Splendor and glory of the Vatican and Church?

[Tantum_ergo]

It’s a pity that we have been (in the US) so infected by the idea that simplicity means cheap, ugly, and minimalist that we think something beautiful is ‘extravagant’ and ‘lavish’.

Catholicism is not ‘just’ simple. It is nuanced.

Yes, we are called to live ‘within our means’, but Joseph of Arimathea did not sell everything he had in order to ‘be simple and humble’. He used his wealth not only to help the poor through donations and providing work, he also used it to KEEP ON MAKING WEALTH so that he could keep on serving the poor.

And serving the poor doesn’t just mean feeding their bodies. Souls need to be fed too.

And finally, it is actually IMO disrespectful to the poor to insinuate or imply that ‘lavish cathedrals’ aren’t worthwhile to them, as though the poor are ONLY CONCERNED about having food. As though there is some big contest around, and any time somebody puts in a stained glass window in a church instead of cheap glass or even NO glass, that person is somehow 'taking food away from the poor by LAVISH non essential treatment!"

 

[jilly4ski]

Where is such a mandate given?

In the General Instruction of the Roman Missal

I. General Principles

1. For the celebration of the Eucharist, the People of God are normally gathered together in a church or, if there is no church or if it is too small, then in another respectable place that is nonetheless worthy of so great a mystery. Therefore, churches or other places should be suitable for carrying out the sacred action and for ensuring the active participation of the faithful. Moreover, sacred buildings and requisites for divine worship should be truly worthy and beautiful and be signs and symbols of heavenly realities.[107]

1. Consequently, the Church constantly seeks the noble assistance of the arts and admits the artistic expressions of all peoples and regions.[108] In fact, just as she is intent on preserving the works of art and the artistic treasures handed down from past centuries[109] and, in so far as necessary, on adapting them to new needs, so also she strives to promote new works of art that are in harmony with the character of each successive age.[110]

1. Likewise, either on the altar or near it, there is to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, a cross clearly visible to the assembled people. It is desirable that such a cross should remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations, so as to call to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord.

1. Sacred vessels should be made from** precious metal**. If they are made from metal that rusts or from a metal less precious than gold, they should generally be gilded on the inside.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/

 

[Tantum_ergo]

oh well. That is so much the attitude of modern society. Everything to do with SEX is ‘fifty shades of gray’. . .it is so complex; it is developing, it is not set in stone, and what is right for YOU might not be right for ME, yadda yadda.

But when it comes to MONEY in the Church, everything is black and white, and the ONLY use for ‘wealth’ in the Church is to FEED. THE. POOR. Any other use is EXCESSIVE! LAVISH! UNCHRISTIAN!

 

[godisgood77]

Yes he did.

He established governance and hierarchy in Peter and the Apostles. He commanded them to teach and that means writing as well as oral teaching. He commanded them to baptize and that requires a place to baptize. Acts of the Apostles shows the kingdom in action when the followers sold their possessions and laid them at the Apostles feet. Paul took up collections for the support of the Church. It’s all in Acts of the Apostles.

It is not realistic to think that the mission of the Church does not require infrastructure. The idea of the Church as wholly spiritual is not consistent with what we read in Acts of the Apostles.

-Tim-

.
-Tim-

I think you are missing his point, Tim. He is talking about opulence, not infrastructure. I don’t think anyone is asserting that a structure is not required. Instead, what is being suggested is that the infrastructure should be humble and the investments should be focus on essentials, not extras. By extras, I would suggest that simple elegance is the way to go as opposed to ornate and expensive to maintain…that is a stylistic preference. I know many prefer a different type of beauty than I however…

 

[Thorns]

But when it comes to MONEY in the Church, everything is black and white, and the ONLY use for ‘wealth’ in the Church is to FEED. THE. POOR. Any other use is EXCESSIVE! LAVISH! UNCHRISTIAN!

The Church firmly preaches with a loud voice that we all must help the poor, live modest lives, detach ourselves from materialism. When to the average joe, their actions and properties seem to contradict their preachings, something doesn’t seem to add up and so they put the spotlight on themselves and people seem to harp on it. Other materialistic people in society openly admit to loving their lives of luxury and excess, but they don’t necessarily preach to help the poor (even though some do). So why is it not okay for celebs and regular folks to live it up, but the Church can have big things?

Revelation 21 “he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It has the glory of God and a radiance like a very rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It has a great, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites; 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.15 The angel[g] who talked to me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city and its gates and walls. 16 The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width; and he measured the city with his rod, fifteen hundred miles;[h] its length and width and height are equal. 17 He also measured its wall, one hundred forty-four cubits* by human measurement, which the angel was using. 18 The wall is built of jasper, while the city is pure gold*, clear as glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city are adorned with every jewel; the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates are twelve pearls, each of the gates is a single pearl, and the street of the city is pure gold, transparent as glass.”

