What are your thoughts about expensive and/or ostentatious vestments?

[Draper]

What are your thoughts about expensive and/or ostentatious vestments? For years I really appreciated seeing ornate vestments now and then (which was fairly rare.) Vestments made of fancy silk damask, impressive galloons, that sort of thing. I never did like “designer vestments”, or expensive vestments that were designed in a feeble attempt to look simple/humble.

I also never cared for vestments that had abstract objects embroidered/printed on them – like stalks of wheat or what appears to be a glasses of wine.

I never really understood some priests’ desires to wear very plain and simple (and not artificially humble) vestments. I now understand their desire with the coming of Pope Francis I. What are your thoughts?

 

[Corki]

I love the traditional ornate vestments. Yes, they are expensive but they last for decades. The visual message of giving “all for the glory of God” can’t be missed.

 

[Mary_Ellen]

While it really doesn’t matter to me, one way or the other, I do appreciate the artistry of finely made vestments. The ostentatious nature of the decorations do not draw my attention to the vestment or to the priest but the the God Who is being worshiped.

 

[Draper]

I also appreciate the frugal/hygienic attributes of plain vestments. It’s nice to be able to place a plain chasuble or dalmatic in the washing machine without incurring a dry cleaning expense.

I guess projecting an image of humility, frugality and plainness trumps the notion of buying expensive material goods for the greater glory of God for me.

I will say that it’s the example set by Pope Francis I that made me re-think this.

 

[eightydeuce82]

What are your thoughts about expensive and/or ostentatious vestments? For years I really appreciated seeing ornate vestments now and then (which was fairly rare.) Vestments made of fancy silk damask, impressive galloons, that sort of thing. I never did like “designer vestments”, or expensive vestments that were designed in a feeble attempt to look simple/humble.

I also never cared for vestments that had abstract objects embroidered/printed on them – like stalks of wheat or what appears to be a glasses of wine.

I never really understood some priests’ desires to wear very plain and simple (and not artificially humble) vestments. I now understand their desire with the coming of Pope Francis I. What are your thoughts?

God cares about what our priests wear. If god cares we should care. It really doesn’t matter much what we think. We have some clear guidelines what we are and are not to wear. Priests have been wearing nice vestments since will before Christ as its an OT requirement. We are just a continuation of this in the New Covenant and the new Israel as Catholics. Who are we to change it…

 

[eightydeuce82]

http://www.askaboutchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/321px-Pianeta-borboni-oronero-1.jpg



Notice anything similar?

 

[Draper]

God cares about what our priests wear. If god cares we should care. It really doesn’t matter much what we think. We have some clear guidelines what we are and are not to wear. Priests have been wearing nice vestments since will before Christ as its an OT requirement. We are just a continuation of this in the New Covenant and the new Israel as Catholics. Who are we to change it…

I didn’t ask about the wearing of non-authorized vestments.

There’s also nothing that keeps plain vestments from being “nice.” None at all.

I suspect the huge majority of “vestments” (everyday clothes for the period) in the early church were indeed quite plain and simple.

 

[eightydeuce82]

I didn’t ask about the wearing of non-authorized vestments.

There’s also nothing that keeps plain vestments from being “nice.” None at all.

I suspect the huge majority of “vestments” (everyday clothes for the period) in the early church were indeed quite plain and simple.

See above that’s where you are wrong they were always very ornate and specific see above

 

[Draper]

Notice anything similar?

A couple of things come to mind.

First, the top photo is in no way reflective of how Jesus Christ, the Apostles and later clerics of the early church vested.

Second, it looks fairly silly to me.

Third, the bottom image is not of a Christian cleric.

 

[Draper]

I didn’t mention the “fiddleback” cut of the chasuble. To me they are simply ugly.

Their origins are not ancient. Earlier chasubles were far fuller, like the chasubles of today. Unfortunately as they became more and more ornate over the centuries, they also became ever more heavy and hot.

Over time they were whittled into the bulletproof vest configuration known colloquially as the “fiddleback.” I’m relieved that most chasubles are of older, more traditional cuts today.

 

[eightydeuce82]

A couple of things come to mind.

First, the top photo is in no way reflective of how Jesus Christ, the Apostles and later clerics of the early church vested.

Second, it looks fairly silly to me.

Third, the bottom image is not of a Christian cleric.

Where do we have to prescribe ourselves to wear what Jesus wore or the apostles wore?

Priests have been wearing the above in the Christian tradition as early as the 2nd century. It was formalized in the 4th Century and separated from what was traditionally worn in the culture to show its sacredness.

 

[Draper]

See above that’s where you are wrong they were always very ornate and specific see above

I wasn’t wrong. You are. Your images are not of truly ancient vesture in the Catholic Church. Traditional chasubles wouldn’t be whittled down into the fiddleback cut for many centuries.

