eucharist, which they are not.

Until now.

To say there is no scriptural support nor writings supporting the profound connection between the liturgical vestments and the priest acting in persona Christi is quite strange me. First, the scriptures themselves speak of vesture in the Old Testmemt, Christ speaks of it in his parables of the Wedding Feast which foreshadows the Eucharist, Mass, and heavenly banquet, and John writes of it in his Revelation describing the Mass in Heaven.

The prayers for vesting go back centuries, the vesture has been set since the 800s.

I cannot find out the WHY.

The Church explains the importance of vestment in many documents and the tie to the dignity, symbolism, and importance of the liturgy. The Church, in her lived experience, has deemed them so important and integral to the liturgy that the priest is to REFRAIN from liturigcal actions without them. The priest refrains because he is obedient.

Why? Because the Church has deemed the vestments integral to the liturgy. The same way you must have candles, a crucifix, vessels made of certain materials, an altar cloth, etc.

look to the Book of Revelation to see the altar of sacrifice, its adornments, and its vestments.

I teach my teens to question everything, believing there is a logical answer to everything.

I would suggest that isn’t the Catholic approach. We need not “question everything” as if we must reason anew why something is as it is. We must learn from the Church and respect that the Church is a living community with a collective history going back 2000 years. We must respect that since the beginning those celebrating the liturgy have been set apart from the congregation by the type, quality, or distinctiveness of the clothing they wore to perform the sacrifice of the Mass. We must respect that since approximately the year 800 that distinctive garb has been set and nearly unchanged for 1200 years. We must respect that the current Magestrium says, “This is how we say Mass and these are the things that must be a part of the liturgy.” We must respect that the priest is not a liberty to ignore the rubrics and is obedient to them. We must respect that while rubrics and disciplines are changeable, and in some cases dispensable, these have been deemed so important to the identity of the priest acting in persona Christi that they are not dispensable and the while the bishops have changed minor things about them (colors for example) they have chosen to make them required.

They are questioning this, and I cannot answer to their, or my own satisfaction

If the answers “there are historical and scriptural bases for vestures and priests cannot say mass without them because the Church says so and because the Bishops have asked the priests not to and therefore they are obedient to what the Bishops have asked” does not put this to rest, then I suggest to you that you are teaching the youth the wrong kind of questioning.

And FYI I am a former Protestant also.

I love the confidence it gives me to say to doubters, “it’s here, in the Bible.”

But it need NOT be in the Bible. Divine Revelation, the deposit of faith, is madden up of BOTH oral and written components, Sacred Scripture and Sacrd Tradition.

Moreover, this isn’t doctrinal at all. It is disciplinary. Which need not be in the Deposit of Faith at all. Disciplines are “how we do things” and are come from the prudential judgment of the bishops when you boil it down. while they typically have biblical, traditional, historical or legislative continuity as the source of disciplines, they need not.

 

[rondirect]

I’m a fairly new Catholic, having been confirmed at Easter Vigil 2010. I came to the church through logic and reason relating to Church teachings and their relationship to the Bible. In general, I have come to believe that there is no Church teaching that is not rooted in the scriptures or at least supported by the sacred writings.

Until now.

At a recent youth retreat, our teens were sorely disappointed that we could not celebrate Mass because, through a series of unfortunate events, nobody had thought to bring vestments for the priest.

I have researched this fairly extensively in the Catechism, the Rubrics and several other Catholic sources and I have a clear understanding of the rules… You need the Holy Vestments to celebrate mass and to consecrate the host. I get the rubrics, I get the instructions, I get the prohibitions against, but I cannot find out the WHY.

I teach my teens to question everything, believing there is a logical answer to everything. They are questioning this, and I cannot answer to their, or my own satisfaction. I’m the Bible Catholic guy. I love the confidence it gives me to say to doubters, “it’s here, in the Bible.” but this one has me stumped.

Any help will be greatly appreciated!
.
.

