V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Christ didn’t give us the mass at the last supper while continuing in his adherence to reverence, simplicity, and humility?
"Catholic social teaching finds Church teaching lacking." by Bishop Dowling
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Where can you show that if the Church ‘cut down’ on her ‘splendor’ that she would have ‘more’ to serve the poor? The cappa magna of a bishop or the gold chalice of a parish priest is not there in place of money to serve the poor. It is there IN ADDITION to the many ways. . . money only ONE of them. . . in which the Church ALREADY SERVES THE POOR.Tantum, again you totally miss the entire point. “One less” is symbolic for much more. Again, it just appears you simply can not see where if the Church cut down some on Her decorative splendor it would mean She would have even more to serve the poor. Just imagine. A win win situation. A win for the poor. And a win for those Rush Catholics. Less they’d have to render to Caesar if the Church were chippin in even more.Peace to you Tantum.
Where can you prove that the Church. . .in having cathedrals (donated by hundreds and thousands of willing lay people over the years as gifts to God) and in art work (donated by individuals as gifts to God) and in vestments (donated by people as gifts to God). . .is somehow not only taking an unwarranted ‘splendor’ for itself, using money that it somehow ‘possesses’ even though all the above are donations from others. . .but that this in addition is money that would have otherwise gone to the poor and thus, the ‘things’ were somehow taken from the poor?
So Notre Dame Cathedral: Which was not ‘bought’ by the Church but was given to God as a gift from many people of the Middle Ages, which has been ‘kept up’ through the years (hey, even hovels need to be swept periodically or they’ll fall to pieces), etc. is somehow some undue splendor" that the Church took greedily in order to deprive the poor???
Yep. And your local church in East Podunk which has a chalice in it that was donated (as a gift to God) from some parishioners back 100 years ago is thereby taking undue splendor? So those people who donated the chalice are mean, nasty people who deprived the poor by offering a gold chalice to their Church for its use? And what they gave as a free gift is to be forcibly turned over so it can be ‘melted down’ and the money given to ‘feed the poor’. . .but the chalice itself means nothing other than a charge of ‘undue splendor’ and a hindrence to the ‘true gospel’ which is not that Christ has redeemed us but that 'we must, must, must give food to the poor, and they only shall we serve lest we be called too ‘splendid’ for God. . .
Oh heaven forbid that we allow the bishop to wear a symbolic robe that was donated by others as a gift for God. Only if the ‘symbolism’ is that of a tattered and torn cloak which is (falsely) considered “Christ like apparel” will it be permitted by today’s neo-Puritans who think that anything less than their narrow-minded ‘giving’ somehow ‘takes away’ from all else.
Do you **really think, **Matt, that a cappa magna is so ‘powerful’ that each one somehow ‘takes away’ X number of dollars **from the poor?? **
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Reverence, simplicity and humility don’t automatically ‘exclude’ appropriate, even ‘rich’ attire. . .
Unless you’re going to tell us that the Jewish priests to whom God mandated a certain style of attire and utensils etc. for worship, were neither reverent, simple, nor humble in doing so. . .
C
CMatt25
Guest
Via, thanx for clearing that up. Good thing I knew better or I was about to go check out my picture of the Last Supper to find Aaron performing it. Now that would have been confusing.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Didn’t Jesus tell the rich man to divest himself of his wealth and come follow him and he will be happy. Alas, it was too much to ask. What the heck to YOU think Jesus meant by that?
And you know for a fact this is all donated?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
What do I think Jesus meant? The rich young man was already abiding by the 10 commandments from his youth. The ONLY thing that he had an attachment to ‘above’ God was wealth.
Now–are you like that? Are you abiding by the 10 commandments from your youth? Is absolutely the ONLY thing that you are more attached to than God your 'many possessions"? Is God speaking to YOU to ‘divest yourself of all?’
Why did Jesus tell Zaccheus (who only gave half of his possessions away) that he was blessed? If the rich young man had to give up all, why didn’t Zaccheus?
Why was Joseph of Arimathea (a wealthy man) not asked to give any of HIS wealth away at all?–in fact, Joseph was able to supply Jesus with a new, unused tomb.
**If we are all supposed to ‘give all to the poor’ why is this message not the same for all? **
Finally --you know for a fact that the so-called ‘wealth’ of the Church (a catchall phrase that has not been quantified though I have asked repeatedly) is NOT all donated? Got some specifics for me?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yep, gotta love the neo-Puritans.
They don’t accept the authority of the Church to teach on matters of faith and morals.
They don’t accept the authority of the Church to establish bishops, to erect churches, to furnish the churches.
They don’t accept Scripture that contradicts their own cherry picked verses.
But oh, they accept that they alone know the ‘absolute truth’ about what the Church should be teaching.
