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

[Draper]

Today (Pentecost Sunday) was an excellent example of a very simply and inexpensive chasuble looking GREAT.

I talked to a priest this morning that wore an extremely simply CRIMSON red chasuble. It was made in Poland and cost $69.95 plus shipping. It was simple and GORGEOUS.

 

[babochka]

Today (Pentecost Sunday) was an excellent example of a very simply and inexpensive chasuble looking GREAT.

I talked to a priest this morning that wore an extremely simply CRIMSON red chasuble. It was made in Poland and cost $69.95 plus shipping. It was simple and GORGEOUS.

I think that is fine and of course, inexpensive can look beautiful. The price doesn’t always tell much about the quality of the item, and if this particular chasubule is high quality, that is even better. It will remain gorgeous for years to come. If, however, it is low quality, that will start to show in a relatively short period of time and the priest or parish might wish that an investment had been made in something of higher quality.

 

[Tigg]

God is God – He knows EVERYTHING. A better question would be if God cares.
.

Oh, I believe He cares a great deal. Certainly not about finery or cost but about our willingness to give Him His due. It is good for man to sacrifice and offer his very best as scripture tells us whether it be costly perfume poured upon His feet, (was that just a big waste depriving the poor??) or the first fruits offered by two brothers; one of whom did not have the proper disposition of heart thereby making his sacrifice unworthy. It’s the idea of the sacrifice itself (including your point about cost) it’s also about the unblemished lamb (only the best is **worthy **of the Lord) and the concept that we recognize all we have comes from God, our ultimate source, and that we are willing to give excellence back to Him in recognition of His generosity and sovereignty. Love of Him would demand we offer Him gold, not coal.

You’re equating “most expensive” to “finest” and simply put, that dog don’t hunt.

Have you ever heard the term, “you get what you pay for?”

 

[Tigg]

I think we can safely confine to the trash bin of history just about any style that came out of the '70s… the cars, the funky suits, the platform shoes…

Hey now…would that by chance, include my psychedelic earrings which I just recently put in the bin that goes to the Goodwill? I could have gotten good money for those, you know!

 

[Rosebud77]

Oh, I believe He cares a great deal. Certainly not about finery or cost but about **our willingness **to give Him His due. It is good for man to sacrifice and offer his very best as scripture tells us whether it be costly perfume poured upon His feet, (was that just a big waste depriving the poor??) or the first fruits offered by two brothers; one of whom did not have the proper disposition of heart thereby making his sacrifice unworthy. It’s the idea of the sacrifice itself (including your point about cost) it’s also about the unblemished lamb (only the best is **worthy **of the Lord) and the concept that we recognize all we have comes from God, our ultimate source, and that we are willing to give excellence back to Him in recognition of His generosity and sovereignty. Love of Him would demand we offer Him gold, not coal.

Have you ever heard the term, “you get what you pay for?”

I have heard this so often but the best for God is a world where no children or indeed adults go hungry or lack medical care. And I know very well that in the US that is far from true. The words of Jesus time after time teach us to give. I do not like to see rich vestments. Not the glory of God in that. So all I can do is follow my heart and use as little as I can and the simplest and plainest so I can give more.

 

[Draper]

Oh, I believe He cares a great deal. Certainly not about finery or cost but about our willingness to give Him His due. It is good for man to sacrifice and offer his very best as scripture tells us whether it be costly perfume poured upon His feet, (was that just a big waste depriving the poor??) or the first fruits offered by two brothers; one of whom did not have the proper disposition of heart thereby making his sacrifice unworthy. It’s the idea of the sacrifice itself (including your point about cost) it’s also about the unblemished lamb (only the best is worthy of the Lord) and the concept that we recognize all we have comes from God, our ultimate source, and that we are willing to give excellence back to Him in recognition of His generosity and sovereignty. Love of Him would demand we offer Him gold, not coal.

There was no alternative (except nothing at all) to the bottle of lotion. Lots of options available when it comes to vestments – lots of excellent options.

Have you ever heard the term, “you get what you pay for?”

It’s not a “term”, it’s a “phrase” and it’s largely bunkum.

 

[jeannetherese]

There was no alternative (except nothing at all) to the bottle of lotion.

Perhaps, I’m misreading my Bible, but it seems that Our Lord is comparing the Pharisee who did not give to the woman who gave the best which might be obtained.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+7%3A36-50&version=DRA
Luke 7:36-50Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

36 And one of the Pharisees desired him to eat with him. And he went into the house of the Pharisee, and sat down to meat.
37 And behold a woman that was in the city, a sinner, when she knew that he sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment;
38 And standing behind at his feet, she began to wash his feet, with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39 And the Pharisee, who had invited him, seeing it, spoke within himself, saying: This man, if he were a prophet, would know surely who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, that she is a sinner.

