Humility

[Iotaunum]

My post was too long so I will Post it in 2 parts:

Part 1 -

We have been hearing so much lately in the media about the humility of Pope Francis. He certainly seems to be humble but I think that some people misconstrue this humility and are confused about the humility of the Church in general.

I do not have a problem with anyone saying that Pope Francis is humble – in fact it is great to hear and makes a change from the bad things that some people say about the Popes. However, I do think people are confused with humility in the Church in general. What brings this to my attention is that recently, being newly elected, people have talked to me about their views on the new Pope. They often mention the much talked about humility, but then they will go into an explanation which seems erroneous to me.

One said to me: (paraphrasing) “hopefully the new Pope, being so humble, will sell of the Vatican’s riches and feed the poor now” and another few people mentioned something like this; “the new Pope is so humble that he did not have the big baroque gold cross on the altar that Pope Benedict had when saying Mass, but a small cross on a simple altar”. These two statements I have heard from more than one person, and it annoys me to think that they do not grasp the idea of humility in the Church.

The first idea – that the Church has loads of Money which it is hording while the poor starve – is not new to anyone familiar with anti-Catholic literature. It has been a constant accusation of many protestant sects for years. However, a lot of Catholics have started to believe this themselves. These accusations are not new. If we go back to the time of Luther we find that he accused the Church of the same. So if Luther and those in agreement with him at the time had their way, and the Church sold all of the Paintings, manuscripts, gold reliquaries etc and give the money to the poor then there would be nothing left. The income / donations made from people going to Rome to see the art etc over the centuries would not have come in. Thus, the poor would have a one-off donation and nothing after. In what mind does that make sense? No organisation gives more to charity than the Church.

A Presbyterian minister once made this argument to me saying that Jesus had instructed everyone to give all they had to the poor and yet the Church had enormous wealth. He did not persist any further when I pointed out that the Car he drove was one of the most expensive on the market and his house was like a hotel. It seems people are eager to accuse the Church without taking the logs out of their own eyes. An Anglican (COI) minister one made the same argument to me completely ignoring the fact that the head of his Church – the Queen – had several palaces lined with riches.
Apart from this, there is the fact that the Church in the Vatican has sovereignty which has served to help it over the centuries –perhaps the providence of the Holy Ghost. This has resulted in a powerful presence in other countries and a greater influence. Would the world leaders listen to the Pope or heed him any better if he lived in a tent in Rome with no sovereignty or capital? This issue is completely ignored. The fact is many people hate the Church and want it to have less influence, or are greedy themselves and desire wealth. If all of these people accusing the Church won the lottery, how many would give the money to charity? Besides, most of the Churchs wealth is in priceless items that have value besides their monetary value. Yes, an atheist would be happy to melt down a gold cross containing the relics of martyrs for monetary gain, but the Church values the spiritual price of these items as more than the monetary value of the materials. Thus the Church has a lot of treasures which are not liquid and cannot merely be sold on. They belong to everyone in the Church.

 

[Iotaunum]

Part 2 -

To the second point of humility being identified with the simple altar and small cross etc – I think there is the same type of confusion here. Did Pope Benedict use the Baroque cross and face the High altar out of pride? Surely not. Did the saints insist on gilding Chalices and having Marble altars out of pride? They did not – especially when they themselves lived in cells and wore simple habits. These things are done for the glory of God – not Man. When a chalice is gilded inside it is because God Himself – the body, blood , soul and divinity of the creator of the world becomes present there during the Mass! So don’t go and tell me – “I would be more humble and use a wooden chalice” – OK, use wood at home for your own cutlery, but not for God. If the head of state or a celebrity came to their house they would be dressed in their finery using their best china – and yet they can come to Mass dressed like they are going out for a jog and revel in the fact that they would use a “simple” altar and chalice. Likewise Padre Pio and the other Saints were happy to go to the altar of God in their golden vestments for His glory, while wearing their simple robes at other times.

Remember what God Himself asked for:

Exodus 28:2 –“And thou shalt make a holy vesture for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty…They shall make the holy vestments for thy brother Aaron and his sons, that they may do the office of priesthood unto me. [5] And they shall take gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine linen. …6 And they shall make the ephod of gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine twisted linen, embroidered with divers colours” etc

Where are all the humble people lambasting God for His instruction to use Gold and glorious vestments for his liturgy?