They know the absolute truth about what the Church has ‘authority to do’ and exactly how ‘sumptuous’ or plain every single thing must be–from the clothes a priest wears, to the type of car he is permitted to drive, to the type of ‘plain’ food he eats, to the type of ‘furnishing’ allowed in his bare plain church. . . No, the Church has no authority to decide.The Church has been wrong, greedy, grasping, too ‘ornate and fancy’ for the neo-Puritan and his blind focus on a skewed view that ONLY the plain is ‘worthy.’ It is for the neo-Puritan to determine and pronounce judgment on whether HE thinks a chalice is too ‘rich’, a vestment too ‘ornate’, a church too ‘large’ or ‘fancy’. The neo-Puritan would tear down everything and insist that all somehow be made to ‘feed the poor’ with earthly food, because only this is ‘truth’ to them. Bitter, narrow, sad, sallow, niggling and pseudo-pious, they focus ONLY on the Lord’s supposed ‘poverty’ and ignore His GLORY.
Is Jesus ONLY the suffering servant? Is He not also the King of Glory?
Do you bring to the King of Glory the plainest of gifts if you COULD give something more? Does God ask us to give the ‘minimum’?
Here’s a radical concept: Because of the splendor that we donate to God, we give more to the poor. Because we give SPIRITUAL FOOD AND DRINK through these splendors AND we give earthly food and drink as well. We feed the soul AND the body.
Why do you seek to feed only the body?
They don’t accept the authority of the Church to teach on matters of faith and morals.
They don’t accept the authority of the Church to establish bishops, to erect churches, to furnish the churches.
They don’t accept Scripture that contradicts their own cherry picked verses.
But oh, they accept that they alone know the ‘absolute truth’ about what the Church should be teaching.
They know the absolute truth about what the Church has ‘authority to do’ and exactly how ‘sumptuous’ or plain every single thing must be–from the clothes a priest wears, to the type of car he is permitted to drive, to the type of ‘plain’ food he eats, to the type of ‘furnishing’ allowed in his bare plain church. . . No, the Church has no authority to decide.The Church has been wrong, greedy, grasping, too ‘ornate and fancy’ for the neo-Puritan and his blind focus on a skewed view that ONLY the plain is ‘worthy.’ It is for the neo-Puritan to determine and pronounce judgment on whether HE thinks a chalice is too ‘rich’, a vestment too ‘ornate’, a church too ‘large’ or ‘fancy’. The neo-Puritan would tear down everything and insist that all somehow be made to ‘feed the poor’ with earthly food, because only this is ‘truth’ to them. Bitter, narrow, sad, sallow, niggling and pseudo-pious, they focus ONLY on the Lord’s supposed ‘poverty’ and ignore His GLORY.
Is Jesus ONLY the suffering servant? Is He not also the King of Glory?
Do you bring to the King of Glory the plainest of gifts if you COULD give something more? Does God ask us to give the ‘minimum’?
Here’s a radical concept: Because of the splendor that we donate to God, we give more to the poor. Because we give SPIRITUAL FOOD AND DRINK through these splendors AND we give earthly food and drink as well. We feed the soul AND the body.
Why do you seek to feed only the body?
C
CMatt25
Guest
Here’s what I think Tantum. Instead of taking a collection for marble and tile and then saying the answer to the poor is to get a job in one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression, and we’re going to re-decorate in 2010 regardless. Ask for that money to be collected for the homeless men and women a block away. That is one example Tantum. Just as one cappa magna is a symbol of the problem. Someone used their money to pay for it. Money that could have gone to the poor. And which in a lump sum could be more to serve the poor with. But I’m tired of debating this with you right now. All we’re doing at this pt is going 'round in circles and differ as to degree. United in Him we will just have to agree to disagree on how much is excess and how much is appropriate. God bless you and peace.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Well yes :yup: Christ did, Via! That’s Him in my picture! :extrahappy:
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You just don’t get it, Matt.
A person who donates a cappa magna is not donating this ‘instead of’ donating to the poor. He is doing this IN ADDITION to donating to the poor.
Look, suppose I have $50. I take $25 dollars and I donate it to the local food pantry. Direct food to the poor, right? I take another $25 and I donate it to a charitable organization. Now, the charitable organization has costs to it that aren’t all direct ‘food’. It employs people–the people themselves must be paid a fair wage. It sends out direct mailings asking for donations. . .so paper, stamps, ink etc. (not food) are a cost. Finally, because the people get out there, work directly with the poor, PRAY, have other ‘lines’ such as people who invest in their projects (like construction for houses for the poor, hospitals, even churches), they have a certain ‘authority’. When they make a TV message (yet another ‘cost’ whereby non food materials are needed, and need to ‘sell’ the concept of ‘giving to the poor’). . .they are seen as trustworthy and reliable. That ‘image’ itself is worth more than simply 'money.