44 And turning to the woman, he said unto Simon: Dost thou see this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she with tears hath washed my feet, and with her hairs hath wiped them.
45 Thou gavest me no kiss; but she, since she came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but she with ointment hath anointed my feet.

Perhaps another biblical comparison might be found in the widow who gave her coins in the temple.

Mark 12:41-44Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

41 And Jesus sitting over against the treasury, beheld how the people cast money into the treasury, and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury.
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.

 

[hazcompat]

Second reading
From a homily on Matthew by Saint John Chrysostom, bishop
Do not adorn the church and ignore your afflicted brother

Do you want to honor Christ’s body? Then do not scorn him in his nakedness, nor honor him here in the church with silken garments while neglecting him outside where he is cold and naked. For he who said: This is my body, and made it so by his words, also said: You saw me hungry and did not feed me, and inasmuch as you did not do it for one of these, the least of my brothers, you did not do it for me. What we do here in the church requires a pure heart, not special garments; what we do outside requires great dedication.

Let us learn, therefore to be men of wisdom and to honor Christ as he desires. For a person being honored finds greatest pleasure in the honor he desires, not in the honor we think best. Peter thought he was honoring Christ when he refused to let him wash his feet; but what Peter wanted was not truly an honor, quite the opposite! Give him the honor prescribed in his law by giving your riches to the poor. For God does not want golden vessels but golden hearts.

Now, in saying this I am not forbidding you to make such gifts; I am only demanding that along with such gifts and before them you give alms. He accepts the former, but he is much more pleased with the latter. In the former, only the giver profits; in the latter, the recipient does too. A gift to the Church may be taken as a form of ostentation, but an alms is pure kindness.

Of what use is it to weigh down Christ’s table with golden cups, when he himself is dying of hunger? First, fill him when he is hungry; then use the means you have left to adorn his table. Will you have a golden cup made but not give a cup of water? What is the use of providing the table with cloths woven of gold thread, and not providing Christ himself with the clothes he needs? What profit is there in that? Tell me: If you were to see him lacking the necessary food but were to leave him in that state and merely surround his table with gold, would he be grateful to you or rather would he not be angry? What if you were to see him clad in worn-out rags and stiff from the cold, and were to forget about clothing him and instead were to set up golden columns for him, saying that you were doing it in his honor? Would he not think he was being mocked and greatly insulted?

Apply this also to Christ when he comes along the roads as a pilgrim, looking for shelter. You do not take him in as your guest, but you decorate floor and walls and the capitals of the pillars. You provide silver chains for the lamps, but you cannot bear even to look at him as he lies chained in prison. Once again, I am not forbidding you to supply these adornments; I am urging you to provide these other things as well, and indeed to provide them first. No one has ever been accused for not providing ornaments, but for those who neglect their neighbor a hell awaits with an inextinguishable fire and torment in the company of the demons. Do not, therefore, adorn the church and ignore your afflicted brother, for he is the most precious temple of all.

Peace

 

[Draper]

Are we not talking about the anointing of Jesus Christ by the woman in the House of Simon the Leper? Here it is as recorded in Matthew (RSV):

*Matthew 26:7-11: "a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at table. But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” *

This verse is powerful in refutation of those who suggest no money should be spent on churches and the like. However it was “all or nothing” for the woman – she didn’t have less costly ointments with the same (or superior) anointing qualities from which to choose. We have options today when procuring vestments.

Those that strain to sell the notion that expensive/ostentatious vestments are necessarily “better” or of “higher quality” than plain/frugal/humble vestments are simply mistaken.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Second reading
From a homily on Matthew by Saint John Chrysostom, bishop
Do not adorn the church and ignore your afflicted brother

Do you want to honor Christ’s body? Then do not scorn him in his nakedness, nor honor him here in the church with silken garments while neglecting him outside where he is cold and naked. For he who said: This is my body, and made it so by his words, also said: You saw me hungry and did not feed me, and inasmuch as you did not do it for one of these, the least of my brothers, you did not do it for me. What we do here in the church requires a pure heart, not special garments; what we do outside requires great dedication.

Let us learn, therefore to be men of wisdom and to honor Christ as he desires. For a person being honored finds greatest pleasure in the honor he desires, not in the honor we think best. Peter thought he was honoring Christ when he refused to let him wash his feet; but what Peter wanted was not truly an honor, quite the opposite! Give him the honor prescribed in his law by giving your riches to the poor. For God does not want golden vessels but golden hearts.