So my point is; humility and “simplicity” in worship are not the same. We could list almost without end the number of saints who said Mass in glorious Churches with gilded vestments – while in private dressing simply and living in a simple residence. The Church and vestments are for the honour and glory of God. Also, when a non-Catholic enters the Mass and sees the Majesty of the altar and vestments they at one realise that something majestic is happening. When they see the “bread” being distributed to people who kneel down and a golden paten is held least on crumb drops – they behold the awe and reverence given and sense that this “bread” is very special. When they see the wooden table and manner in which communion is distributed at protestant services are they led to the same sense of admiration and respect for the Eucharist? Certainly not. I know of one Methodist who converted with her entire family just from witnessing this majestic reverence. No words needed to be spoken. She immediately saw that the Host was the object of our worship.

Regarding Pope Francis – yes he is humble – but don’t equate his more simplistic worship than say Pope Benedict’s with greater humility. Pope Benedict may have been humble, like the Saints, and yet felt he was giving honour and glory to God with a more majestic manner of worship. Most people who know me know that I admire archbishop Lefebvre a lot. He was an example of the same humility. He looked as majestic as any Bishop with golden mitre and High Altar, and yet when he returned to his residence he had a small simple cell and wore a black cassock. We need to learn to separate the honour given to Christ the King and our own personal humility.

 

[Rocky24]

Awesome post! It’s about time something like this got put on the Traditional Catholicism forum. It’s pretty sad to see people leaping around and suggesting that we have to get rid of “trappings” and turn St Peter’s Basilica into some sort of soup kitchen. I think it was Fr Pius, a Dominican priest, who recently said that “to set our duty to serve the poor against the splendor of divine worship is nothing less than to split Christ in two”.
Both of these things are important to the Church. I think Pope Francis is trying to send out the Church’s real Social Teaching, not its distorted marxist interpretation. If you read his first homily you’ll see what I mean.

 

[Joy2day]

Part 2 -

To the second point of humility being identified with the simple altar and small cross etc – I think there is the same type of confusion here. Did Pope Benedict use the Baroque cross and face the High altar out of pride? Surely not. Did the saints insist on gilding Chalices and having Marble altars out of pride? They did not – especially when they themselves lived in cells and wore simple habits. These things are done for the glory of God – not Man. When a chalice is gilded inside it is because God Himself – the body, blood , soul and divinity of the creator of the world becomes present there during the Mass! So don’t go and tell me – “I would be more humble and use a wooden chalice” – OK, use wood at home for your own cutlery, but not for God. If the head of state or a celebrity came to their house they would be dressed in their finery using their best china – and yet they can come to Mass dressed like they are going out for a jog and revel in the fact that they would use a “simple” altar and chalice. Likewise Padre Pio and the other Saints were happy to go to the altar of God in their golden vestments for His glory, while wearing their simple robes at other times.

Remember what God Himself asked for:

Exodus 28:2 –“And thou shalt make a holy vesture for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty…They shall make the holy vestments for thy brother Aaron and his sons, that they may do the office of priesthood unto me. [5] And they shall take gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine linen. …6 And they shall make the ephod of gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine twisted linen, embroidered with divers colours” etc

Where are all the humble people lambasting God for His instruction to use Gold and glorious vestments for his liturgy?

So my point is; humility and “simplicity” in worship are not the same. We could list almost without end the number of saints who said Mass in glorious Churches with gilded vestments – while in private dressing simply and living in a simple residence. The Church and vestments are for the honour and glory of God. Also, when a non-Catholic enters the Mass and sees the Majesty of the altar and vestments they at one realise that something majestic is happening. When they see the “bread” being distributed to people who kneel down and a golden paten is held least on crumb drops – they behold the awe and reverence given and sense that this “bread” is very special. When they see the wooden table and manner in which communion is distributed at protestant services are they led to the same sense of admiration and respect for the Eucharist? Certainly not. I know of one Methodist who converted with her entire family just from witnessing this majestic reverence. No words needed to be spoken. She immediately saw that the Host was the object of our worship.