So. . . You seem to argue that the $25 I gave directly to the food pantry is worth ‘more’ than the $25 I gave to support the charitable organization–but because of the charitable organization’s efforts, it is able to feed far more people with that $25 even though a portion of that money doesn’t go directly to food costs at all.
Thus --the cappa magna, the gold chalice, the donations offered to God --are not USELESS because they aren’t direct food for the poor.
**
They don’t TAKE AWAY food from the poor.
They give a SPIRITUAL nourishment and secondarily they help to keep on PROVIDING food for the poor–BODY AND SOUL-- even when not directly ‘food’ itself.
I don’t know WHY you can’t seem to understand that the Church is MORE than some giant food pantry.**
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Before you bust a vertebra dancing, are YOU telling me that the Jewish priests did not act with reverence, simplicity, and humility?
You know. . . wearing their God-MANDATED rich attire in a Temple MANDATED to be made of precious materials and with the ‘fruits’ to be offered to God things WITHOUT BLEMISH?
C
CMatt25
Guest
Tantum, here’s what I don’t get. The bishop can’t give the same spiritual nourishment dressed in cargos?
Peace Tantum.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
You mean Aaron?
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
You are the one that keeps bringing it up. Why don’t you cite examples.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Too much old testament and not enough new testament. Or as Martiin Scorcese says " Too much Good Friday and not enough Easter Sunday." I guess Jesus got it wrong. Not the first time a son dis agrees with his Father. Is this what you are saying?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You really haven’t researched the history of the Church, vestments, symbolism, etc. I’m not here to do your research for you, Matt. Until you have some idea of what you’re decrying, all you’re doing is poofing off your personal opinion and trying to make it seem a ‘valid option’. It isn’t. It never will be. Because it isn’t about whether the bishop ‘can’ give nourishment dressed in vestments OR in mufti, Matt.Tantum, here’s what I don’t get. The bishop can’t give the same spiritual nourishment dressed in cargos?
It is about authority. Apparently you don’t recognize that the Church has the authority to determine liturgical vestments at all. You WANT the bishop in ‘cargos’ because YOU think they’re ‘plain’ and only ‘plain’ is godly.
So. . . why can’t the bishop give you spiritual nourishment in the cappa magna, Matt? Where is your authority to demand that he ‘clothe himself’ not according to the Church’s decision but to yours?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Says who? You? Why is it ‘too much’ Old Testament to acknowledge that God gave the Jewish priesthood certain mandates? Why is it too much to ask when (or ‘if’) He changed the rules?
JESUS didn’t ‘get it wrong’ but you certainly have if you think that JESUS has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
And that is really what you’re saying in a sense . . . you’re saying that the Catholic Church has no ‘authority’ to mandate liturgical vestments and that anything you consider over and above your personal, opinionated fallible contemporary STANDARD of ‘dress’ is ‘sumptuous’ or ‘over adornment’ and just plain wrong AND takes away from the poor.
Show me where liturgical vestments in the Catholic Church ‘take away’ from the poor; where Jesus in Scripture ‘forbade’ them, where He denied the Church the authority to ‘bind and loose’ in such matters. You can’t.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You think it was ONLY Aaron? You think Aaron has nothing to do with Jesus? What about Jesus’ transfiguration? What about Revelation?
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Take a few deep breaths. Breathe in, relax, breathe out. One might begin to consider this a hysterical rant if one looked closely. Why did anyone on this thread intimate Jesus has nothing to do with the church. Where did anyone intimate the Church has no authority. Did anyone say Christ forbad kingly/royal garb? No, I don’t think so. No one obviously, wants to do your research on what Christ said about the cappa magna or the baretta for that matter. I never heard mention of Christ wearinga baretta.
I do remember Christ washing the feet of his followers before his simple Passover meal. Humility.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Snarkiness does not become you, friend. Don’t worry, I don’t think you’re hysterical. Misguided, perhaps. Oh, and it’s ‘biretta’. Of course, I’m sure Jesus wore a yarmulke at temple. . .
Humility does not preclude royalty. It’s not either-or, it’s both-and. You speak of too much emphasis on one aspect of Christ --but don’t you see that you could be guilty of too much emphasis in another aspect **yourself? **
Actually, your posts have implied rather strongly that you feel Jesus would ‘only’ be ‘simple and humble in attire’ (you really did rear back rather strongly at the thought of Aaron and the Scriptural mandate of priestly rich attire which God Himself demanded). . . So you have no problem picturing HIm–or priests–in the rich attire that Scripture and tradition have found appropriate, and that the Church (with the authority to bind and loose which it possesses and you do not) has had centuries of development, theological understanding, and legitimate authority–to require? Good to know.
- Status