Now, in saying this I am not forbidding you to make such gifts; I am only demanding that along with such gifts and before them you give alms. He accepts the former, but he is much more pleased with the latter. In the former, only the giver profits; in the latter, the recipient does too. A gift to the Church may be taken as a form of ostentation, but an alms is pure kindness.

Of what use is it to weigh down Christ’s table with golden cups, when he himself is dying of hunger? First, fill him when he is hungry; then use the means you have left to adorn his table. Will you have a golden cup made but not give a cup of water? What is the use of providing the table with cloths woven of gold thread, and not providing Christ himself with the clothes he needs? What profit is there in that? Tell me: If you were to see him lacking the necessary food but were to leave him in that state and merely surround his table with gold, would he be grateful to you or rather would he not be angry? What if you were to see him clad in worn-out rags and stiff from the cold, and were to forget about clothing him and instead were to set up golden columns for him, saying that you were doing it in his honor? Would he not think he was being mocked and greatly insulted?

Apply this also to Christ when he comes along the roads as a pilgrim, looking for shelter. You do not take him in as your guest, but you decorate floor and walls and the capitals of the pillars. You provide silver chains for the lamps, but you cannot bear even to look at him as he lies chained in prison. Once again, I am not forbidding you to supply these adornments; I am urging you to provide these other things as well, and indeed to provide them first. No one has ever been accused for not providing ornaments, but for those who neglect their neighbor a hell awaits with an inextinguishable fire and torment in the company of the demons. Do not, therefore, adorn the church and ignore your afflicted brother, for he is the most precious temple of all.

Peace

Really, I think the beloved Saint knew what he was talking about, as do all of our Church Fathers, and his is the proper perspective. God prefers we give to the poor, although He will accept the finery, it is not His first choice.

So cut back on the ornateness and give the savings to the poor. It is not that hard.

 

[jeannetherese]

Are we not talking about the anointing of Jesus Christ by the woman in the House of Simon the Leper? Here it is as recorded in Matthew (RSV):

Matthew 26:7-11: "a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at table. But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.”

This verse is powerful in refutation of those who suggest no money should be spent on churches and the like. However it was “all or nothing” for the woman – she didn’t have less costly ointments with the same (or superior) anointing qualities from which to choose. We have options today when procuring vestments.

Greetings!
I’m not sure that your interpretation works here.
I wonder why a woman who could afford or access very expensive ointment, could not have brought something cheaper to Our Lord.
The disciples themselves acknowledge that this could be done in their argument that the ointment could have been sold and thus freed up money which could be spent on other things. (Among these things, one might imagine the less expensive oil which Christ notes that the Pharisee has not provided.)

May God bless you and all who visit our thread.
Amen.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Really, I think the beloved Saint knew what he was talking about, as do all of our Church Fathers, and his is the proper perspective. God prefers we give to the poor, although He will accept the finery, it is not His first choice.

So cut back on the ornateness and give the savings to the poor. It is not that hard.

Question: Can’t you do both?
It isn’t that hard, is it?

BTW, who decides what is ‘ornate’? What’s the cutoff? Beyond X inches of lace? Beyond X count of thread? Beyond X number of embroidered items?

 

[CB_Catholic]

Question: Can’t you do both?
It isn’t that hard, is it?

BTW, who decides what is ‘ornate’? What’s the cutoff? Beyond X inches of lace? Beyond X count of thread? Beyond X number of embroidered items?

How much money does the average parish have to spend? Most have choices to make and try to be good stewards of the parishioners money. Taking care of the poor and needy is the priority.

What the Saint is saying is that God would prefer that we give to the poor first, and spend less on expensive objects. I guess you missed the point. It has nothing to do with deciding what is ornate, and everything to do with fulfilling Jesus" commands to see Him in the poor, the hungry, etc., and taking care of their needs first.

 

[Elizium23]

How much money does the average parish have to spend? Most have choices to make and try to be good stewards of the parishioners money. Taking care of the poor and needy is the priority.

Have you ever considered that perhaps the people who design, sew, and care for vestments are also worthy of our help and support, and that buying more ornate and expensive vestments actually helps them more?

As an example, my pastor has a long-term project of increasing the beauty of our parish church’s sanctuary. In doing this, he contracts with a single artisan from Mexico, a humble man who can barely feed his family. In commissioning ornate and elaborate works from him, our parish is very tangibly supporting the poor; his family and the whole village economy where he spends his money. In return we receive durable works of art which will edify all the faithful in our parish for decades and centuries to come. It’s a win-win.