 

[Dorothy]

I remember the woman in Sacred Scripture that came into the room where our Lord Jesus Christ was and tearfully and sincerely used an expensive ointment on His feet and head, and then wiped his feet with her hair.

Some of the disciples criticized and said that the ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor.

Jesus defended her sincere repentance.

I don’t have the chapter and verse at my fingertips right this moment, but I am sure that you remember those verses.

I believe there is enough money to glorify God with beautiful vestments and other items that are costly.

And, we can always make sure we give enough to the poor.

 

[eightydeuce82]

I wasn’t wrong. You are. Your images are not of truly ancient vesture in the Catholic Church. Traditional chasubles wouldn’t be whittled down into the fiddleback cut for many centuries.

Actually friend what you are talking about is a dalmatic (what priests and deacons wear as the outer garment today) and those didn’t come around till the 4th century!

 

[Draper]

Where do we have to prescribe ourselves to wear what Jesus wore or the apostles wore?

Priests have been wearing the above in the Christian tradition as early as the 2nd century. It was formalized in the 4th Century and separated from what was traditionally worn in the culture to show its sacredness.

So the ancient cut of early church vestments means nothing to you? They certainly mean something to me. Cut aside, their humble, plain and frugal qualities also mean more and more to me.

Fiddlebacks would not be created for many centuries. Your “2nd century” comment is incorrect.

 

[Draper]

I remember the woman in Sacred Scripture that came into the room where our Lord Jesus Christ was and tearfully and sincerely used an expensive ointment on His feet and head, and then wiped his feet with her hair.

Some of the disciples criticized and said that the ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor.

Jesus defended her sincere repentance.

I don’t have the chapter and verse at my fingertips right this moment, but I am sure that you remember those verses.

I believe there is enough money to glorify God with beautiful vestments and other items that are costly.

And, we can always make sure we give enough to the poor.

How do ostentatious vestments “glorify” God? Simply because they are expensive? I would suggest that plain, frugal and simple vestments can also be extremely beautiful.

In the case of the ointment, I suspect there wasn’t a lower cost option that was just as good if not better, so the comparison really doesn’t hold.

 

[eightydeuce82]

So the ancient cut of early church vestments means nothing to you? They certainly mean something to me. Cut aside, their humble, plain and frugal qualities also mean more and more to me.

Fiddlebacks would not be created for many centuries. Your “2nd century” comment is incorrect.

I agree on the fiddle backs but your idea of what the early church wore is way off base.

 

[eightydeuce82]

How do ostentatious vestments “glorify” God? Simply because they are expensive? I would suggest that plain, frugal and simple vestments could also be extremely beautiful.

In the case of the ointment, I suspect their wasn’t a lower cost option that was just as good if not better, so the comparison really doesn’t hold.

St. John, who is said to have worn a golden mitre or fillet

Is that enough of a thing for you to understand vestments glorify God?

 

[eightydeuce82]

How do ostentatious vestments “glorify” God? Simply because they are expensive? I would suggest that plain, frugal and simple vestments can also be extremely beautiful.

In the case of the ointment, I suspect there wasn’t a lower cost option that was just as good if not better, so the comparison really doesn’t hold.

In the Old Testament, God not only regulated the details of divine worship, but He also prescribed the type of dress to be worn by the priests in the performance of their priestly office. “You must make sacred vestments for your brother Aaron to consecrate him to serve as priest to me. The following are the vestments you must make: a pouch or breastpiece, an apron, a robe, a brocaded tunic, a mitre and a girdle, and they must use gold, violet, purple, and scarlet yarn and fine linen.” (Exodus 28).

Seems like God thinks vestments and their details are important.

 

[twf]

In the Eastern Churches, Catholic or Orthodox, very elaborate and beautiful vestments are the norm and no one questions their tradition… this only seems to be an issue for the post-Vatican II Latin Church. Pope Emeritus Benedict wore very beautiful, traditional vestments. Sadly, many Churchmen who choose to wear more elaborate vestments are often ridiculed in the media…one prominent Cardinal comes to mind in particular. What opponents fail to realize is that these vestments are not for the glorification of the individual priest, but rather they give glory to God. The priest does represent Christ the suffering servant who “humbled Himself” and there is a time for that (when he is out in the world ministering to his people), but in the context of the Church’s sacred liturgy, the priest also represents Christ the King in all His glory. We are a sacramental Church rooted in the Incarnation. We believe that matter can be sanctified for divine worship. Beautiful vestments better reflect the mysteries we celebrate - the dignity and majesty of the heavenly liturgy made present on our altars at every holy mass. It should be noted that in the Old Testament, God commanded that the ancient Israelite High Priests wear rich, elaborate vestments.