Expensive / Beautiful Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeteZaHut
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
manualman said:
What bothers ME is when the priests live high on the hog. I met an ordered priest yesterday for a project at work in an order that has vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. He had on designer slacks and shoes, a windshirt from a country club, drove up in a $45,000 Cadillac and sported two (!?) Blackberries. The meeting regarding a huge change in mission for a property owned by the order involved no prayer and a surprising amount of cuss words by the priest. Sigh.
Click to expand...
Although such materialistic displays are contrary to the spirit of the priesthood, if your priest is diocesan, he made no vow of poverty. Only religious priests and brothers do so. Technically, there’s nothing wrong with a diocesan priest owning property, even expensive property. However, flashy displays cause scandal to the faithful, and here, Father should have been more prudent.

As for the cuss words, well, inexcusable, especially coming from a priest.
 
Note the first sentence of mine that you quoted. Ordered priest, not diocesan. Puzzled I was since I am aware of the vows his order takes. They include poverty. Possible the ORDER owns all the fancy stuff. Very old cheat on the poverty vow.
 
LilyM said:
Philothea53;2989811:
LilyM;2989667:
God had a lot to say about the designs of Moses’ meeting tent, the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon’s Temple. Not to mention the very vestments (down to the underwear :eek: ) worn by Aaron and his priestly clan. In His plans He Himself specified that the best and costliest of materials were to be used in so doing.

There’s far too much info to encapsulate it. Suffice to say that the entirety of Chapters 25-31 of Exodus is about God’s commands to Moses in regard to the design and construction (and instructions from God about) of the Meeting Tent and Ark and related serving vessels etc, and the vesting and institution of Aaron and his clan as priests.

They make interesting reading. Ex 28:42 in particular is about God commanding linen drawers to be made for Aaron and the other priests - I love that God would consider such details!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thank you! This is some wonderful stuff!!

Happy Thanksgiving!
Click to expand...
 
PeteZaHut said:
Why are really expensive churches made with all the intricate designs and golden ceilings? I know it is to glorify God, but wouldn’t God prefer that money be used to help others?
Click to expand...
Why is this always stated as an either/or situation?

I give to my church to support it, and contribute to its special projects to enhance its beauty…and I give to charities that support my poor neighbors here and in the Third World. Giving to both steals from neither.

The immigrants that pinched their pennies to give and build beautiful churches were ALSO very generous towards the poor in their giving–through charities and direct personal giving and assistance.

So, flag on the play. False dichotomy. 😃
 
GraceDK said:
It would be of great symbolic value if all golden vestments were sold and the money given to the poor
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t mind so much, if it were my church buying them. Try telling people to sell the White House, Buckingham Palace, the Statue of Liberty, or any other symbol of national pride to give the money to the poor. Try emptying the Louvre of all it’s artwork and selling the works to raise money for the poor. See how far you get with that. People who take pride- rightful pride- in their national/cultural heritage wouldn’t stand for that. Why would anyone who loves their faith stand for selling off the masterpieces that are beautiful expressions of the Faith? Dioceses should not cut their social programs because they need to pay for their expensive churches, but they shouldn’t sell off the Churches- which the poor as well as the rich have the right to worship in.

I say build fine churches. Make them tower to the sky. Use our modern technology to put the great Cathedrals of the middle ages, the renaissance, and the baroque period to shame. Cover them with statues and other Catholic symbols carved in the finest stone. Cover the insides with the best painting artists can make. Make the high altar and the reredos tower above everything else in the Church and immediately catch the eye of everyone who walks in the room. Fill the churches with the best paintings and statues to remind people of their faith- and that when they go to Mass, they step into heaven. There is nothing wrong with beauty!
 
I love simple churches.

Not to say I don’t like the bigger ones. But I think for me simplicity (in material things) and faith kind of go together.

Kathrin
 
Kathrin said:
I love simple churches.

Not to say I don’t like the bigger ones. But I think for me simplicity (in material things) and faith kind of go together.

Kathrin
Click to expand...
Which is what the Council called for: noble simplicity. People, however, tend to forget the “noble” part. Now they simply equate it with drab.
 
God is not MERELY a king or a dictator with oil revenue.

God is the Infinite Creator … the Creator of the Earth and of the Heavens and of you and me … us humans.

He wants us to acknowledge that while we have free will, we are very finite and dependent upon Him.

The other “issue” is that He wants us to exhibit humility by acknowledging that we are dependent on Him. It is poor form for us to go along singing: “I did it my way”. With all due respect to Frank Sinatra, who was reconciled to the Church at the end.

One of my pastors expressed it very simply: “God will provide”.

Let us acknowledge our understanding of our relationship to God. We are not His equals. We are dependent on Him. For everything.

One way of acknowledging our dependence on Him is with our puny attempts at magnificent architecture.
 
Ugh, I get tired of seeing all these “Mega-Churches” popping up all over American urbana. Large, yes. But beautiful? Hardly. Tacky, I think. Building reflect the theology of various Christian communities to a certain degree. Like Saddleback “Church” of Rick Warren. Tacky building, shallow theology.
On the other hand, I love the old Roman Catholic cathedrals, which convey wonderful aspects of theology.
In the Roman Catholic Church, the altar is central in the sanctuary, whereas in most Protestant meetinghouses (Since they are not “churches” in the proper sense) have a central pulpit, and most of the time no altar at all. The early Christian churches had altars, or “Communion Tables”, in the center, as evidenced by the excavations of a 1st century church at Meggido, as well as several other sites.
 
