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

[Draper]

Many saintly priests who lived in poverty and constantly practiced asceticism and humility would wear ornate, richly decorated vestments while offering the Holy Sacrifice. We can be assured that their intentions were far from ostentatious. They wore those vestments for the sole purpose of glorifying God. They knew that when they crossed into the sanctuary and went up to the altar of God that they were acting in the person of Christ in all of His priestly and kingly glory. The vestments are not for us. They are foremost for the glory of the Lord. For us, the vestments are a visual testimony to the sublimity of the Sacrifice taking place on the altar. The vestments - along with the other cloths and vessels used in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should, when possible, be of the finest, most precious materials.

However that in no way means that plain, frugal, simple vestment can’t also glorify God. The belief that vestment should “be of the finest, most precious materials” is also subjective.

 

[R_H_Benson]

However that in no way means that plain, frugal, simple vestment can’t also glorify God. The belief that vestment should “be of the finest, most precious materials” is also subjective.

Do the words “plain, simple, and frugal” conjure images of majesty, sublimity, and glory? Do they evoke the proper attitude to be had regarding the Holy Sacrifice? We are to offer God our best and finest. Silk is better than polyester. Gold is better than earthen ware. Etc., etc.

 

[graciew]

By definition, ostentatious is subjective. For something to be ostentatious, it must be intended primarily to impress others. The synonym for ostentatious is not ‘ornate’; it’s vainglorious. Who are we to judge the intent of a parish or of a priest when choosing vestments? Would it not be just as valid to judge overly plain vestments as signs of false humility?

True.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Do the words “plain, simple, and frugal” conjure images of majesty, sublimity, and glory? Do they evoke the proper attitude to be had regarding the Holy Sacrifice? We are to offer God our best and finest. Silk is better than polyester. Gold is better than earthen ware. Etc., etc.

Except that the vestments, whatever they may be, are not the offering; the Lamb of God is the offering.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Except that the vestments, whatever they may be, are not the offering; the Lamb of God is the offering.

It is true that nothing we can do (or wear) can add to the intrinsic value of the Holy Sacrifice. However, extrinsically, we owe God our finest. If we take your argument to its conclusion, one has no recourse against a priest who decides to offer the Mass in a wrinkled, dirty, ill-fitting chasuble. But we know that would be an awful thing because of the disdain it shows for the Presence of Our Lord and for the dignity of the priestly office.

 

[Draper]

It is true that nothing we can do (or wear) can add to the intrinsic value of the Holy Sacrifice. However, extrinsically, we owe God our finest. If we take your argument to its conclusion, one has no recourse against a priest who decides to offer the Mass in a wrinkled, dirty, ill-fitting chasuble. But we know that would be an awful thing because of the disdain it shows for the Presence of Our Lord and for the dignity of the priestly office.

How do you define “finest”? Most expensive?

No one said anything about wearing a “wrinkled, dirty, ill-fitting chasuble.”

A very frugal, plain, simple and humble chasuble could be clean, excellent fitting and perfectly pressed (if it needed to be pressed at all to look crisp) while a very expensive one could be “wrinkled, dirty (and) ill-fitting.”

 

[Draper]

Do the words “plain, simple, and frugal” conjure images of majesty, sublimity, and glory? Do they evoke the proper attitude to be had regarding the Holy Sacrifice? We are to offer God our best and finest. Silk is better than polyester. Gold is better than earthen ware. Etc., etc.

You’re simply wrong. In many cases the only reason the faithful would know a chasuble is silk rather than polyester is because it would be wrinkled and it wouldn’t drape as well. It would be more expensive though.

The priest offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass isn’t there to be clothed in a manner to screams “majesty, sublimity, and glory.” That’s your personal desire.

 

[R_H_Benson]

You’re simply wrong. In many cases the only reason the faithful would know a chasuble is silk rather than polyester is because it would be wrinkled and it wouldn’t drape as well. It would be more expensive though.

The priest offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass isn’t there to be clothed in a manner to screams “majesty, sublimity, and glory.” That’s your personal desire.

