Splendor and glory of the Vatican and Church?

[Thorns]

In the Gospel of St John, it is Judas himself who rebukes the woman with this same logic.
I wouldn’t be to eager to follow the example of Judas in such things.
Moral of the story - worldly people are likely to fixate on price and expense.
But that which is done for the glory of God is truly priceless.

A bottle of high grade perfume comes nowhere near 20 million dollars. Using something special and out of the ordinary for a well respected and loved guest is hospitable, not blinged out and over the top.

From personal experience, I find it difficult to turn my mind to God in a lot of the more modern churches. If I’m standing in a minimalistic building which differs little in appearance from a local community centre then I struggle.
Put me in the Sistine Chapel (to use an extreme example), and I would find it difficult to think of anything other than God and the Heavenly Realm above.

But didn’t you just say this:

Moral of the story - worldly people are likely to fixate on price and expense.

And I agree, which is why I find it ironic and odd that the poor Church would build such lavish buildings.

You, sir, despite your concern for “the poor” are looking at this in a purely materialistic fashion. You seem to have little appreciation for the spiritual needs of people. You assume the “Church” built these lovely worship places. That is not true–the people built them for the most part, out of their hard labor and love. The poorest of the poor want to give their best to God. Just because they may worship in a hovel at the present time does not mean they want to keep it that way. They realize the spiritual value of beauty as a reflection of God, and that brings them closer to God. As they prosper, their churches will get nicer and nicer, and they won’t count the cost. They will not consider themselves deprived, they will consider themselves blessed. And they will pass this on to their children.

Fine materials, wealthy buildings, high expenses that are not needed come off as superficial to me, not as a spiritual necessity.

I feel sorry for a person who wants to sell his birthright. What will happen when all the money is gone? We will still have the poor, because Jesus said we would, but we will have nothing else.

So then it doesn’t really matter if we contribute money to the poor, tithe, or help in any other way, does it? Because even if we feed someone today, they’ll just be hungry again tomorrow. Even if we tithe on Sunday, the next week they’ll just ask again. By your logic, nobody should help because it won’t make a difference anyway?

I wonder what the original poster’s thoughts would be about the Orthodox Church. Even their tiniest churches are usually extremely ornate and extravagant, and yet they never seem to field the same complaints.

That’s just as bad. However, do they make speaking about sympathizing with the poor a high priority and push modesty as much as the Catholic Church? I am sincerely asking because I’ve only ever attended Catholic masses.

The basic economic fact is that there will always be the poor.

The Church has beautiful cathedrals while still helping the poor.

Would it be modest for me to live in a mansion all on my own as long as I help the poor? Or could I live in a single bedroom house and spend the remaining money that would’ve needlessly went into the mansion and fed some people with that?

Thorn, where is this 20 million dollar cathedral, anyway?

Downtown LA.

 

[adawgj]

A bottle of high grade perfume comes nowhere near 20 million dollars. Using something special and out of the ordinary for a well respected and loved guest is hospitable, not blinged out and over the top.

But didn’t you just say this:

And I agree, which is why I find it ironic and odd that the poor Church would build such lavish buildings.

Fine materials, wealthy buildings, high expenses that are not needed come off as superficial to me, not as a spiritual necessity.

So then it doesn’t really matter if we contribute money to the poor, tithe, or help in any other way, does it? Because even if we feed someone today, they’ll just be hungry again tomorrow. Even if we tithe on Sunday, the next week they’ll just ask again. By your logic, nobody should help because it won’t make a difference anyway?

That’s just as bad. However, do they make speaking about sympathizing with the poor a high priority and push modesty as much as the Catholic Church? I am sincerely asking because I’ve only ever attended Catholic masses.

Would it be modest for me to live in a mansion all on my own as long as I help the poor? Or could I live in a single bedroom house and spend the remaining money that would’ve needlessly went into the mansion and fed some people with that?

Downtown LA.

Are you talking about the former protestant Crystal Cathedral?
If it’s modesty that your aiming for then why would you want to live in a mansion?
If you were that wealthy to live in a mansion then you would probably be able to create a charity organization that would help the poor. For example make large investments in helping the poor start there own business.

It really doesn’t matter what house you live in as long as you keep in mind of the poor.

 

[Rolltide]

Another thing to think about (and I’m speaking here as a professional historian). Many of the great churches and cathedrals of the world date to the late Middle Ages / early Renaissance. A cathedral was actually one of the best investments a medieval town could make. Despite their great expense, a large cathedral could take hundreds of years to complete. It could become an industry unto itself. Large cathedrals employed thousands, and generated huge amounts of highly skilled jobs… jobs that were sorely lacking in the period. In other words, rather than “giving a man a fish and feeding him for a day” with charity, they provided jobs and allowed huge sections of society to permanently escape poverty, “teaching them to fish” so to speak. When the cathedral was complete, they would still need to be maintained, so many workmen would still remain. The pilgrims that would come to visit the cathedral needed to be fed, clothed, and housed, and this provided a virtual tourism industry, bringing in much needed revenue to both the church and the community. Churches were also the only medieval centers of learning, and every major university in Europe split off from a cathedral. If you had a cathedral school in your town, opportunities for trade would skyrocket, since learning about math, geography, cartography, astronomy, business, and law was all required by merchants. Further, most towns only even needed to have one large church, since there were no denominations. Everyone was Catholic, so all the effort could go into one splendid building rather than many smaller ones. Almost all medieval cities with a cathedral were FAR better off than their counterparts without them. This is why the cathedral is often called the greatest innovation of the Middle Ages.

