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

[EasterJoy]

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.

He said that those contributing to the altar ought to also give alms. Not “instead of” but “prior to.”

Neither the needs of the poor nor the needs of the altar are best-served by just throwing money at them, however. Prudence is required, too. Having said that, I would hardly conclude that the parish with the cheapest-looking vestments and church furnishings is automatically the parish with the most generous outreach programs for the poor. Those two are not really connected.

 

[Elizium23]

Don’t attack me, Draper. Look here, this is at least the second thread you’ve started (the other one is about the phelonion in the EC forum) where you have ostensibly sought opinions from the community but it seems more like you’re looking for a reason to pick a fight. You’ve been argumentative, sticking stubbornly to your own POV, refusing to listen in charity to what other knowledgeable posters here have to say. I refuse to stoop to your level and argue everything just on the basis that you clearly have a vestment issue intersecting with a money issue.

My first impulse was to respond to your attacks and defend my own post, but you have gone on long enough lacking in charity here, and I felt it was past time that someone called you out for your behavior.

 

[EasterJoy]

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

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s a provincial attitude. Suffice it to say that there is lace being made even today that would be inappropriate almost to the point of sacrilege were it to be used on anybody’s “intimate” garments. Maybe you’d rather see it on the edges of altar cloths than on albs or surplices, but it is made for liturgical use. Using it for skivvies would just be wrong.

 

[Draper]

Don’t attack me, Draper. Look here, this is at least the second thread you’ve started (the other one is about the phelonion in the EC forum) where you have ostensibly sought opinions from the community but it seems more like you’re looking for a reason to pick a fight. You’ve been argumentative, sticking stubbornly to your own POV, refusing to listen in charity to what other knowledgeable posters here have to say. I refuse to stoop to your level and argue everything just on the basis that you clearly have a vestment issue intersecting with a money issue.

My first impulse was to respond to your attacks and defend my own post, but you have gone on long enough lacking in charity here, and I felt it was past time that someone called you out for your behavior.

I didn’t attack anyone…

I am seeking opinions. What I won’t accept though is the belief by some that simply because they are more expensive, some vestments are superior to others.

I also won’t accept extraneous variables like “wrinkled” and “dirty” because both conditions effect all vestments – not just frugal ones.

 

[Draper]

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.

You think “ornate” vestments edify more than plain vestments?

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.

High quality need not be expensive. And expensive doesn’t always mean high quality.

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.

ok.

 

[R_H_Benson]

I didn’t attack anyone…

I am seeking opinions. What I won’t accept though is the belief by some that simply because they are more expensive, some vestments are superior to others.

I also won’t accept extraneous variables like “wrinkled” and “dirty” because both conditions effect all vestments – not just frugal ones.

Draper, it appears that you are referring to my comment in post #65. I’d like to clarify what I meant.

In post #64, Tarpeian Rock posted:

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

To which I responded in post #65:

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.

All of us are in agreement that no one Mass (no matter the form, the rite, etc. as long as the Mass is valid) is any better than another intrinsically. You are correct in saying that any chasuble - plain or ornate, cheap or expensive - can be “dirty, wrinkled, or ill-fitting”.
I was merely pointing out that when one puts no emphasis on the extrinsic aspects of the Mass - such as the quality of vestments and vessels - that such an attitude may lead to a sloppy Liturgy that is unbecoming of its due dignity. So my comment wasn’t necessarily directed at cheap, distasteful vestments, but more so at attitudes which treat the Mass in a manner lacking respect. (In no way am I implying that I think Tarpeian Rock holds such an attitude, I was merely using his post as a starting point for an observation I wanted to contribute).

 

[Corki]

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.

You are applying a utilitarian objective to an item used in worship. There is nothing noble about using whatever is cheapest that will still “do the same job” when it comes to Liturgy.

You think “ornate” vestments edify more than plain vestments?

I don’t think anyone said “more than”. Beautiful vestments have a place in Liturgy just as beautiful Church buildings and beautiful music do. Sure, there are other ways to edify. Frankly, I don’t **personally **think plain vestments edify anything. I think that if a priest or parish chooses plain vestments, they are making a conscious choice not to edify by way of vestments but to put their efforts in worship elsewhere. There’s nothing wrong with that. But neither is there anything wrong with glorifying God and the Sacrifice of the Mass with items that are visually beautiful such as vestments.