Allegory.
SyroMalankara;12073800:

Most restaurants, stores, grocers and public sidewalks have ATMs - it doesn’t evoke the concept of opulence to me, only convenience.

All of these places that you mentioned don’t preach to help the poor.

 

[Thorns]

Yes, we are called to live ‘within our means’, but Joseph of Arimathea did not sell everything he had in order to ‘be simple and humble’. He used his wealth not only to help the poor through donations and providing work, he also used it to KEEP ON MAKING WEALTH so that he could keep on serving the poor.

It appears that the Church doesn’t spend it wealth wisely to re-spend it back on the poor. It appears that the Church spends it on 20 million dollar cathedrals.

And finally, it is actually IMO disrespectful to the poor to insinuate or imply that ‘lavish cathedrals’ aren’t worthwhile to them, as though the poor are ONLY CONCERNED about having food.

I can assure you that people who are forced to drink contaminated water in Africa, who are potbellied and malnourished could care the slightest about splendor and glory in the U.S. and in other parts of the world and I do assert that their primary wants and needs are for the most basic necessities: food and water.

everybody focuses on ‘million dollar’ price tages and seems to forget the fact that what with having to have places built to code (handicap accessibility, etc), and the cost of MATERIALS and LABOR skyrocketing, a million dollar CATHEDRAL isn’t really all that costly.

Only we’re not talking about a million dollars, but 18-20 million dollars. Marble floors have nothing to do with necessity.

 

[davidv]

It appears that the Church doesn’t spend it wealth wisely to re-spend it back on the poor. It appears that the Church spends it on 20 million dollar cathedrals.

I can assure you that people who are forced to drink contaminated water in Africa, who are potbellied and malnourished could care the slightest about splendor and glory in the U.S. and in other parts of the world and I do assert that their primary wants and needs are for the most basic necessities: food and water.

Only we’re not talking about a million dollars, but 18-20 million dollars. Marble floors have nothing to do with necessity.

Why are you envious of the treasures of the Church? Why should poor be forced to worship in in dingy tent, when the community can provide something suitable for the worship of a king.

 

[Thorns]

Why are you envious of the treasures of the Church? Why should poor be forced to worship in in dingy tent, when the community can provide something suitable for the worship of a king.

I am not envious of the Church in the least. I am just putting it out there and questioning the reasoning behind such excess.

Where people worship God, what it looks like, is not the point. The point is the teachings. If people go to mass because of the architecture and the art, they’re there for the wrong reasons.

Btw, the appearance of immodesty and richness actually turns a lot of people off (especially for the poor people because they feel “out of place”), and so the poor actually don’t wish to worship at all. This is counter productive.

Also, for all the preachings that instruct us to sympathize with the poorest of the poor, hearing news stories about cardinals wishing to spend retirement in a four story penthouse, for example, doesn’t really seem like sympathizing with the poorest of the poor. Do four story pent houses also indicate splendor and glory for God? Are they even the House of God? Obviously the answer is no. What’s up with all of that?

EDIT:

Just out of curiosity as a side question, IF the Church/local parish was a dingy, dirty tent would people stop going because of that?

 

[jilly4ski]

Btw, the appearance of immodesty and richness actually turns a lot of people off (especially for the poor people because they feel “out of place”), and so the poor actually don’t wish to worship at all. This is counter productive.

I asked you once not to put words and ideas into the mouths of the poor. I even gave examples of the poor building the great Cathedrals of Europe, and even myself who is poor but still contributes what I can to expensive liturgical music. In all the downtown Cathedrals there is always a large congregation of poorer people, since that is where they live. Heck in my own town there is a gorgeous Church with its marble altar still intact, and yes the flooring of the sanctuary is marble (though the nave is regular old flooring). Do you know who built this Church. Poor German immigrants in 1887. What benefit is it to the poor to rip out their marble floor?

 

[Cathain]

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.

*While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”

Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.*” - **Matthew 26:6-13 **

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.

 

[Cathain]

Just out of curiosity as a side question, IF the Church/local parish was a dingy, dirty tent would people stop going because of that?

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.

Human nature, my friend.
As Jesus said, we’ll always have the poor with us.
Selling all the Church’s possessions wouldn’t change that - the rich would simply hoard it for themselves. But so long as it doesn’t impoverish people then no expense should be spared for the spiritual welfare of the people, which surely is of the greatest importance.

