Requirement for Vestments in the Mass

[michaelhager]

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

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. .

Actually, my teens are all great about the “Catholic Approach”. They are all completely obedient to the Church in these matters. Their favorite group activity is spending time in adoration. Which both surprises me and humbles me in my faith. As for questioning everything, I am not talking about searching for fault, but that when we question the reasons for our faith, we are confident that in the Church, there are logical, faith or scriptural based reasons why the church has chosen a particular doctrine, tradition, teaching or discipline. Question everything you do not understand because there is always an answer.

It’s one thing to simply obey the rules without question, but there are many things the church does, or teaches that seem strange to outsiders entering the church and even to cradle Catholics who haven’t been fully catechized. In my experience, when I have discovered the REASONS for such practices, it has only served to enhance my understanding and strengthen my faith.

And FYI I am a former Protestant also.

Welcome Home!

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.

Still, there is a reason, most usually based on tradition, backed up by scripture. I’m getting close and my teens are also helping with research now.

God Bless

 

[michaelhager]

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.

I agree sir that the question has not been answered. All respondents have simply stated what we already know, that Vestments are required to celebrate the mass. None have given the historical, magisterial, traditional, REASONS why this discipline is enforced. As for the teens and any doubts, rest assured this is not the case. These kinds of questions only serve to strengthen my faith and I am confident that the answer is there somewhere, this is simply a tougher question than most. My teens, while disappointed at not celebrating mass were completely understanding of the explanation the priest gave in a very impassioned “homily” on the subject. He really did a great job of explaining why we could not go forward based on the rubrics and the instructions from the Church. He explained the “Persona Christi” angle and other details and they were fine with it. But later in small groups, they wondered if I knew the historical and biblical reasons. I have become the group apologist and the teens had already scoured my website looking for an answer (which will soon be added to TheBibleCatholic.com) They are eager to learn and I’m proud of them for that thirst. We’ll be fine, and stronger than ever in our faith.

God Bless!

.

 

[1ke]

I agree sir that the question has not been answered. All respondents have simply stated what we already know, that Vestments are required to celebrate the mass.

Yes. It has.

None have given the historical, magisterial, traditional, REASONS why this discipline is enforced.

Yes. We have.

What part of the historical continuity, tradition, scripture including Old and New Testament, and the rubrics laid down for all aspects of Mass including what is necessary to celebrate it is not sufficient?

 

[1ke]

And yet the Rubrics specifically forbid the mass being celebrated without vestments

Yes, they do.

I don’t understand your point. That something is required does not mean it is a doctrine. It is not a doctrine.

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

Which is sufficient to establish the historical and liturgical continuity.

I have not found where it is strictly required for the celebration of the mass

And you won’t.

 

[1ke]

Still, there is a reason, most usually based on tradition, backed up by scripture. I’m getting close and my teens are also helping with research now.

God Bless

There need not be a reason “backed up by scripture.” That is Protestant thinking. There need be NO mention of something in scripture for it to be (a) part of the deposit of faith or (b) a discipline decided on by the Magisterium.

Although certainly vestments are in scripture, to an extent, you are NOT going to find any requirement for them.

That came from the Church. Which has the authority to do so.

And the current Church believes the vestments to be so integrally tied to the mass that the priest is not to celebrate without them.

 

[Della]

I agree sir that the question has not been answered. All respondents have simply stated what we already know, that Vestments are required to celebrate the mass. None have given the historical, magisterial, traditional, REASONS why this discipline is enforced. As for the teens and any doubts, rest assured this is not the case. These kinds of questions only serve to strengthen my faith and I am confident that the answer is there somewhere, this is simply a tougher question than most. My teens, while disappointed at not celebrating mass were completely understanding of the explanation the priest gave in a very impassioned “homily” on the subject. He really did a great job of explaining why we could not go forward based on the rubrics and the instructions from the Church. He explained the “Persona Christi” angle and other details and they were fine with it. But later in small groups, they wondered if I knew the historical and biblical reasons. I have become the group apologist and the teens had already scoured my website looking for an answer (which will soon be added to TheBibleCatholic.com) They are eager to learn and I’m proud of them for that thirst. We’ll be fine, and stronger than ever in our faith.

God Bless!

You may have missed my post in which I linked a Google search on the topic. If you did, all you need to do is enter “history of Mass vestments” into the search. Several good sources will come up.

 

[1ke]

St Jerome: The Divine religion has one dress in the service of sacred things, another in ordinary intercourse and life.

