Well, I think Rav's logic will help my in answering this post.
Bridget Mary is only writting on this becasue she is jealous of all the nice vestments and resentful that she doesn't have any.
In modern times, a vestment (good quality, but not extravagent) will run you about 1000-1500 dollars. Go to website of Almy a clerical supply company and you can see what things cost. You are right about the Cassock. A good quality Cassock will run about 500 dollars.
It can be expensive (relatively speaking) to dress a bishop in Liturgical wear but part of the reason has to do with the fact that the items a bishop wears are not high volume items. They are not "Mass" produced. They are made by hand. They are also made to last. They are not designed to be disposable.
As for the ring, many rings the bishops wear are inherited from predecessors. Many bishops today are wearing simple gold rings, as opposed to the jewled rings of years ago. The ring is akin to a wedding ring. Some of the older vestments which you pictured might (MIGHT) have cost that much, but many bishops today are not wearing things like that.
But Bridget Mary, I think the real issue for you is not cost at all. I think the real issue is that you reject the authority of the Church. Those nice vestments and such are a sign of the bishop's authority. You hate the trappings of the office of the bishop becasue you reject the authority of the bishop. Your real hang up then is not cost, but what the things represent.
Why does Burke have to dress up like a medieval prince? Simple vestments certainly do not cost $30,000. Why does he need fancy gloves and silk leggings?
Personally I think bishops should wear simple clerical suits. Good quality, yes, but still simple.
I am not even certain chasubles are necessary. A nice alb and a nice stole sounds good enough for me.
I cannot imagine Bridget Mary being jealous of Burke's finery. As a matter of fact, I think she would look rather funny in those unnecessary and overly-priced frills.
I agree with you. I can't imagine BM in that either, and I don't imagine she is jealous. I just wanted to turn your logic against you.
The question, Rav, is not "What is necessary" All you need for a "valid Mass" is the proper matter and form. Bread/wine and a validly ordained priest to pray the proper prayers.
The real question is "Why should we only strive for the absolute minimum? Why SHOULDN'T we offer to God the very BEST we can?" In fact if you read some OT passages, God reads the people the riot act becasue they are offering Him junk. Animals that are blemished, bad food, etc. If we give our loved ones the very best we can afford, how much MORE should we offer to God the very best we can afford!
It is not that God has need of fancy things, but WE do. When we use fine materials, and precious things in worship it acts to highlight the fact that we are doing something VALUABLE and IMPORTANT. If we offer junk to God, then we will offer junk to everyone else. That is the thing RAV, it all begins and ends with God. If our starting point with God is flawed, then everything else will be flawed as well.
Is Burke a bit extreme? Sure he is, but come on! Bridged Mary finds the most extreme example she can and then says "Look at all the bishops!" Her example is hardly representative of the mainstream. In fact many bishops today are simplfying things and even using the uglist things they can in worship. (Unfortunately.)
I also wonder if BM is upset about the opulance our president lives in. I wonder if she is upset about the 200 million dollars a day his excursion to India is going to cost. Is she upset about the very expensive clothing he wears? The very expensive planes and cars he drives? Should the leader of our country live in opulance when there are homeless right outside the Whitehouse? Does she get on that social injustice?
4 comments:
Incredible -- I think we were much better shoppers!
Well, I think Rav's logic will help my in answering this post.
Bridget Mary is only writting on this becasue she is jealous of all the nice vestments and resentful that she doesn't have any.
In modern times, a vestment (good quality, but not extravagent) will run you about 1000-1500 dollars. Go to website of Almy a clerical supply company and you can see what things cost. You are right about the Cassock. A good quality Cassock will run about 500 dollars.
It can be expensive (relatively speaking) to dress a bishop in Liturgical wear but part of the reason has to do with the fact that the items a bishop wears are not high volume items. They are not "Mass" produced. They are made by hand. They are also made to last. They are not designed to be disposable.
As for the ring, many rings the bishops wear are inherited from predecessors. Many bishops today are wearing simple gold rings, as opposed to the jewled rings of years ago. The ring is akin to a wedding ring. Some of the older vestments which you pictured might (MIGHT) have cost that much, but many bishops today are not wearing things like that.
But Bridget Mary, I think the real issue for you is not cost at all. I think the real issue is that you reject the authority of the Church. Those nice vestments and such are a sign of the bishop's authority. You hate the trappings of the office of the bishop becasue you reject the authority of the bishop. Your real hang up then is not cost, but what the things represent.
Apologist --
Why does Burke have to dress up like a medieval prince? Simple vestments certainly do not cost $30,000. Why does he need fancy gloves and silk leggings?
Personally I think bishops should wear simple clerical suits. Good quality, yes, but still simple.
I am not even certain chasubles are necessary. A nice alb and a nice stole sounds good enough for me.
I cannot imagine Bridget Mary being jealous of Burke's finery. As a matter of fact, I think she would look rather funny in those unnecessary and overly-priced frills.
Rav,
I agree with you. I can't imagine BM in that either, and I don't imagine she is jealous. I just wanted to turn your logic against you.
The question, Rav, is not "What is necessary" All you need for a "valid Mass" is the proper matter and form. Bread/wine and a validly ordained priest to pray the proper prayers.
The real question is "Why should we only strive for the absolute minimum? Why SHOULDN'T we offer to God the very BEST we can?" In fact if you read some OT passages, God reads the people the riot act becasue they are offering Him junk. Animals that are blemished, bad food, etc. If we give our loved ones the very best we can afford, how much MORE should we offer to God the very best we can afford!
It is not that God has need of fancy things, but WE do. When we use fine materials, and precious things in worship it acts to highlight the fact that we are doing something VALUABLE and IMPORTANT. If we offer junk to God, then we will offer junk to everyone else. That is the thing RAV, it all begins and ends with God. If our starting point with God is flawed, then everything else will be flawed as well.
Is Burke a bit extreme? Sure he is, but come on! Bridged Mary finds the most extreme example she can and then says "Look at all the bishops!" Her example is hardly representative of the mainstream. In fact many bishops today are simplfying things and even using the uglist things they can in worship. (Unfortunately.)
I also wonder if BM is upset about the opulance our president lives in. I wonder if she is upset about the 200 million dollars a day his excursion to India is going to cost. Is she upset about the very expensive clothing he wears? The very expensive planes and cars he drives? Should the leader of our country live in opulance when there are homeless right outside the Whitehouse? Does she get on that social injustice?
Post a Comment