 

[Sarcelle]

Why do we see such multimillion dollar cathedrals and wealth in the Church? I understand these things inspire awe and devotion and about “giving good gifts” (which is in far excess of just being “good”), but these things seem to be in direct opposition of Christ and His mission. Christ never cared to establish a material kingdom on earth, He chose to be born in a stable out of humility, spent His time with the low end of society, touched lepers, told the rich man to give up all he had to the poor, chose lowly fishmerment to be His apostles etc. How do you reconcile the two ideas?

You know you can always go to the Vatican and tell them that they are doing it all wrong. Tell them to sell all of the Vatican and all of the art treasures.

Sell all the churches of the world too. We could always meet in our private homes as the early Christians did.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I am not envious of the Church in the least. I am just putting it out there and questioning the reasoning behind such excess.

Where people worship God, what it looks like, is not the point. The point is the teachings. If people go to mass because of the architecture and the art, they’re there for the wrong reasons.

Btw, the appearance of immodesty and richness actually turns a lot of people off (especially for the poor people because they feel “out of place”), and so the poor actually don’t wish to worship at all. This is counter productive.

Also, for all the preachings that instruct us to sympathize with the poorest of the poor, hearing news stories about cardinals wishing to spend retirement in a four story penthouse, for example, doesn’t really seem like sympathizing with the poorest of the poor. Do four story pent houses also indicate splendor and glory for God? Are they even the House of God? Obviously the answer is no. What’s up with all of that?

EDIT:

Just out of curiosity as a side question, IF the Church/local parish was a dingy, dirty tent would people stop going because of that?

People would not stop going, but they would do their best to pool their money and build a nice place to worship God in. This is what they have done for thousands of years. What you
fail to understand is that these churches were built willingly by the parishoners for the glory of God. I grew up in a poor immigrant Italian neighborhood. The people who built the parish church were poor, yet they built a beautiful church with magnificent artwork, stained glass windows, lovely gold chalices, etc. They did not feel deprived doing this–they wanted to do this, and even labored on it themselves. They wanted to glorify God, and they did it with the labor of their hands and with their hard-earned money. They did not consider themselves deprived because of having done so.

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.

I am proud of the Catholic church. She has preserved the spiritual and artistic heritage of billions of people for all to enjoy. And she is the absolute largest contributor to charity on earth, doing more to feed, shelter, educate and clothe people and meet their medical needs than any institution on earth. I am very proud, not ashamed, to be a Catholic.

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.

 

[Rolltide]

*While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”

Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.*” - **Matthew 26:6-13 **

I was waiting for someone to bring this up, since it’s the relevant Biblical quote. It’s also important to note that the Jewish Temple was magnificently adorned. The original temple was so expensive that it took up much of Jerusalem’s budget just to build it. Even by the standards of grand buildings of the era, it was considered lavish. And yet… Jesus worshiped there, and had no problem worshiping there. In fact, one of the only times we ever see Jesus get angry in the Bible is when he flips over the tables of the moneylenders, who are defiling the Temple. The Mass revolves around the five senses, and we use ALL of them in worship. We taste and touch the Body and Blood of Christ in Communion. We hear the Word of God, and use our voices to sing. We smell the incense. We also visually see the stories of God painted, sculpted, and preserved in stained glass. We put all of this together to present a mystical foretaste of heaven.

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.

 

[Robyn_p]

I wanted to address a comment that Thorns has made several times in this thread: that Jesus would be ashamed to see ornate churches built for him. On the one hand, if the Church really was neglecting the poor by building these churches, you would be right. But that’s nowhere near the case. The Church has the largest charitable outreach of any institution, even with all those fancy churches. Thousands of priests and nuns renounce everything to serve the poor, and wherever people are in need, I guarantee you’ll find a Catholic organization there helping them. So it’s not a case of either help the poor, or have nice churches. Catholicism demonstrates you can do both without compromising.

But further, it’s simply not true that Jesus always objects to using riches to glorify Him. Do you remember the story of the woman who anointed Jesus with expensive ointment? What some of the disciples said sounds a lot like this thread, “Why this waste? This ointment could have been sold for three hundred days wages and given to the poor.” (Mk 14:5) This woman used her riches to honor Jesus, which is exactly what those ornate churches are doing, and the disciples were angry and thought she was wasting.

But what did Jesus say? Did he agree with their criticism? No. Instead he says, “Leave her alone! Why trouble her, she has done a beautiful thing for me.” (Mk 14:6) Giving our riches to God is a beautiful thing according to Jesus! Even though she could have sold that oil for almost a years salary and given it to the poor.

Yes, Jesus did tell the rich young man to sell all his belongings and give to the poor. But that’s because the rich man’s wealth was being used for his benefit and comfort, and he valued them more than God. That doesn’t therefore mean all riches are evil, but like Jesus himself said, when used for worship of God, it is a beautiful thing.