Michael, the question you asked, IMO, has not been answered here. Yes, we all got the reasons why proper vestments are worn. Thank you, but Mike is looking for the “why.” However, in the circumstance you post must give way to unforeseen events. And, we wonder why the youth are not staying with the church; it’s things like this and their disappointment that does it. I’m sorry, but many will disagree with me here, but the priest should have exercised more thought and proceeded with the mass for the sake of the teens, our future church. God, in my mind, no doubt, would have sanctified the mass with love and joy, regardless if the priest was properly vested or not. Are masses being said for the few in the midst of war torn areas always fully vested? I am sure that vestments get ruined and lost. Does the priest then leave and go home? There are exceptions to every rule. Here are two examples. I’m sorry, but I think you have some doubts now yourself and I’m with you regarding the teen event.

 

[twf]

Michael, the question you asked, IMO, has not been answered here. Yes, we all got the reasons why proper vestments are worn. Thank you, but Mike is looking for the “why.” However, in the circumstance you post must give way to unforeseen events. And, we wonder why the youth are not staying with the church; it’s things like this and their disappointment that does it. I’m sorry, but many will disagree with me here, but the priest should have exercised more thought and proceeded with the mass for the sake of the teens, our future church. God, in my mind, no doubt, would have sanctified the mass with love and joy, regardless if the priest was properly vested or not. Are masses being said for the few in the midst of war torn areas always fully vested? I am sure that vestments get ruined and lost. Does the priest then leave and go home? There are exceptions to every rule. Here are two examples. I’m sorry, but I think you have some doubts now yourself and I’m with you regarding the teen event.

His question has been answered by numerous posters. I gave one reason in my earlier post on this thread. Of course the law does not compel the impossible. There are scenarios where it simply isn’t possible to use vestments. Saintly priests have secretly celebrated Masses in prison camps for example. The situation described by the OP is not comparable. There was no grave need for Mass to be celebrated. The priest could have led the teens in the liturgy of the hours instead.

 

[michaelhager]

The requirements surrounding vestments at Mass are not teachings-- not doctrinal-- but rather disciplinary. If this were a doctrinal or theological matter, then vestments would be tied to validity of the Mass and of the consecration of the Eucharist, which they are not.

And yet the Rubrics specifically forbid the mass being celebrated without vestments:
“Redemptionis Sacramentum” clearly states in No. 123:

“‘The vestment proper to the Priest celebrant at Mass, and in other sacred actions directly connected with Mass unless otherwise indicated, is the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole.’ Likewise the Priest, in putting on the chasuble according to the rubrics, is not to omit the stole. All Ordinaries should be vigilant in order that all usage to the contrary be eradicated.”

No. 126 states: “The abuse is reprobated whereby the sacred ministers celebrate Holy Mass or other rites without sacred vestments or with only a stole over the monastic cowl or the common habit of religious or ordinary clothes, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books, even when there is only one minister participating. In order that such abuses be corrected as quickly as possible, Ordinaries should take care that in all churches and oratories subject to their jurisdiction there is present an adequate supply of liturgical vestments made in accordance with the norms.”

To say there is no scriptural support nor writings supporting the profound connection between the liturgical vestments and the priest acting in persona Christi is quite strange me. First, the scriptures themselves speak of vesture in the Old Testmemt, Christ speaks of it in his parables of the Wedding Feast which foreshadows the Eucharist, Mass, and heavenly banquet, and John writes of it in his Revelation describing the Mass in Heaven.

The prayers for vesting go back centuries, the vesture has been set since the 800s.

I never said there was no scriptural support, I said I want to know what it is and although I have found about 28 scriptural references to priestly garments I have not found where it is strictly required for the celebration of the mass, except that Aron was required to wear his priestly garments with bells on the hem to prevent his death when entering the Holy of Holies.

The Church explains the importance of vestment in many documents and the tie to the dignity, symbolism, and importance of the liturgy. The Church, in her lived experience, has deemed them so important and integral to the liturgy that the priest is to REFRAIN from liturigcal actions without them. The priest refrains because he is obedient.

Why? Because the Church has deemed the vestments integral to the liturgy. The same way you must have candles, a crucifix, vessels made of certain materials, an altar cloth, etc.

look to the Book of Revelation to see the altar of sacrifice, its adornments, and its vestments.

Thanks, I will research these.