Regarding Pope Francis – yes he is humble – but don’t equate his more simplistic worship than say Pope Benedict’s with greater humility. Pope Benedict may have been humble, like the Saints, and yet felt he was giving honour and glory to God with a more majestic manner of worship. Most people who know me know that I admire archbishop Lefebvre a lot. He was an example of the same humility. He looked as majestic as any Bishop with golden mitre and High Altar, and yet when he returned to his residence he had a small simple cell and wore a black cassock. We need to learn to separate the honour given to Christ the King and our own personal humility.

Brilliant! Long overdue also.

 

[Hunting4MyHalo]

 

[Lawrence178]

Agreed 100%!

I think I am going to explode if I read another mainstream media report and non-Catholic acquaintances contrasting the “proud, baby hating, cold traditionalist” Benedict with this “hip, new, and humble” Francis. Francis dropped the red shoes, but he is still Catholic in every way that actually matters, so I cannot understand the media’s obsession with him if they hated Benedict so much for the same exact reason.

 

[JReducation]

I think that people get very confused with words such as humility and detachment. Let’s go to detachment first. Catholic spirituality has always taught detachment. Other terms for it have been poverty, evangelical poverty, and poverty of spirit. Let’s take out “poverty of spirit”. That’s not a very good theological term, even though it’s been used. It confuses rather than help.

Detachment/poverty, can best be understood by looking at the master teacher on poverty, St. Francis of Assisi. Just as St. Benedict is the master teacher on obedience, St. Francis is the master teacher on poverty. Poverty is very complex. Poverty begins with the disposal of all material things that interfere between God and us; however, it does not end there. Poverty must also banish from our lives persons, places and attitudes that interfere between us and God. The greatest violation of poverty is our personal opinions. We hold on to them as a treasure. Very often, they are really expressions of our pride and not very helpful to anyone. We need to sort through them and keep those that are helpful in reaching holiness and distance ourselves from those that do not serve that purpose. This is very difficult.

If we look at St. Francis and the Church of his time, we notice a great contrast. Francis was materially poor. The Church was extremely wealthy. Francis was a man of peace. The hierarchy was not. Francis was a preacher with word and example, more with example than with words. Sad to say, the clergy and bishops of his time said very little by their example. Francis was very much in love with Christ. The Catholics of his time were too busy in conflicts with each other to show much love for anyone. I can go on like this, but I think you get the idea. True poverty is living in the presence of God without attachments to that which is not God or does not lead to God.

What we notice was lacking in Francis’ life was the criticism of the Church. He saw the sins of the clergy and the religious of his time. We know this because of the letters that he wrote to his brothers admonishing them against such sins and flaws. However, he never criticized religious, priests, bishops or popes, because such criticism does not lead to God. Such criticism is only a form of self-love. This was the opposite of humility. Francis once said, “I am what I am before God . . . nothing else.” That’s humility. It’s looking at one’s soul and seeing what God sees. But if one is too busy looking at the other, it’s hard to pay attention to one’s own need for conversion.

People don’t understand the real meaning of humility and poverty. They make suggestions such as selling the Vatican to the highest bidder. Such an act would not be an expression of poverty unless it served God’s purpose in some way.

Comparing Pope Benedict and Pope Francis is one of the most useless exercises. These are two very different men who come from very different worlds. Their life experiences are very different. Their experience as priests has been different. Even their formation has been different. I’m not speaking about their academic education. Actually, they have the same academic degrees. However, Pope Benedict was formed to be a priest. Pope Francis was formed to be a religious first and then a priest. He has a religious formation that Pope Benedict does not have. This religious formation defines parameters that he must observe when living the Gospel. A secular priest is not bound by those parameters. The comparison is not fair. You can’t say that one is better than another when you’re speaking about two very different subjects. Each is what it is. We must appreciate the gift that each of them is to the Church.

 

[HoosMommie]

So then, when all the treasures have been sold and the poor have been fed, then what? There will still be the poor who must be fed but nothing left to give them.