 

[EasterJoy]

You think “ornate” vestments edify more than plain vestments?

High quality need not be expensive. And expensive doesn’t always mean high quality.

ok.

I think better sacred art is more edifying than lesser sacred art. Is the Sistine Chapel more edifying than a chapel done in saccharine scenes in which the humans depicted aren’t quite in proportion? Who could argue otherwise? I don’t think this is less true of textile art than it is of sculpture or paintings. Why would it be? It should surprise no one that better artists can command higher commissions, even when the artist uses a sewing machine. (The great exception can be when the tailor belongs to your parish or diocese, and essentially makes a contribution to the Church in the form of artistic talent. In that case, the textile art might be both far cheaper and far more beautifully done than what is available for altar societies to purchase on the commercial market.)

While there is not a linear relationship between the expense of a textile and its quality, there usually is a relationship. When one fabric is more durable, has a better drape, takes dyes more truly, and so on, it commands a higher price than a fabric with less desirable characteristics. Unlike drapery, the creator of a vestment also has to be concerned with the comfort of the poor clergyman who will be wearing it. You can make some great-looking drapes that won’t breathe or that weigh a ton by just using sturdier hardware when you install them, but that doesn’t work with garments. (There are altar societies that seem to forget this when they weight their priests down with “practical” vestments of one-size-must-fit-all polyester.)

The most difficult pieces of art to execute well are the very ornate and the very simple. This is also just as true of garments as it is of other kinds of art. If you are saying there are some big mistakes made on both ends of that spectrum, I would definitely agree with you! Having said that, I don’t buy it when priests are put into cheap-looking vestments on the theory that “it is the thought that counts.” Well, when the “thought” is that liturgy isn’t something we get too wound up about doing as well as we can, that thought comes through loud and clear. It is not a visual message that edifies, no.

 

[EasterJoy]

I also won’t accept extraneous variables like “wrinkled” and “dirty” because both conditions effect all vestments – not just frugal ones.

Re-consider your thinking on “dirty” and “wrinkled.” Some textiles resist soiling, staining and creasing better than others. In this area, the petroleum-based fabrics are sometimes superior to fabrics made of natural fibers. The problem can be in finding fabrics with good properties with regards to maintenance that also breathe or are have equal qualities with regards to drape, the right level of sheen, and so on.

 

[Draper]

You are applying a utilitarian objective to an item used in worship. There is nothing noble about using whatever is cheapest that will still “do the same job” when it comes to Liturgy.

Not at all. What I am saying is that vestments aren’t necessarily superior because they are more expensive or ostentatious, nor are they necessarily inferior because they are frugal, plain or humble.

I don’t think anyone said “more than”. Beautiful vestments have a place in Liturgy just as beautiful Church buildings and beautiful music do.

Stop right there. You’re trying to equate “beautiful” with expensive/ostentatious and that’s simply not true.

Sure, there are other ways to edify. Frankly, I don’t **personally **think plain vestments edify anything. I think that if a priest or parish chooses plain vestments, they are making a conscious choice not to edify by way of vestments but to put their efforts in worship elsewhere. There’s nothing wrong with that. But neither is there anything wrong with glorifying God and the Sacrifice of the Mass with items that are visually beautiful such as vestments.

Vestments don’t “edify” – not even expensive ones.

 

[Draper]

Re-consider your thinking on “dirty” and “wrinkled.” Some textiles resist soiling, staining and creasing better than others. In this area, the petroleum-based fabrics are sometimes superior to fabrics made of natural fibers. The problem can be in finding fabrics with good properties with regards to maintenance that also breathe or are have equal qualities with regards to drape, the right level of sheen, and so on.

It was an extraneous variable as offered.

 

[EasterJoy]

Vestments don’t “edify” – not even expensive ones.

Maybe sacred art doesn’t edify you when it is sacred art being worn by a priest.
Fine–some of us are not moved by sacred art. That is not a moral fault. Don’t presume to speak for everyone else, though.

(Edify: To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement.)

 

[EasterJoy]

It was an extraneous variable as offered.