I thought this thread was about expressing my thoughts on vestments? Apparently it is merely just a front for bashing the tastes of your traditional minded brothers and sisters in the Faith. Fortunately my position is backed up by centuries of tradition and countless saints. Yours is more so an innovation of the the 1960s.

 

[OraLabora]

Do the words “plain, simple, and frugal” conjure images of majesty, sublimity, and glory?

Yes they do.

Do they evoke the proper attitude to be had regarding the Holy Sacrifice? We are to offer God our best and finest. Silk is better than polyester. Gold is better than earthen ware. Etc., etc.

Not all traditions of the Church would agree. Monastics have for millennia made plain and simple their trademark. There are other ways to glorify God than vestments or fancy churches. For monastics, it is the total oblation of self to God through the observance of their monastic vows. Other orders that embrace poverty such as Franciscans do the same.

No amount of silk, gold or incense can bring greater glory to God than the oblation of one’s total self to God. It is the gift He truly desires from us.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Yes they do.

In the context of the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice? Not so much. At least, the interior of St. Peter’s basilica, the High Altar at Monte Casino, etc., etc. disagree with you.

Not all traditions of the Church would agree. Monastics have for millennia made plain and simple their trademark. There are other ways to glorify God than vestments or fancy churches. For monastics, it is the total oblation of self to God through the observance of their monastic vows. Other orders that embrace poverty such as Franciscans do the same.

I’m not calling into question that there are other ways to glorify God than fancy vestments and vessels. But in the context of the Mass, we are always to give God our finest.
There is a reason why Rome forbade the use of the earthenware chalices that became popular in the 1970s and mandated that every chalice be lined with precious metal. This is because, objectively speaking, some materials are better than others. Gold is a more fitting vessel for the Precious Blood of Our Lord than is pottery.

No amount of silk, gold or incense can bring greater glory to God than the oblation of one’s total self to God. It is the gift He truly desires from us.

But doesn’t the total oblation of one’s total self require that one totally give God everything that he has? Wouldn’t one in such a state desire to glorify God through a beautiful and reverent Liturgy? I am not saying such a Liturgy requires superfluous amounts of gold, tassels, etc., but certainly - as tradition makes clear - a certain level of dignity in the trappings used (which the Monastics (at least the ones in the photos you provided) seem to display, so no disagreement from me there).

 

[OraLabora]

In the context of the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice? Not so much. At least, the interior of St. Peter’s basilica, the High Altar at Monte Casino, etc., etc. disagree with you.

St. Peter’s is not a monastery, and Monte Cassino is the exception, not the rule. I spent a week at Sant’Anselmo in Rome last November, the monastery that is the teaching college of the Benedictine Order, and I can assure you that there, and any other Benedictine monastery I’ve attended, things were nowhere near as ornate as at Monte Cassino (which by the way was until recently a territorial abbey and the abbot, was an “abbot nullius” who fulfills the role of bishop for the territory; it was still a territorial abbey when I took that picture in 2009 and when I visited again in 2013). Many Benedictine monks I know are, in fact, scandalized by Monte Cassino’s decor.

I’m not calling into question that there are other ways to glorify God than fancy vestments and vessels. But in the context of the Mass, we are always to give God our finest.
There is a reason why Rome forbade the use of the earthenware chalices that became popular in the 1970s and mandated that every chalice be lined with precious metal. This is because, objectively speaking, some materials are better than others. Gold is a more fitting vessel for the Precious Blood of Our Lord than is pottery.

Bronze is acceptable as well; part of the reason for more noble materials is to prevent spilling of the Precious Blood.

But doesn’t the total oblation of one’s total self require that one totally give God everything that he has? Wouldn’t one in such a state desire to glorify God through a beautiful and reverent Liturgy? I am not saying such a Liturgy requires superfluous amounts of gold, tassels, etc., but certainly - as tradition makes clear - a certain level of dignity in the trappings used (which the Monastics (at least the ones in the photos you provided) seem to display, so no disagreement from me there).