 

[Joe_5859]

Does the cathedral really need a coffee shop and ATM on premises? Does that really lend to the idea of either necessity or modesty in any way?

The parishes that have coffee shops do so not for the sake of extravagance but to encourage people in the parish to actually talk to each other. Being the community of believers and the Body of Christ, Catholicism has never been an individualistic faith. It can’t be. Yet in many parishes, people roll in and out for Mass (the public communal worship of the Church) without engaging anyone else along the way. Having such opportunities for fellowship is part of the strategy in some areas to get people talking to each other. It really is related to the mission of the Church: making disciples of all nations. Disciples don’t just punch in an punch out. Disciples socialize with each other and love each other.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thorns has made up her mind. Our Catholic Church doesn’t practice what it preaches, spends too much when it doesn’t spend enough, opulence and lavishness everywhere. Except I live in one of the most wealthiest cities, in the wealthiest country in the world - my town has maybe a handful of decent looking Catholic Churches, which were built 100-200 years ago and costs nothing today but the cost of maintenance and upkeep.

The local non-denominational church here have no standing charitable outreach, no building and meets at a gym once a week - and spends $2000 in rent and items weekly to do so. They have a stage and use a projector, nothing else. In one year, my parish may spend somewhere between $15-25000 on maintenance, bills, and building repair. The cheap non-denominational has already spend $104,000 just on rent and setup with nothing permanent and no outreach.

Of the two, which has actually practiced what they preached?

Did I forget to mention our priest and associates make $14,000+use of car and rectory; their pastor gets $65000+ yearly.

 

[Thorns]

Thorns has made up her mind.

His*. And I haven’t made up my mind, just trying to see things through a different view. The explanations that have been given don’t add up for me.

 

[Thorns]

The parishes that have coffee shops do so not for the sake of extravagance but to encourage people in the parish to actually talk to each other.

It just doesn’t seem right or like the proper place for that. Church isn’t for socializing, it is for worshipping. The money changers thought the temple was a good place to talk to each other too and they felt the full table-flipping wrath of Jesus that day.

 

[Thorns]

Are you talking about the former protestant Crystal Cathedral?

No, Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Downtown LA.

If it’s modesty that your aiming for then why would you want to live in a mansion?

I don’t, I was using an example to make a point. Apparently you see it.

It really doesn’t matter what house you live in as long as you keep in mind of the poor.

Pope Francis would seem to disagree, otherwise he wouldn’t care what kind of car anyone drives so long as we help the poor. Either he jumped to conclusions in his homily that day or he doesn’t approve of needless spending even if you’re helping the poor.

 

[pablope]

To follow Christs immortal words and His recommendation: sell it or give it to the poor.

Want to know whats more inspiring than fine, wondrous art? A Church that leads by example.

And when the “wealth” is sold and given to the poor…and then what?

Which would you thinks is the wiser choice:

a). Sell the wealth, give it to the poor…and it is all gone away once it is distributed

b). Display it for all to see, earn some money from it, invest the money in schools and other means to train the poor to earn a living…and continue on this for time eternity for the future and allow the church to continue doing this

 

[pablope]

It just doesn’t seem right or like the proper place for that. Church isn’t for socializing, it is for worshipping. The money changers thought the temple was a good place to talk to each other too and they felt the full table-flipping wrath of Jesus that day.

The socializing is outside and on the grounds, so do you see anything wrong with that?

You know, Catholics have been criticized by former protestants as not having enough interaction between each other after mass…and I think they do have a point.

 

[Joe_5859]

It just doesn’t seem right or like the proper place for that. Church isn’t for socializing, it is for worshipping. The money changers thought the temple was a good place to talk to each other too and they felt the full table-flipping wrath of Jesus that day.

If they put an espresso machine in the sanctuary, I would agree with you. But many, many parishes have social gathering spaces (like Church halls). It’s good to have spaces where the people of the parish can congregate besides the main body of the Church where worship takes place.

Jesus flipped the tables because the money changers set up shop in the only portion of the Temple where Gentiles were allowed to pray. It was interfering with their worship. A coffee shop in the parish hall does not do that.

 

[Sirach2]

Jesus flipped the tables because the money changers set up shop in the only portion of the Temple where Gentiles were allowed to pray. It was interfering with their worship. A coffee shop in the parish hall does not do that.

