C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
The first Christian to complain about expensive things being used to honor God, instead of going to the poor was, Judas. Just saying.
- Status
T
TimothyH
Guest
Thatās because he didnāt care about the poor and stole the money for himself.The first Christian to complain about expensive things being used to honor God, instead of going to the poor was, Judas. Just saying.
We are not talking about denying expensive decorations to the Church so that we can use the money to buy things for ourselves like Judas. We are talking about using a portion of the money for the poor. Thatās exactly what St. Francis did.
We have nice bells. We have beautiful stained glass windows, we have a wonderful sound system with an extended warranty and quarterly maintenance plan, we have a building fund, new pews, the water fountains work, the toilets flush and there is plenty of TP. There is a certain point where the Church has enough and it is time to take care of the poor.
Saying āThe poor will always be with usā isnāt an excuse for having a gold plated ceilings while ignoring people who knock on the door asking for infant formula. Nobody is denying the Church the right to have nice things with which to honor God but it seem that every time someone wants to take a step back and take a deep breath, someone accuses them of betraying Jesus. Putting a smiley on it doesnāt make it more palatable.
-Tim-
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Well, as long as we can assume balance and level-headedness, ok. But I donāt think we can assume balance and level-headedness about much, hence itās necessary to constantly define our terms.
M
manualman
Guest
You are correct that that is an unfair assumption, UNLESS the person first checks to see how the accuser is spending his own non-necessity money. Iāve yet to come across a critic who lives by the standard he feels should apply to the church.
When people have the luxuries of modern life themselves, but opine that the church should be a threadbare barn until every last homeless is sheltered and every hungry mouth fed, theyāre just hypocrites. Everybody feels better when theyāve got somebody āworseā than themselves to beat up on. Itās called scapegoating and itās WAY older than Judas.
At the end of the day, we DO have a duty to help the poor, but that duty can only be fulfilled if we give God the first fruits of our lives, then take care of ourselves. The way we order our finances does reflect this, whether we protest that assertion or not.
P
ProVobis
Guest
As many people in Chicago know, some of the downtown churches provide some shelter to the homeless and leave food for them as well. Itās interesting though, that police themselves at the bathrooms at Holy Name Cathedral and escort the poorer out during the services. FWIW, this is one of the churches which spent countless amount of money razing the high altar, the communion rails, candles, statues, etc. in the 60ās and 70ās. So where were the priorities then?
J
JRTJ
Guest
Right on. The amount of money spent to āmodernizeā Churches and buy polyester chasublea instead of using the old fiddlebacks could have been spent on the poor instead.
The Church should keep all its artistic heritage that goves glory to God and, through the senses, brings His people closer to Him.
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
No one accused anyone of betraying, Jesus. So here is another
for you Timothy.
L
LPS
Guest
Please invite him to read 1 Kings chapter 6. It describes the temple that Solomon built exactly as God directed him. It was very ornate, filled with statuary and gold
T
TimothyH
Guest
Do oblique references to Judas count?No one accused anyone of betraying, Jesus. So here is another
-Tim-
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
No, they donāt.
C
Cat
Guest
It would be good for all of us to remember that in spite of the magnificent temple that Solomon commissioned and initially worshiped in, he still fell away from the Lord and committed many sins, and after his reign, his kingdom was split. We need to keep watch over our own souls.Please invite him to read 1 Kings chapter 6. It describes the temple that Solomon built exactly as God directed him. It was very ornate, filled with statuary and gold
And that temple, like all earthly temples, is gone.
There are plenty of gorgeous church buildings in Europe, but they are essentially empty, other than tourists. The beautiful church buildings donāt seem to be able to draw people back to God and cause them to return to Jesus and His Church. Christianity in many traditionally-Catholic European countries is a minority religion.
Iām not speaking against beautifying our Church buildings and our homes (as well as our own bodies, our ātemplesā of the Holy Spirit). I think itās a good thing to seek out earthly beauty and glorify God in that beauty.