Kentucky Liz brings up a wonderful point which should be repeated, until it ‘sinks in’:

The ‘expensive/ beautiful churches’ are not, and were not, built ‘instead of’ giving to the poor.

Rather, they were built to glorify God AND the people who built them LIKEWISE gave to the poor AS WELL.

The ‘objectors’ often seem to have the same mindset as those who argue that any notice whatsoever to Mary and the saints “takes away” from God–as though there was some ‘finite amount’ of love and anything less than every SPECK of love unless given to GOD alone was depriving HIM–even though He Himself specifically told us to ‘love our fellow men as well’. Go figure.

So, we are ‘only’ to make the poorest and barest churches. Only to wear the poorest and cheapest clothing. Only to have the minimum of food and shelter. Only the ‘necessities’ etc. according to these people–otherwise we aren’t CHRIST-like and we are ‘depriving’ others of the ‘real’ god --material wealth.

Even though God throughout Scripture and tradition, from Cain and Abel down, through the Pentateuch, the Psalms and Proverbs, the prophets, the gospels and the rest of the New Testament, through the earliest Church traditions and practices to today, made note that we are to give HIM ‘the best’ in everything as a matter of course. That means our best efforts, our best thoughts, our best actions, our best offerings, our best alms, our best ‘work’.

Sadly, too many people are caught up in a spirit of ‘guilt-for-being-better-off-than-others’ and have taken that to absurdities.

First: A person may have more material goods than another. The other might have far more ‘spiritual goods’ than the first person. So which is really 'better off"? The whole ‘ornate churches deprive the poor’ is really anti-Christian.

IF POVERTY were the real root of the matter–if MATERIAL WEALTH was the highest possible ‘good’ for mankind–one might argue that giving ‘money to the poor’ to help them get wealth was more important than other things.

But it isn’t. And it’s insulting to the poor–and insulting to Christians–to attempt to make our Christian faith into a one-issue agenda, especially when that issue is presented as something we are FAILING MISERABLY.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Kentucky Liz brings up a wonderful point which should be repeated, until it ‘sinks in’:

The ‘expensive/ beautiful churches’ are not, and were not, built ‘instead of’ giving to the poor.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the question remains for some people, couldn’t ***more ***have been given to the poor that was spent on such churches?

🤷
 
At my parish, we’ve just celebrated our church’s one year birthday. Since the building of the beautiful church, the number of attending masses increase 50% - and more new parishioners registered.

Some are drawn to the church by the community, the pastor, the mass; others are drawn to by the beauty of the church - we hope they would be soon drawn to the church by the mass and other things.

God can draw people’s attention by beautiful things He created. In return, these people will follow Christ’s teaching - love God and love people.
 
Newbie2 said:
Yes, but the question remains for some people, couldn’t ***more ***have been given to the poor that was spent on such churches?

🤷
Click to expand...
I had that thought too while reading the replies.

But I also thought about what Jesus said about the expensive oil.

It is a really difficult question I think. Yes, couldn’t have more given to the poor? but then, how much??? Everything that everybody has? And nothing be used for anything else anymore?

Kathrin
 
Kathrin said:
I had that thought too while reading the replies.

But I also thought about what Jesus said about the expensive oil.

It is a really difficult question I think. Yes, couldn’t have more given to the poor? but then, how much???
Kathrin
Click to expand...
Ah, that is the question…😃

Jesus’ quote had to do with him being annointed, not money being spent on the church…but he did acknowledge that the poor will always be with us.
 
Newbie2 said:
Ah, that is the question…😃

Jesus’ quote had to do with him being annointed, not money being spent on the church…but he did acknowledge that the poor will always be with us.
Click to expand...
Jesus’ quote had as much to do as expensive stuff “wasted” on him in the name of the poor, much the same way people complain about money being “wasted” on efforts to dignify Heaven on Earth in the name of the poor, and would rather impoverish us all by depriving us of true liturgical art.
 
We create our churches with beauty because Christ our King lives in the churches in the blessed Eucharist. Negative comments concerning the beauty of the Church are like the disciples complaining about the woman anointing Jesus’ head with costly oil. Jesus desires that we honor Him with our best gifts, not for Him, but for us, so that we realize He is God and we are His creatures. In Matt. 26:10-11, Jesus says we have both a duty to honor God and give to the poor – a balanced life of reverence and charity.
Newbie2 said:
Ah, that is the question…😃

Jesus’ quote had to do with him being annointed, not money being spent on the church…but he did acknowledge that the poor will always be with us.
Click to expand...
Didn’t Jesus also say that He and His Church are ONE?
 
I just thought: Really it all has to do with WHY we do it, rather than WHAT we do.

If we give to the poor and it comes from our heart and we feel that Jesus wants us to do this and not spend that money on something exopensive for a church, then it is good.

If we spend money doing something ebautiful to honor God and it comes from the heart then it is good.

It is not a question of either or.

Because nobody can do everything all the time. Nobody mere human anyway.

Kathrin
 
You bring up an interesting point and maybe this deserves it’s own thread but since I’m not really sure how to phrase it, I’ll touch upon it here.

Suppose somebody does something good for selfish reasons. Maybe a billioniare wants to get good press and builds a homeless shelter. Even though he cares little for the poor, isn’t he still doing good? Does his selfish motives negate the good that he did? If so, that would imply that if he didn’t do it, it would be the same. Yet people are better off because of his actions.

Makes one think, doesn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top