 

[Megan7]

My post was too long so I will Post it in 2 parts:

Part 1 -

We have been hearing so much lately in the media about the humility of Pope Francis. He certainly seems to be humble but I think that some people misconstrue this humility and are confused about the humility of the Church in general.

I do not have a problem with anyone saying that Pope Francis is humble – in fact it is great to hear and makes a change from the bad things that some people say about the Popes. However, I do think people are confused with humility in the Church in general. What brings this to my attention is that recently, being newly elected, people have talked to me about their views on the new Pope. They often mention the much talked about humility, but then they will go into an explanation which seems erroneous to me.

One said to me: (paraphrasing) “hopefully the new Pope, being so humble, will sell of the Vatican’s riches and feed the poor now” and another few people mentioned something like this; “the new Pope is so humble that he did not have the big baroque gold cross on the altar that Pope Benedict had when saying Mass, but a small cross on a simple altar”. These two statements I have heard from more than one person, and it annoys me to think that they do not grasp the idea of humility in the Church.

The first idea – that the Church has loads of Money which it is hording while the poor starve – is not new to anyone familiar with anti-Catholic literature. It has been a constant accusation of many protestant sects for years. However, a lot of Catholics have started to believe this themselves. These accusations are not new. If we go back to the time of Luther we find that he accused the Church of the same. So if Luther and those in agreement with him at the time had their way, and the Church sold all of the Paintings, manuscripts, gold reliquaries etc and give the money to the poor then there would be nothing left. The income / donations made from people going to Rome to see the art etc over the centuries would not have come in. Thus, the poor would have a one-off donation and nothing after. In what mind does that make sense? No organisation gives more to charity than the Church.

A Presbyterian minister once made this argument to me saying that Jesus had instructed everyone to give all they had to the poor and yet the Church had enormous wealth. He did not persist any further when I pointed out that the Car he drove was one of the most expensive on the market and his house was like a hotel. It seems people are eager to accuse the Church without taking the logs out of their own eyes. An Anglican (COI) minister one made the same argument to me completely ignoring the fact that the head of his Church – the Queen – had several palaces lined with riches.
Apart from this, there is the fact that the Church in the Vatican has sovereignty which has served to help it over the centuries –perhaps the providence of the Holy Ghost. This has resulted in a powerful presence in other countries and a greater influence. Would the world leaders listen to the Pope or heed him any better if he lived in a tent in Rome with no sovereignty or capital? This issue is completely ignored. The fact is many people hate the Church and want it to have less influence, or are greedy themselves and desire wealth. If all of these people accusing the Church won the lottery, how many would give the money to charity? Besides, most of the Churchs wealth is in priceless items that have value besides their monetary value. Yes, an atheist would be happy to melt down a gold cross containing the relics of martyrs for monetary gain, but the Church values the spiritual price of these items as more than the monetary value of the materials. Thus the Church has a lot of treasures which are not liquid and cannot merely be sold on. They belong to everyone in the Church.

Subscribing to thread, thanks

 

[Rich_C]

Brilliant! Long overdue also.

+1

I was thinking about this at Mass the other day. When father processes pass before and after High Mass everyone bows to him, but getting rid of actions like this wouldn’t point to the humility of the priest, because these actions don’t honor the priest but Christ who acts through the priest. To strip away “trapping” would just be stripping away honors from Our Lord.

 

[Megan7]

Part 2 -

To the second point of humility being identified with the simple altar and small cross etc – I think there is the same type of confusion here. Did Pope Benedict use the Baroque cross and face the High altar out of pride? Surely not. Did the saints insist on gilding Chalices and having Marble altars out of pride? They did not – especially when they themselves lived in cells and wore simple habits. These things are done for the glory of God – not Man. When a chalice is gilded inside it is because God Himself – the body, blood , soul and divinity of the creator of the world becomes present there during the Mass! So don’t go and tell me – “I would be more humble and use a wooden chalice” – OK, use wood at home for your own cutlery, but not for God. If the head of state or a celebrity came to their house they would be dressed in their finery using their best china – and yet they can come to Mass dressed like they are going out for a jog and revel in the fact that they would use a “simple” altar and chalice. Likewise Padre Pio and the other Saints were happy to go to the altar of God in their golden vestments for His glory, while wearing their simple robes at other times.