Individual monks do not have anything material to give. Everything belongs to the abbey and monks do not own property (even vestments) in private. It’s not an individual priest-monk who decides what vestments to wear, but the sacristan who decides for everyone. Note that I am not advocating poor-quality vestments. Our abbey’s vestments are of excellent quality and well-cared for though for the most part plain and understated. They do have more ornate vestments; liturgically, though, the Solesmes congregation tends to adjust liturgy (and vestments) to the degree of solemnity. The abbot for instance, only wears the mitre and crozier on the holiest occasions, but not on Sundays. Similarly on ordinary ferias or memorials, there’s no organ, no incense, and simpler chant tones for the preface, etc.

Their liturgy though, is beautiful and appropriately reverent every day of the week. Gregorian chant, in Latin (Greek Kyrie) is used for the Propers and Ordinary every day, and the only non-chanted parts of the Mass are the homily, and the intercessions on weekdays (they’re chanted on Sundays or solemnities). Everything else is chanted including the readings, and the Gospel is always chanted by one of the deacons.

There are times though, such as simple weekday Mass, when plain and humble is preferred. After all what meaning would a solemnity have if every day was celebrated with the same degree of solemnity?

I don’t think you’d find anything irreverent about the abbey’s liturgy on any given day. They do give the best of themselves… in this case not overly ornate decor and vestments, but in the quality of their liturgical actions and chant.

Also note I’m not saying that ornate vestments are per se wrong; I am saying that the tradition for more subdued vestments (and architecture for that matter) has been around for as long as the Church, and that it is a perfectly legitimate representation of Catholic worship. The Church has far more traditions than what one typically sees (or saw prior to Vatican II) in parishes or cathedrals.

 

[Draper]

I thought this thread was about expressing my thoughts on vestments? Apparently it is merely just a front for bashing the tastes of your traditional minded brothers and sisters in the Faith. Fortunately my position is backed up by centuries of tradition and countless saints. Yours is more so an innovation of the the 1960s.

No. I’m taking issue not with your personal choices (as they are just that, personal choices), but you inference that humble/simple/plain/frugal vestments cannot also project “majesty, sublimity, and glory.” That’s simply wrong.

I also took issue with you trying to insert the extraneous qualities of “wrinkled, dirty, ill-fitting” as if they are unique to humble/simple/plain/frugal vestments and they are not.

Your position is backed up by your personal taste. Nothing wrong with that, but to suggest it’s backed up by “centuries of tradition and countless saints” is also in error.

 

[Draper]

I will interject about something that I truly detest. That’s expensive vestments that are designed to look simple/pious.

I remember seeing a chasuble that appeared to be made out of “adobe” colored burlap. It had some abstract designs roughly embroidered on it. The parish that owned it paid $2,800.00 for it. Truly hideous. Easily as bad as the fiddleback shown near the front of this thread.

 

[graciew]

I will interject about something that I truly detest. That’s expensive vestments that are designed to look simple/pious.

I remember seeing a chasuble that appeared to be made out of “adobe” colored burlap. It had some abstract designs roughly embroidered on it. The parish that owned it paid $2,800.00 for it. Truly hideous. Easily as bad as the fiddleback shown near the front of this thread.

But that may be an exception , Draper , not every parrish all over the world may spend that amount and yet wherever you go to Mass you will see priests wearing traditional but nothing too much . Those vestments also mean something to us when we see them.
I believe it is what may go way beyond the beautiful. Kind if excessive and may send the wrong message what bothers you. Not the traditional ,but excesses .
Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding , He did not say " everybody will drink water here !". A celebration , a feast like a Mass well deserves some " expensive" wine. Not excesses ,just wine.
What do you think ?

 

[InThePew]

Granted personal views on what it “ostentatious” will differ but, having said that, there’s usually a point where most opinions meet - that is, the lowest point - also known as what not to wear! That said, there are of course times when liturgical taste (not to mention common sense) leaves the building, with more than a few of these times showcased on the somewhat dated but still as good as ever Bad Vestments blog.