 

[e_c]

Actually, my teens are all great about the “Catholic Approach”. They are all completely obedient to the Church in these matters. Their favorite group activity is spending time in adoration. Which both surprises me and humbles me in my faith. As for questioning everything, I am not talking about searching for fault, but that when we question the reasons for our faith, we are confident that in the Church, there are logical, faith or scriptural based reasons why the church has chosen a particular doctrine, tradition, teaching or discipline. Question everything you do not understand because there is always an answer.

It’s one thing to simply obey the rules without question, but there are many things the church does, or teaches that seem strange to outsiders entering the church and even to cradle Catholics who haven’t been fully catechized. In my experience, when I have discovered the REASONS for such practices, it has only served to enhance my understanding and strengthen my faith.

Welcome Home!

Still, there is a reason, most usually based on tradition, backed up by scripture. I’m getting close and my teens are also helping with research now.

God Bless

I agree sir that the question has not been answered. All respondents have simply stated what we already know, that Vestments are required to celebrate the mass. None have given the historical, magisterial, traditional, REASONS why this discipline is enforced. As for the teens and any doubts, rest assured this is not the case. These kinds of questions only serve to strengthen my faith and I am confident that the answer is there somewhere, this is simply a tougher question than most. My teens, while disappointed at not celebrating mass were completely understanding of the explanation the priest gave in a very impassioned “homily” on the subject. He really did a great job of explaining why we could not go forward based on the rubrics and the instructions from the Church. He explained the “Persona Christi” angle and other details and they were fine with it. But later in small groups, they wondered if I knew the historical and biblical reasons. I have become the group apologist and the teens had already scoured my website looking for an answer (which will soon be added to TheBibleCatholic.com) They are eager to learn and I’m proud of them for that thirst. We’ll be fine, and stronger than ever in our faith.

God Bless!

.

We are talking past each other.

There is no such thing as a “requirement,” in the way you are using the word, nor is there any “scriptural evidence” the way you are using the phrase. Jesus did not come out for the Last Supper wearing a chasuble. (Nor did He celebrate the meal on an altar. And yet you are not curious as to that, even though there is no “scriptural evidence” that Mass must be celebrated on an altar, even though this too is what I’d guess you would call a “requirement”). Fr. Joe Schmoe could confect the Eucharist wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Or Cardinal Van Thuan could do so in a prison uniform, with a thimble for a chalice.

So I and others have failed to see what the issue is. The foregoing explanations should be more than sufficient - it is tradition, which evolved organically, and which is now enforced by law, even though a valid Mass can be celebrated without the proper vestments (but is gravely immoral without a serious reason, like being trapped in the gulag).

 

[MorEphrem]

We are talking past each other.

There is no such thing as a “requirement,” in the way you are using the word, nor is there any “scriptural evidence” the way you are using the phrase. Jesus did not come out for the Last Supper wearing a chasuble. (Nor did He celebrate the meal on an altar. And yet you are not curious as to that, even though there is no “scriptural evidence” that Mass must be celebrated on an altar, even though this too is what I’d guess you would call a “requirement”). Fr. Joe Schmoe could confect the Eucharist wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Or Cardinal Van Thuan could do so in a prison uniform, with a thimble for a chalice.

So I and others have failed to see what the issue is. The foregoing explanations should be more than sufficient - it is tradition, which evolved organically, and which is now enforced by law, even though a valid Mass can be celebrated without the proper vestments (but is gravely immoral without a serious reason, like being trapped in the gulag).

By technical distinction, there is little that is necessary for the Eucharist if one wants to be reductionistic - potentially one can even do without the foremass, and one can speed-say the canon and the Eucharist will still be “confected.” Why do we use vestments? Because it is most fitting. There’s nothing philosophically necessary about the Incarnation either, but it is most fitting and so God has willed it.

 

[twf]

I agree sir that the question has not been answered. All respondents have simply stated what we already know, that Vestments are required to celebrate the mass. None have given the historical, magisterial, traditional, REASONS why this discipline is enforced. As for the teens and any doubts, rest assured this is not the case. These kinds of questions only serve to strengthen my faith and I am confident that the answer is there somewhere, this is simply a tougher question than most. My teens, while disappointed at not celebrating mass were completely understanding of the explanation the priest gave in a very impassioned “homily” on the subject. He really did a great job of explaining why we could not go forward based on the rubrics and the instructions from the Church. He explained the “Persona Christi” angle and other details and they were fine with it. But later in small groups, they wondered if I knew the historical and biblical reasons. I have become the group apologist and the teens had already scoured my website looking for an answer (which will soon be added to TheBibleCatholic.com) They are eager to learn and I’m proud of them for that thirst. We’ll be fine, and stronger than ever in our faith.