Remember what God Himself asked for:

Exodus 28:2 –“And thou shalt make a holy vesture for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty…They shall make the holy vestments for thy brother Aaron and his sons, that they may do the office of priesthood unto me. [5] And they shall take gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine linen. …6 And they shall make the ephod of gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine twisted linen, embroidered with divers colours” etc

Where are all the humble people lambasting God for His instruction to use Gold and glorious vestments for his liturgy?

So my point is; humility and “simplicity” in worship are not the same. We could list almost without end the number of saints who said Mass in glorious Churches with gilded vestments – while in private dressing simply and living in a simple residence. The Church and vestments are for the honour and glory of God. Also, when a non-Catholic enters the Mass and sees the Majesty of the altar and vestments they at one realise that something majestic is happening. When they see the “bread” being distributed to people who kneel down and a golden paten is held least on crumb drops – they behold the awe and reverence given and sense that this “bread” is very special. When they see the wooden table and manner in which communion is distributed at protestant services are they led to the same sense of admiration and respect for the Eucharist? Certainly not. I know of one Methodist who converted with her entire family just from witnessing this majestic reverence. No words needed to be spoken. She immediately saw that the Host was the object of our worship.

Regarding Pope Francis – yes he is humble – but don’t equate his more simplistic worship than say Pope Benedict’s with greater humility. Pope Benedict may have been humble, like the Saints, and yet felt he was giving honour and glory to God with a more majestic manner of worship. Most people who know me know that I admire archbishop Lefebvre a lot. He was an example of the same humility. He looked as majestic as any Bishop with golden mitre and High Altar, and yet when he returned to his residence he had a small simple cell and wore a black cassock. We need to learn to separate the honour given to Christ the King and our own personal humility.

Thank you

 

[Rosebud77]

So then, when all the treasures have been sold and the poor have been fed, then what? There will still be the poor who must be fed but nothing left to give them.

Then the hungry will have been fed whereas now they go hungry

Better far to feed and give to all who are hungry now… have you ever been starving, bitter cold…“lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven…”

Soup kitchens are holy places. Holier than all art

Needful places. Caring places. Not like cold metal and staring faces on paintings.

 

[Rosebud77]

I think that people get very confused with words such as humility and detachment. Let’s go to detachment first. Catholic spirituality has always taught detachment. Other terms for it have been poverty, evangelical poverty, and poverty of spirit. Let’s take out “poverty of spirit”. That’s not a very good theological term, even though it’s been used. It confuses rather than help.

Detachment/poverty, can best be understood by looking at the master teacher on poverty, St. Francis of Assisi. Just as St. Benedict is the master teacher on obedience, St. Francis is the master teacher on poverty. Poverty is very complex. Poverty begins with the disposal of all material things that interfere between God and us; however, it does not end there. Poverty must also banish from our lives persons, places and attitudes that interfere between us and God. The greatest violation of poverty is our personal opinions. We hold on to them as a treasure. Very often, they are really expressions of our pride and not very helpful to anyone. We need to sort through them and keep those that are helpful in reaching holiness and distance ourselves from those that do not serve that purpose. This is very difficult.

If we look at St. Francis and the Church of his time, we notice a great contrast. Francis was materially poor. The Church was extremely wealthy. Francis was a man of peace. The hierarchy was not. Francis was a preacher with word and example, more with example than with words. Sad to say, the clergy and bishops of his time said very little by their example. Francis was very much in love with Christ. The Catholics of his time were too busy in conflicts with each other to show much love for anyone. I can go on like this, but I think you get the idea. True poverty is living in the presence of God without attachments to that which is not God or does not lead to God.

What we notice was lacking in Francis’ life was the criticism of the Church. He saw the sins of the clergy and the religious of his time. We know this because of the letters that he wrote to his brothers admonishing them against such sins and flaws. However, he never criticized religious, priests, bishops or popes, because such criticism does not lead to God. Such criticism is only a form of self-love. This was the opposite of humility. Francis once said, “I am what I am before God . . . nothing else.” That’s humility. It’s looking at one’s soul and seeing what God sees. But if one is too busy looking at the other, it’s hard to pay attention to one’s own need for conversion.