 

[Draper]

Greetings!
I’m not sure that your interpretation works here.
I wonder why a woman who could afford or access very expensive ointment, could not have brought something cheaper to Our Lord.
The disciples themselves acknowledge that this could be done in their argument that the ointment could have been sold and thus freed up money which could be spent on other things. (Among these things, one might imagine the less expensive oil which Christ notes that the Pharisee has not provided.)

May God bless you and all who visit our thread.
Amen.

Probably because there was nothing cheaper that would do the same job. That’s not true in the case of vestments today.

Those attacking her said nothing about selling the ointment in order to buy a less expensive brand.

 

[Draper]

Have you ever considered that perhaps the people who design, sew, and care for vestments are also worthy of our help and support, and that buying more ornate and expensive vestments actually helps them more?

Are you serious? Are you really offering this as a means to spend more than needed on vestments?

As an example, my pastor has a long-term project of increasing the beauty of our parish church’s sanctuary. In doing this, he contracts with a single artisan from Mexico, a humble man who can barely feed his family. In commissioning ornate and elaborate works from him, our parish is very tangibly supporting the poor; his family and the whole village economy where he spends his money. In return we receive durable works of art which will edify all the faithful in our parish for decades and centuries to come. It’s a win-win.

Why aren’t you paying this man a living wage while he does stuff for your parish?

 

[Draper]

Question: Can’t you do both?
It isn’t that hard, is it?

BTW, who decides what is ‘ornate’? What’s the cutoff? Beyond X inches of lace? Beyond X count of thread? Beyond X number of embroidered items?

“Lace?” Unless we’re talking women’s lingerie, any lace is too much.

 

[Corki]

“Lace?” Unless we’re talking women’s lingerie, any lace is too much.

Lace is a perfectly acceptable element for clerical vestments, usually part of the alb but also used on surplices. Google it.

I get the feeling that you haven’t seen much variety in clerical vestments. There is a huge spectrum of garb for a wide spectrum of tastes, liturgical traditions and cultural adaptations. To be absolutist (e.g. “no lace”) is to forget that catholic means universal and that variety is part of what makes us a catholic Church. Our Church would be drab if every priest dressed for Mass according to one person’s personal tastes.

 

[graciew]

Have you ever considered that perhaps the people who design, sew, and care for vestments are also worthy of our help and support, and that buying more ornate and expensive vestments actually helps them more?

As an example, my pastor has a long-term project of increasing the beauty of our parish church’s sanctuary. In doing this, he contracts with a single artisan from Mexico, a humble man who can barely feed his family. In commissioning ornate and elaborate works from him,

Well , sometimes God can be surprising.
Our priest asked for some simple curtain he needed for his office . It had a window to a corridor everybody walked through. So I had the fabric and though I can sew I am.not that tidy…so I took the fabric to a lady that sews nearby. She lived very tightly. When she knew the curtains were for the parish there was no way to make her accept the money ,no matter what…
Sometimes I think God just accepts the love with which something is offered and that is it.
I agree with your idea of giving people a job. I also learnt how much this is appreciated. A father or mother feel good when they can provide for the family. We know this…

 

[EasterJoy]

If any garment is going to be ornate, it ought to be a vestment made for the Mass, as that garment is made and maintained for edification of all and for the glory of God, not for the glorification of a single individual. Likewise, if any expensive craft or artwork is going to be fashioned, better it be for a church, where it belongs to all and is as available for the edification and the elevation of the spirits of the poor person as much as for the rich one.

The first consideration, however, ought to be quality. Things bought for the church ought to be durable and constructed with skill and using quality materials, so that they can be used for a long time without looking tired. It is not edifying to see recreational clothing of the faithful made of materials that are more costly and more expensive to maintain than the attire dedicated to use on behalf of all. It is not as if liturgical vestments need cleaning that often, provided the clergy are careful with them. Certainly textiles used for frontals and other fabric adornments for the furnishings of the church that are not subject to wear ought to be of a high quality, both in the materials used an in the artistic merit of the piece.

Having said that, a piece of artwork does not have to be baroque to be edifying. The use of more geegaws and embellishments does not automatically make for a more prayerful overall effect. Good art knows when to be restrained, too, and stops before it becomes more distracting than elevating. That requires that the liturgical artist know his or her congregation and knows the liturgical setting where the artwork will be used. In the best case, the choice of vestment is fitting for the setting, the mood of the liturgy, and the likely effect the choices will have on those present. That is going to vary fantastically from one place to another and even from one parish to the next, just as every other aspect of art will vary in the wider world.