God Bless!

.

I think you need to elaborate on what exactly you’re looking for. Numerous reasons for why vestments are important have been offered in this thread.
If you’re looking for a theological, Biblical reason why vestments must be worn at Mass, I don’t think you’ll find that…because as has been noted in this thread, vestments are not essential to the celebration of holy mass. The sacrifice can be validly offered without vestments…Mass *can *still take place without vestments.There are extreme cases, such as my earlier example of a priest in a prison camp, where Mass has been celebrated without vestments. Validity does not come into play here. That being said, the symbolism of vestments is so rich and so important to our Catholic tradition, that the Church, by her Christ given authority (I am sure you are familiar with the very Biblical authority of “binding and loosing”) has bound Her priests to use vestments when celebrating Mass. It is a matter of discipline not doctrine (though there are doctrinal reasons behind it - such as my earlier comment of the priest “disappearing into the rite” as he becomes “another Christ”).
The Church is organic. Over the centuries the Spirit guides her and she has determined, in her wisdom, that vestments, while not essential to the actual celebration of the Mass, are of great value.
I think it is telling that all of the ancient Churches with apostolic succession use vestments - some far more elaborate than what one finds in the typical Catholic parish. Priests of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East Churches would not even dream of celebrating the Eucharistic liturgy without the vestments proper to their traditions.

 

[rondirect]

We are talking past each other.

There is no such thing as a “requirement,” in the way you are using the word, nor is there any “scriptural evidence” the way you are using the phrase. Jesus did not come out for the Last Supper wearing a chasuble. (Nor did He celebrate the meal on an altar. And yet you are not curious as to that, even though there is no “scriptural evidence” that Mass must be celebrated on an altar, even though this too is what I’d guess you would call a “requirement”). Fr. Joe Schmoe could confect the Eucharist wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Or Cardinal Van Thuan could do so in a prison uniform, with a thimble for a chalice.

So I and others have failed to see what the issue is. The foregoing explanations should be more than sufficient - it is tradition, which evolved organically, and which is now enforced by law, even though a valid Mass can be celebrated without the proper vestments (but is gravely immoral without a serious reason, like being trapped in the gulag).

Thank you. That was my point. My disappointment in this whole think is when Michael said that the youth were sorely disappointed that mass could not be celebrated because there where no vestments! I get the point of vestments in a perfect world and we’ve heard it mentioned over and over again here. But, this situation was not perfect. So, a mistake was made and someone forgot to bring the vestments! I would think that would have been the “to do” for the priest to prepare. What a shame and what a poor reason in judgment especially if the priest did forget. Michael mentioned that the youth got over it and are happy with other religious actions taking place and are going to be good Catholic adults (in so many words); but, I cannot get it when a priest told them, “no” because there are no vestments. I know for a fact that my pastor would have definitely said mass for the youth in such a situation. As I have said before, God would have forgiven the lack of a fully vested priest for the sake of pleasing the youth. Sorry folks, but this is a very sad account for the Church.

 

[1ke]

Thank you. That was my point. My disappointment in this whole think is when Michael said that the youth were sorely disappointed that mass could not be celebrated because there where no vestments! What a shame and what a poor reason in judgment. Michael mentioned that the youth got over it and are happy with other religious actions taking place and are going to be good Catholic adults (in so many words); but, I cannot get it when a priest told them, “no” because there are no vestments.

As he is required to do. Michael has already given the relevant church documents on the matter:

“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.”

I know for a fact that my pastor would have definitely said mass for the youth in such a situation.

I’d rather have a pastor who teaches and demonstrate obedience and respect for authority in word and deed.

 

[e_c]

Thank you. That was my point. My disappointment in this whole think is when Michael said that the youth were sorely disappointed that mass could not be celebrated because there where no vestments! I get the point of vestments in a perfect world and we’ve heard it mentioned over and over again here. But, this situation was not perfect. So, a mistake was made and someone forgot to bring the vestments! I would think that would have been the “to do” for the priest to prepare. What a shame and what a poor reason in judgment especially if the priest did forget. Michael mentioned that the youth got over it and are happy with other religious actions taking place and are going to be good Catholic adults (in so many words); but, I cannot get it when a priest told them, “no” because there are no vestments. I know for a fact that my pastor would have definitely said mass for the youth in such a situation. As I have said before, God would have forgiven the lack of a fully vested priest for the sake of pleasing the youth. Sorry folks, but this is a very sad account for the Church.