Can it be abused? Sure. Fancy churches might be used to glorify men rather than God. But frankly, so can poor, ugly churches, if the reason you have an ugly church is to say “See! Look how humble we are!” Both of those reasons are wrong. But that doesn’t mean beautiful churches are objectively immoral and automatically mean you don’t care about the poor.

It also is a powerful witness to the unbeliever that we really believe Christ is present in our churches. I’ve had one critic say to me, “If you really believed God was here, than why are your churches so bland.” And he was right! If all we have available is a tent, then that’s one thing, but if we have been blessed with resources, and we let our church buildings be bland or run down, it sends a message that we don’t take our worship seriously, that we’re not willing to give our best to God.

So bottom line, beautiful churches are for God’s glory, not our’s, and we should always be looking for ways to give our best to God, whether that’s a tent or the Sistine Chapel. When we do, God provides the rest. Which is why the Church can still care for the poor as incredibly as it does.

 

[Robyn_p]

Also, for all the preachings that instruct us to sympathize with the poorest of the poor, hearing news stories about cardinals wishing to spend retirement in a four story penthouse, for example, doesn’t really seem like sympathizing with the poorest of the poor. Do four story pent houses also indicate splendor and glory for God? Are they even the House of God? Obviously the answer is no. What’s up with all of that?

You have an excellent point, and Pope Francis is really trying to address these abuses. It is wrong for a bishop to live in extravagant luxury while his flock is struggling. That is not Christ like. There’s no excuse, it shouldn’t be happening. I completely agree with you here.

But that is an entirely different issue from building beautiful spaces to worship in. These churches are built to honor God and to lift our hearts and minds to Him. And they are equally to the benefit of the poor and rich alike. Poor people who have nothing think of these churches as their own inheritance, something that belongs to them. And it does. They don’t belong to the cardinals, they belong to us.

 

[adawgj]

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

The Church has beautiful cathedrals while still helping the poor.

Each one serves the purpose of Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

The beautiful church building that was funded by those with many and those with few, each person had one goal that this building will be for God. God’s building is special. If we are to not use our time, treasures, and talents on God’s building then it shows that we care less about God. Should God’s building look like Walmart or the library. NO!! It should look ornate! an oasis in a desert, a sanctuary from the noises and busyness in a big city. A place where a person can worship in heaven while on Earth. Each cathedral shows Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

Why must Christ’s bride look like garden gravel. A bride is a gem, a ruby.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I ask because the only recent (3 years ago) purchase I ever saw (purchase) was in the diocese of Orange CA when they purchased the old Protestant Crystal Cathedral. That went for 57 million and even though it is a VERY large place, it’s expensive. But it wasn’t building something from scratch. And one could argue that the monies spent (the building was offered in a bankruptcy sale) went to help pay the salaries of many, many people who had been left ‘high and dry’ by the bankruptcy and keep them from poverty. If for example in your home town the local protestant church, which was bigger than your Catholic Church, went into bankruptcy, and your church was going to have to be renovated or replaced anyway, I think that to help your protestant neighbors you might want your Catholic pastor to buy the local protestant church rather than let it rot while you built a new Church from scratch, wouldn’t you?

My nephew is an architect and he’s worked on some rather pricy buildings (state, municipal) because frankly as I mentioned, just having your building handicap accessible and fuel-efficient costs a LOT of money. The materials themselves cost money. Getting the materials to the site costs money. It’s penny wise to spend more in the beginning to get things right than to pay less and wind up having to replace materials in a couple of years, instead of 50, or having to pay 10, 20, 50% or more per month for fuel because you didn’t insulate right in the first place.

 

[davidv]

I am not envious of the Church in the least. I am just putting it out there and questioning the reasoning behind such excess.

Where people worship God, what it looks like, is not the point. The point is the teachings. If people go to mass because of the architecture and the art, they’re there for the wrong reasons.

Btw, the appearance of immodesty and richness actually turns a lot of people off (especially for the poor people because they feel “out of place”), and so the poor actually don’t wish to worship at all. This is counter productive.

Also, for all the preachings that instruct us to sympathize with the poorest of the poor, hearing news stories about cardinals wishing to spend retirement in a four story penthouse, for example, doesn’t really seem like sympathizing with the poorest of the poor. Do four story pent houses also indicate splendor and glory for God? Are they even the House of God? Obviously the answer is no. What’s up with all of that?

EDIT:

Just out of curiosity as a side question, IF the Church/local parish was a dingy, dirty tent would people stop going because of that?

I don’t believe, given the purpose for a church building, that you have not demonstrated any excess. Nor have you demonstrated that if an equivalent amount of money was spent on the poor, that the poor would be better off.