**People don’t understand the real meaning of humility and poverty. They make suggestions such as selling the Vatican to the highest bidder. Such an act would not be an expression of poverty unless it served God’s purpose in some way. **Comparing Pope Benedict and Pope Francis is one of the most useless exercises. These are two very different men who come from very different worlds. Their life experiences are very different. Their experience as priests has been different. Even their formation has been different. I’m not speaking about their academic education. Actually, they have the same academic degrees. However, Pope Benedict was formed to be a priest. Pope Francis was formed to be a religious first and then a priest. He has a religious formation that Pope Benedict does not have. This religious formation defines parameters that he must observe when living the Gospel. A secular priest is not bound by those parameters. The comparison is not fair. You can’t say that one is better than another when you’re speaking about two very different subjects. Each is what it is. We must appreciate the gift that each of them is to the Church.

It seems that the lack of understanding is yours here.

Poverty is very simple indeed. Not as you try to make it out to be so cleverly! You need maybe to learn from your own words.

here in Ireland the remnant of the orders live in luxury and comfort while familes go homeless and the worst are the so-called Fanciscans.

 

[Rosebud77]

My post was too long so I will Post it in 2 parts:

Part 1 -

We have been hearing so much lately in the media about the humility of Pope Francis. He certainly seems to be humble but I think that some people misconstrue this humility and are confused about the humility of the Church in general.

I do not have a problem with anyone saying that Pope Francis is humble – in fact it is great to hear and makes a change from the bad things that some people say about the Popes. However, I do think people are confused with humility in the Church in general. What brings this to my attention is that recently, being newly elected, people have talked to me about their views on the new Pope. They often mention the much talked about humility, but then they will go into an explanation which seems erroneous to me.

One said to me: (paraphrasing) “hopefully the new Pope, being so humble, will sell of the Vatican’s riches and feed the poor now” and another few people mentioned something like this; “the new Pope is so humble that he did not have the big baroque gold cross on the altar that Pope Benedict had when saying Mass, but a small cross on a simple altar”. These two statements I have heard from more than one person, and it annoys me to think that they do not grasp the idea of humility in the Church.

The first idea – that the Church has loads of Money which it is hording while the poor starve – is not new to anyone familiar with anti-Catholic literature. It has been a constant accusation of many protestant sects for years. However, a lot of Catholics have started to believe this themselves. These accusations are not new. If we go back to the time of Luther we find that he accused the Church of the same. So if Luther and those in agreement with him at the time had their way, and the Church sold all of the Paintings, manuscripts, gold reliquaries etc and give the money to the poor then there would be nothing left. The income / donations made from people going to Rome to see the art etc over the centuries would not have come in. Thus, the poor would have a one-off donation and nothing after. In what mind does that make sense? **No organisation gives more to charity than the Church. **A Presbyterian minister once made this argument to me saying that Jesus had instructed everyone to give all they had to the poor and yet the Church had enormous wealth. He did not persist any further when I pointed out that the Car he drove was one of the most expensive on the market and his house was like a hotel. It seems people are eager to accuse the Church without taking the logs out of their own eyes. An Anglican (COI) minister one made the same argument to me completely ignoring the fact that the head of his Church – the Queen – had several palaces lined with riches.
Apart from this, there is the fact that the Church in the Vatican has sovereignty which has served to help it over the centuries –perhaps the providence of the Holy Ghost. This has resulted in a powerful presence in other countries and a greater influence. Would the world leaders listen to the Pope or heed him any better if he lived in a tent in Rome with no sovereignty or capital? This issue is completely ignored. The fact is many people hate the Church and want it to have less influence, or are greedy themselves and desire wealth. If all of these people accusing the Church won the lottery, how many would give the money to charity? Besides, most of the Churchs wealth is in priceless items that have value besides their monetary value. Yes, an atheist would be happy to melt down a gold cross containing the relics of martyrs for monetary gain, but the Church values the spiritual price of these items as more than the monetary value of the materials. Thus the Church has a lot of treasures which are not liquid and cannot merely be sold on. They belong to everyone in the Church.

See bold; not true.