 

[Estevao]

In the context of the sacrifice of the mass, I believe ornate, beautiful vestments are to be preferred. They reflect ad promote reverence for God, which is the cause of humility. Jesuits, such as Pope Francis, are as of late known for their stripped-down liturgies, which I am not a fan of. I imagine the influence of his time in this order are the result of the style of liturgy one is seeing from this pontiff. When I was at college I would go to the parish on campus which was run by a Jesuit, and the liturgy was very stripped down. I didn’t not find it helpful for my spiritual life because there was a lack of reverence in the liturgy.

Outside of the the context of the mass, I think that is the place for ordinary looking clothes, because those clothes are for the priest. But the vestments are for God.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I was just discussing this very topic with my wife last night. There has been a push in the churches in our area to do away with ornate vestments and decorations in favor of more plain ones. Many people on the liturgical committees seem to have the reasoning that ornate vestments are too “materialistic” and gaudy and take the focus away from prayer. I vehemently disagree with this. Ornate vestments, along with traditional church architecture, iconography, statues, stained glass windows, carvings, candles, altar decorations and even (perhaps especially) the liturgy itself are forms of liturgical art that absolutely need to be used by all churches and need to be preserved for future generations. All of these things are designed to lift the hearts and minds of faithful worshipers toward heaven, and communicate to them what is taking place in the most holy sacrifice of the mass. Furthermore, all of these things are very much a part of our Catholic heritage. To abandon them is, in a way, to abandon a part of the beauty of Catholicism in favor of a more modernized style. And I really don’t think it’s always (or, perhaps even usually) a matter of expense. I’ve been to Catholic churches that have really advanced sound systems and “life teen” style praise and worship bands complete with guitars, bass and drums, while at the same time the priest was basically wearing a giant, ugly-looking blanket. Instead of icons or statues, there were high-school gym style banners that read things like “Faith and Fellowship” or “Community Outreach.” During the liturgy, all of the youth group were up in the front of the church swaying in kumbaya style. And, of course, the tabernacle was out of sight, hidden away somewhere where nobody could see. So, basically, in terms of the aesthetics of worship, it’s not that this church can’t afford things that are liturgically correct, it’s that they have actually put priority and effort into creating a more evangelical protestant style atmosphere.
Sorry for the rant, I’ve diverted from the topic.
Vestments, yes. Vestments. Well to tell you the truth, many parts of the traditional vestments actually serve a practical purpose. For example, the cuffs that some priests wear on their wrists actually help to keep their hands free when they are handling the Eucharist. It is easy for hosts to get caught on the flowing robes that priests wear. There are other examples, I just can’t think of them here.

 

[CompSciGuy]

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.

No, they glorify God because it is giving God our best. It is putting forth an effort to make mass special, holy, set apart. The same reason why people dress up really fancy for a wedding, and have lots of decorations and flowers, to honor the people getting married. How much more important is it to honor God?

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.

This is just ridiculous. Dude, you are missing the point. It isn’t about whether there was a lower cost option for oil. It is the fact that she was honoring him by her actions. She realized that he was a king and washed his feet in oil and tears. The oil was obviously of great cost to her, as the apostles pointed out. Jesus said “the poor you will always have with you but you will not always have me.” The comparison absolutely holds. When we celebrate the passion of Christ in the Holy Mass, we absolutely should give it our best and decorate our best, even more than we would for a wedding.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Very true. The vestments of the Apostles – of the early church were largely daily wear garb of the time. In many cases, ornately vesting like a Judaic priest might well have ended in persecution for a Catholic priest of the early church era.

In the case of religious orders and societies, it’s not always a matter of what they can afford. Many wear extremely plain, simple and frugal clothes and vestments as their own offering to God.

The apostles were also pretty busy running for their lives and meeting in secret, so yeah, the logistics of getting decent vestments were probably not so good. Now that it’s the 21st century and we are not running for our lives and hiding in peoples’ houses, don’t you think we can afford to put a little more into our liturgy?

 

[CB_Catholic]

Why do people on CAF spend so much time arguing about clothes?