Without entering into judgment of particular individuals or circumstances, what seems clear to me is that the average situation where there is a lack of proper vestments does not call for an exception to the rule of their use, excluding perhaps the amice.

 

[rondirect]

As he is required to do. Michael has already given the relevant church documents on the matter:

“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.”

I’d rather have a pastor who teaches and demonstrate obedience and respect for authority in word and deed.

And I’ll take a priest who is for the people and especially the youth, the future Church, when a unfortunate circumstance presents itself.

 

[rondirect]

Without entering into judgment of particular individuals or circumstances, what seems clear to me is that the average situation where there is a lack of proper vestments does not call for an exception to the rule of their use, excluding perhaps the amice.

All is good. The thing here to me is that this is not your “average” situation.

 

[FrDavid96]

Today priests have become much too lax. Things that might be permissible in a genuine emergency have become typical practice.

Sacred vestments are not optional at Mass. They are required. It’s that simple.

We should be admiring the priest for having the fortitude to insist that the Mass would not happen without the required vestments.

We have lost the value of “life lessons” in our modern society. Someone forgot the vestments. That resulted in consequences. That is a good learning experience for the young people, especially since our society all-too-often wants to tell young people that actions do not have consequences.

So “thanks” to the priest for doing what was right.

 

[pianistclare]

Today priests have become much too lax. Things that might be permissible in a genuine emergency have become typical practice.

Sacred vestments are not optional at Mass. They are required. It’s that simple.

We should be admiring the priest for having the fortitude to insist that the Mass would not happen without the required vestments.

We have lost the value of “life lessons” in our modern society. Someone forgot the vestments. That resulted in consequences. That is a good learning experience for the young people, especially since our society all-too-often wants to tell young people that actions do not have consequences.

So “thanks” to the priest for doing what was right.

Amen.

 

[e_c]

All is good. The thing here to me is that this is not your “average” situation.

How exactly do you know that?

Notice the insistence of several posters here on the idea of prison, forced labor camps, etc. Not exactly your usual youth group setting.

They were on a youth retreat and were supposed to have Mass. No digs.

Fr. Emil Kaupan had vestments when trekking around Korea during the war. Fr. Walter Cisek even fashioned some in the Russian gulag. They’re just that important.

Today priests have become much too lax. Things that might be permissible in a genuine emergency have become typical practice.

Sacred vestments are not optional at Mass. They are required. It’s that simple.

We should be admiring the priest for having the fortitude to insist that the Mass would not happen without the required vestments.

We have lost the value of “life lessons” in our modern society. Someone forgot the vestments. That resulted in consequences. That is a good learning experience for the young people, especially since our society all-too-often wants to tell young people that actions do not have consequences.

So “thanks” to the priest for doing what was right.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

 

[FrDavid96]

All is good. The thing here to me is that this is not your “average” situation.

Granted, it was not average. Yet, it was planned. It wasn’t as if a hurricane destroyed all the vestments on a Sunday morning (which might have actually happened yesterday in Florida).

We’ve all seen the t-shirts and coffee mugs that read something like this: lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. Even though it’s just a funny saying, it’s true.

The fact that someone forgot to pack the vestments hardly constitutes an emergency situation, or an impossible situation.

 

[rondirect]

Granted, it was not average. Yet, it was planned. It wasn’t as if a hurricane destroyed all the vestments on a Sunday morning (which might have actually happened yesterday in Florida).

We’ve all seen the t-shirts and coffee mugs that read something like this: lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. Even though it’s just a funny saying, it’s true.

The fact that someone forgot to pack the vestments hardly constitutes an emergency situation, or an impossible situation.

Father, I agree with all you say in your posts on all accounts and I get the vestment issue. However, the youth today in our Church can be influenced by outside distractions very easily. They were “sorely disappointed” and that said by Mike hurts me as a member of the Church as well, almost embarrassing. Eliminating mass as a “lesson” really does not, with due respect, sit well with me. I just wonder how many teens on this retreat looked at the church as being too stuffy, not forgiving, and just to strict about vestments of all things, that they will look elsewhere. I live in an area where the Pentecostal churches dominate with tens of thousands of followers and are attracting families and especially the youth in very large numbers. We need to do our best to keep our youth joyful in our Church. Things like this are not helping. I realize that I am the odd man out here, but, sorry, I do not applaud this priest’s decision.