I have always appreciated the commentaries by William Barclay of John’s gospel, since he knew a great deal about Jewish culture. This excerpt explains why Jesus was so intolerant of the money-changers’ injustice.

So in the temple courts there sat the money-changers. If their trade had been straightforward, they would have been fulfilling an honest and a necessary purpose. But what they did was to charge one mu’ah, a coin worth about 1p for every shekel they changed and to charge another mu’ah on every half shekel of change they had to give if a larger coin was tendered. So if a Jew came with a coin the value of which was 2 shekels, he had to pay 1p to get it changed and the other 3p to get his change of three half-shekels. In other words, the money-changers made 4p out of him – and that, remember, was one day’s wage.

What enraged Jesus was that the pilgrims to the Passover who could ill afford it, were being fleeced at an exorbitant rate. It was a rampant and shameless social injustice – all in the name of religion!

Besides the money-changers there were also the sellers of oxen and sheep and doves. The law was that any animal offered in sacrifice must be perfect and unblemished. The temple authorities had appointed inspectors to examine the victims which were to be offered and charged a fee for inspection of 1p. If a worshipper bought a victim outside the temple, it was to all intents and purposes certain that it would be rejected after examination. A pair of doves could cost as little as 4p outside the temple and as much as 75p inside. We find bare-faced extortion at the expense of poor and humble pilgrims who were practically** blackmailed into buying their victims from the temple booths**, if they wished to sacrifice at all.

So, Thorns, you have a wrongful understanding of the money-changers and are rather out of place by trying to use that analogy here.

 

[Thorns]

And when the “wealth” is sold and given to the poor…and then what?

Which would you thinks is the wiser choice:

a). Sell the wealth, give it to the poor…and it is all gone away once it is distributed

b). Display it for all to see, earn some money from it, invest the money in schools and other means to train the poor to earn a living…and continue on this for time eternity for the future and allow the church to continue doing this

No doubt it would have to be A. B makes sense, but in a worldly sense. The Church is not of the world, only in it.

 

[Thorns]

The socializing is outside and on the grounds, so do you see anything wrong with that?

You know, Catholics have been criticized by former protestants as not having enough interaction between each other after mass…and I think they do have a point.

Since when do we start taking Protestants’ opinions on Catholic form seriously? It seems you’re picking and choosing which opinions of theirs you want to give weight to.

 

[Thorns]

If they put an espresso machine in the sanctuary, I would agree with you. But many, many parishes have social gathering spaces (like Church halls). It’s good to have spaces where the people of the parish can congregate besides the main body of the Church where worship takes place.

It’s not in the parish hall and it isn’t free either. To my knowledge, anyone can walk onto the premises and purchase a coffee and walk away. That is a business.

 

[pablope]

Since when do we start taking Protestants’ opinions on Catholic form seriously? It seems you’re picking and choosing which opinions of theirs you want to give weight to.

I said former protestants, not protestants. These former protestants are now catholics and who see value in having social interaction with fellow catholics.

Do you see value or no value in this?

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by pablope View Post
And when the “wealth” is sold and given to the poor…and then what?

Which would you thinks is the wiser choice:

a). Sell the wealth, give it to the poor…and it is all gone away once it is distributed

b). Display it for all to see, earn some money from it, invest the money in schools and other means to train the poor to earn a living…and continue on this for time eternity for the future and allow the church to continue doing this

No doubt it would have to be A. B makes sense, but in a worldly sense. The Church is not of the world, only in it.

Okay, after you do A…they dispense the money and become poor again…so who would help the poor after that?

And what is the mission of the Church…to help those in this world or those out of this world?

And since the Church is in the world…would it make sense to help the poor today and those of in the future? Or only help those poor today, in your time, and not help in the future?

 

[Thorns]

Okay, after you do A…they dispense the money and become poor again…so who would help the poor after that?

Then as a community we pool our money together to help the poor, not build more glamour and cathedrals.

 

[pablope]

Then as a community we pool our money together to help the poor, not build more glamour and cathedrals.

So it is not the church anymore then…somebody has taken over helping the poor.

And if that someone or entity gets frustrated in helping the poor because they remain as such and and see no progress…what do you think that entity will do?

Will it become wise or continue what it has been doing before in a never ending cycle?

And by the way…you did nor respond to this question:

[SIGN]And what is the mission of the Church…to help those in this world or those out of this world?

And since the Church is in the world…would it make sense to help the poor today and those of in the future? Or only help those poor today, in your time, and not help in the future?[/SIGN]

 

[adawgj]

No, Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Downtown LA.

I don’t, I was using an example to make a point. Apparently you see it.

Pope Francis would seem to disagree, otherwise he wouldn’t care what kind of car anyone drives so long as we help the poor. Either he jumped to conclusions in his homily that day or he doesn’t approve of needless spending even if you’re helping the poor.

I was talking about the upper class. From what I heard Pope Francis was talking about clergy owning nice cars. Which I support and it really depends on what you consider to be needless spending.