This post concerns greatly as the split between spirituality and life grows into a deep chasm.
I do not share your ideas in any way.

These ideas drive more away from the Church than many others.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

See bold; **not true. **

This post concerns greatly as the split between spirituality and life grows into a deep chasm.
I do not share your ideas in any way.

These ideas drive more away from the Church than many others.

Source please.

 

[Heliotropium]

When faced with this type of discussion I simply respond; the only Apostle that complained about how much money was being spent on the worship of God, was Judas. This usually puts things into perspective for them. The worldy minded know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
.

 

[Iotaunum]

See bold; not true.

This post concerns greatly as the split between spirituality and life grows into a deep chasm.
I do not share your ideas in any way.

These ideas drive more away from the Church than many others.

You say “not true” and yet you offer no explanation as to why. If the Catholic Church has not given more to charity in its history, then name one other organisation which has given more than the Church. Saying “not true” alone is no argument.

You say; “These ideas drive more away from the Church than many others” – well they should not. I work hard for my money, but even if I was poor and begging on the street I would still want the Chalice which holds the precious blood to be gilded and I would not start melting down reliquaries which hold the remains of the saints. If there is one thing which should drive people away from any Church it is the Truth. If the Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, then you should not care what Churchmen are doing, saints or sinners. If you leave the Church because of things like this then you do not understand what faith is. If Catholicism is True, then you don’t leave the Church – period. I am in Ireland. I know the situation here, but there is a great apostasy and people are seeking any excuse to leave a Church which does not accommodate their modern lives. If someone is drove away from their Church it is their own doing. I have seen the state of the so-called “religious” here and the clergy – and yet I will not leave the Church or give up my faith till my dying breath for one reason alone: It is the Truth. We find ourselves saying with the apostles: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” I know people who claim to have left the Church because of this or that reason. Look at those who stop practicing their faith because of the Priests who abused Children. They have no excuse. Has Christ ordered this abomination? No. The Church condemns this.

You also seem to have misunderstood Brother JR in his post about poverty being about more than material wealth. This is true. Some of the poorest people on earth can also be the greediest. Being poor in material wealth is not a virtue if it is forced upon one who has the wrong disposition and is not poor in spirit. We often think pride affects only the wealthy and those who swan around in expensive clothing and cars etc, when those who have very little can also be filled with pride and just as sinful. This is something we learn from our Lord in the Gospels.
Brother also made the point that selling possessions “would not be an expression of poverty unless it served God’s purpose in some way” – which relates to what I was saying above. We cannot reduce the spirit of poverty to a calculation of material wealth. Do you think the saints who tended the poor on the streets and had only one set of plain garments to their names were crying out; “melt down all the chalices and patens”. No they were not.

 

[JReducation]

It seems that the lack of understanding is yours here.

Poverty is very simple indeed. Not as you try to make it out to be so cleverly! You need maybe to learn from your own words.

here in Ireland the remnant of the orders live in luxury and comfort while familes go homeless and the worst are the so-called Fanciscans.

Thank God that I don’t live in Ireland. Where I live Franciscans are very poor. In my own community we share bedrooms, because we cannot afford to rent a bigger house. We share one car between 13 of us, an old one I might add.

There are days when we have very little to eat, because we provide material support to every poor man and woman in a crisis pregnancy until the infant is 12 moths old. Sometimes, we go longer, if the parent can’t find employment.

Up north, the Franciscans of the Renewal don’t have a proper chapel, because they make no money. They barely get enough to eat. They don’t have enough to own cars, computers, have internet or libraries.

Just a two years ago, two Franciscans were assigned to Nicaragua. There was not . enough money to fly them there. They hitch hiked from Boston, MA to Nicaragua.

In Irondale, the Franciscans of the Eternal Word hold full-time jobs at EWTN in order to feed themselves. Like other poor men in our country, if they don’t work, they don’t eat. What they’re paid is a fraction of what the lay staff are paid and no benefits.

I’m sorry to hear that Franciscan renewal has not reached you yet. It’s alive and well in the USA. Our increasing numbers is the best sign. I will continue to believe that evangelical poverty is not about economics. It’s about God, not an easy thing to understand.