Iām just cautioning that beauty is fleeting. The Proverbs say that āthe woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.ā It is our faith that will last through eternity, not our beauty nor the beauty of our buildings.
M
manualman
Guest
Totally agreed, but itās only half the story. The fact remains that if the congregation lives in opulence, drives to church in luxury cars, vacations via jetliner and worships in a shack then that very allocation of resources IS a statement of priority in their lives.
The beauty and expense on beauty isnāt sufficient in and of itself, but neglecting it is unavoidably a deficiency of faith. Those monuments to faith in Europe were built in a time when the people lived in utter poverty by our standards today. The fact that they were built was a reflection of the priorities of the people of that time. Today they crumble while vast sports stadiums, glittering casinos and towering corporate skyscrapers proliferate. And then people wonder why people in Europe find it too much trouble to have childrenā¦
P
ProVobis
Guest
That may be quite true but does it necessarily follow that this type of spending (and there have been quite a few ugly sports stadiums built and since demolished since the 60ās) is made at the expense of the poor? Seems like the living standards even among the poorest in the U.S. has increased and is better than their counterparts elsewhere.
J
JediSisko
Guest
Gold, frankincense, and myrrh. From his birth he is glorified.
T
TimothyH
Guest
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
It was brought up as cautionary warning. Not to say that all people who complain about extravagances being spent on the Church are Judases, but rather that we should warn that such thinking can lead us down this path. When our accusations bare the resemblance of Judasā, we should examine ourselves and discern what our interior motives are. Is it really a concern for the poor or is it something else hiding itself under the cloak of concern for the poor?
C
Cat
Guest
Iām not a history expert by any means, but I think we need to be careful not to ascribe too much holiness to these people.
Itās very possible that the wealthy had these churches built as a way of gaining status in their cities. That still happens today.
Isnāt it true that back then, the wealthy had pews set aside for their sole use, and these pews were blocked off so that the wealthy family had privacy from the rest of the congregation?
And Iām not sure that the āpoorā of those times contributed anything, because most of them had nothing, literally NOTHING, to give to the church building fund.
Again, please donāt think Iām saying that we should strip our churches of all beauty. Not at all! I think it is a good thing to strive to create a lovely space for the Lord and His people.
I just think we need to be aware that beauty is temporary. Even the most gorgeous of buildings crumbles with time. And outward beauty is not nearly as important as inner beautyāthe people in the church are Godās children and therefore, their beauty, through Christās grace, far outshines any gold and silver in the building. And conversely, a beautiful church building filled with ugly-souled people is a hollow shell.
And again, I think we need to recognize and respect all the different interpretations of earthly beauty. In my line of work, we often hold up a petri plate of bacteria and say, āIsnāt it gorgeous?!ā
R
Rich_C
Guest
Certainly, romanticizing the past is a sure way to misread it, but I think we also need to have the humility to recognize that many previous generations acheived more holiness than ours. Sometimes much more holiness. Some didnāt, but most did seeing we are really at a low point right now.
The thing about the pews is that there were no pews in church for the first 1,000+ years of Christianity, unless somebody could provide their own. But you are probably right about the contributions of the poor before they became wage earners in the industrial revolution ā they didnāt function within a cash-based economy for most of our history.
I think you make some really good points, but frankly it seems to me weāre due for a correction in favor of more beautiful churches. The status quo has been very plain churches for a while, so I donāt think warnings about overemphasizing the value of beautiful churches are needed right now. Iāll change my tune if the pendulum swings too far, but I think that day is still far in the future.
C
CutlerB
Guest
I think I know what you mean, and I assume you would agree that even simple churches can have a beauty about them. At the moment, Iām trying to figure out why exactly I would call a simple Gothic monastic church beautiful, but not some of the modern buildings. Both would be āplainā in a sense, but there has to be some deciding factor.
- Status