It is a variable that simply does not affect all textiles equally. It certainly is not an extraneous variable when starts to feel impossible for the poor ladies in the altar society to keep a certain chasuble looking presentable because it attracts dirt, shows every little spot, or wrinkles when you so much as look at it.

 

[Draper]

Maybe sacred art doesn’t edify you when it is sacred art being worn by a priest.
Fine–some of us are not moved by sacred art. That is not a moral fault. Don’t presume to speak for everyone else, though.

(Edify: To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement.)

My regrets but I don’t consider vestments to be “sacred art.” I would suggest that trying to define vestments as “sacred art” is the very excuse used by some to introduce some truly regrettable vestment designs into the liturgy.

 

[Elizium23]

My regrets but I don’t consider vestments to be “sacred art.”

Why not?

 

[Draper]

It is a variable that simply does not affect all textiles equally. It certainly is not an extraneous variable when starts to feel impossible for the poor ladies in the altar society to keep a certain chasuble looking presentable because it attracts dirt, shows every little spot, or wrinkles when you so much as look at it.

The variable was offered in support of expensive vestments. If anything, it supported humble, plain, frugal vestments made out of something like 100% Polyester.

Polyester might be hot, but it drapes well, launders well, is stain resistant, wrinkle resistant and it’s not expensive.

 

[R_H_Benson]

The variable was offered in support of expensive vestments. If anything, it supported humble, plain, frugal vestments made out of something like 100% Polyester.

Polyester might be hot, but it drapes well, launders well, is stain resistant, wrinkle resistant and it’s not expensive.

Please read post #125.

 

[EasterJoy]

The variable was offered in support of expensive vestments. If anything, it supported humble, plain, frugal vestments made out of something like 100% Polyester.

Polyester might be hot, but it drapes well, launders well, is stain resistant, wrinkle resistant and it’s not expensive.

You aren’t under the impression that good-quality polyester is automatically* cheap*, are you? Not all polyesters are created equal.

You can find a silk or wool chasubles and also polyester chasubles in the same price range and a similar level of “ornateness.” Quality textiles have a price that reflects the quality, even when made of petroleum. Just like in fibers used for floor coverings, an educated consumer can find better deals, but you tend to get what you pay for.

BTW, I find your contention that a chasuble “might be hot” to be a bit callous. In the case of some of these vestments, we’re talking nasty uncomfortable. Why would you do that to the priest? Wearing all-black all summer isn’t penance enough? He has to feel like he’s in a Hefty garbage bag so the parish can go cheap on vestments?

 

[Corki]

Not at all. What I am saying is that vestments aren’t necessarily superior because they are more expensive or ostentatious, nor are they necessarily inferior because they are frugal, plain or humble.

And the converse is also true. Plain and humble vestments are not necessarily better or more appropriate than more ornate or expensive vestments.

Stop right there. You’re trying to equate “beautiful” with expensive/ostentatious and that’s simply not true.

Why not? Back in post # 20 - something, you equated simple and humble vestments with beauty. Why can ornate and expensive vestments also be beautiful? Especially if the ornamentation is liturgically appropriate and Catholic in nature. A plain unadorned chausible is not identifiably Catholic but one with an ornate Chi Rho embroidered in gold threads would not be mistaken for anything other than Catholic.

Vestments don’t “edify” – not even expensive ones

Many do if they pull the faithful’s focus more deeply into the mysteries of the Sacraments and the celebration of the Mass. Maybe you are not a visual person. In that case, the visual aspects of Mass, such as vestments or altar ware won’t have an edifying effect on you. That’s ok. But for many, including myself, they do.

 

[EasterJoy]

The main thing is to not look down your nose at sacred art that is well-executed but not your cup of tea. That applies just as much if the sacred art seems more extravagant as if it is less extravagant. Who are you to judge that a parish must not be doing enough for the poor because their artwork is high-quality? Maybe they forgo spending on themselves rather than shorting their spending on the poor, and therefore have more money for both the poor and for sacred art than the Christians who judge them for being too extravagant. It is fair to say that this was Judas’ objection. The evangelist took care to note that Judas was helping himself to the common purse rather than being any great friend of the poor.