E
estesbob
Guest
And who defines what the “surplus” is? And who decides what the essentials are?
The Churches primary mission is to spread the Gospel-not help the poor. We, individually, are required to help the poor and needy.
- Status
The Churches primary mission is to spread the Gospel-not help the poor. We, individually, are required to help the poor and needy.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Church does not preach poverty.The US Gov doesn’t preach modesty and poverty, so what they do is irrelevant to how the Mystical Body of Christ should be run.
Btw, didn’t God grant King Solomon great wisdom and victories as long as he places his faith in God? As soon as Solomon mistrusted and began investing in earthly armies and took it upon himself, he lost everything.
Btw, even the little loaves and fishes that there were, didn’t God compound them to feed thousands?
Do we actually believe in these stories or not?
Except none of it was donated to Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Downtoan LA, but rather costed 20 million dollars.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Talk about missing the point, my friend. You are creating false dichotomies and totally misunderstanding not just individual Catholics, or the Church, but God Himself.
S
schaeffer
Guest
I am not Catholic.
This is how I view it.
There are many aspects to faith and worship. There are many ways to serve humanity AND one’s god.
Recall Christ asking Judas if by selling the perfume/ointment did he think he could raise enough money to take care of all the needs of the poor? The poor ye will have with ye always.
If the Catholic Church today was to close it’s cathedrals, sell it’s art, etc…we would still have poor, we would still have misery, but many of us would lose access to those treasures, which, while they are in possession of the Catholic Church are preserved for all.
Priceless treasures that inspire humanity, not only Catholics. The Catholic Church has preserved art, history, teachings, etc etc and it is to the benefit of mankind.
Evil does not cancel out good, and good does not cancel out evil. While atrocities have taken place in which the church is involved, that does not “undo” the good that has been inspired by the church.
I appreciate the good, even while I am horrified by the evil.
Some of that “bling” was sadly acquired through wrong means, dishonest, selfish, or prideful choices made by people in power, but much was also created out of faith and the desire to bring glory to god. Getting rid of the things, even those acquired by wrong means, would do little to serve anyone now, and would not undo the things of the past.
I think a better plan would be for the Church to continue to preserve those things for all of human kind, AND work for justice, health, food, clean water etc for all. It does not have to be one or the other. I think that IS the mission of the Church, and that while it is not perfectly done, it is being strived for and attended to.
The beauty of those things lifts the soul, even of those who are not Catholic, or even Christian, likewise the temples, art, etc of other faiths and cultures. All of those things speak to me of the human spirit, and the spiritual lineage of which I am a part.
This is how I view it.
There are many aspects to faith and worship. There are many ways to serve humanity AND one’s god.
Recall Christ asking Judas if by selling the perfume/ointment did he think he could raise enough money to take care of all the needs of the poor? The poor ye will have with ye always.
If the Catholic Church today was to close it’s cathedrals, sell it’s art, etc…we would still have poor, we would still have misery, but many of us would lose access to those treasures, which, while they are in possession of the Catholic Church are preserved for all.
Priceless treasures that inspire humanity, not only Catholics. The Catholic Church has preserved art, history, teachings, etc etc and it is to the benefit of mankind.
Evil does not cancel out good, and good does not cancel out evil. While atrocities have taken place in which the church is involved, that does not “undo” the good that has been inspired by the church.
I appreciate the good, even while I am horrified by the evil.
Some of that “bling” was sadly acquired through wrong means, dishonest, selfish, or prideful choices made by people in power, but much was also created out of faith and the desire to bring glory to god. Getting rid of the things, even those acquired by wrong means, would do little to serve anyone now, and would not undo the things of the past.
I think a better plan would be for the Church to continue to preserve those things for all of human kind, AND work for justice, health, food, clean water etc for all. It does not have to be one or the other. I think that IS the mission of the Church, and that while it is not perfectly done, it is being strived for and attended to.
The beauty of those things lifts the soul, even of those who are not Catholic, or even Christian, likewise the temples, art, etc of other faiths and cultures. All of those things speak to me of the human spirit, and the spiritual lineage of which I am a part.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
In relation to this post, when I was a child we were what you call poor, but we were not destitute, except at one point when I was very young. One of the brightest spots in my childhood was the beautiful churches in my city and the lovely inspiring artwork. I also possessed a book that had beautiful pictures of classic artwork from the great Masters, much of which was religious, which I looked at all the time. I learned a lot from those paintings, and when I was older and went to college and took courses in art appreciation, I was familiar with much of it. The spiritual dimension of human beings must not be neglected. We have an innate thirst for beauty because we were created by the Beautiful One and made in His image and likeness. If we cannot have these things, we are living only a little better than animals. That is not how God meant us to live, and even the poorest of the poor can and do appreciate beautiful spaces. They are there for all of mankind to enjoy.
E
estesbob
Guest
Why not! Come on in! We’ll leave the light on for you!
T
Thorns
Guest
Common sense decides. 20 million dollar cathedrals, marble floors, bling, coffee shops, Mercedes Benz pope mobiles, four story penthouses for a retired bishop, million dollar mansion in NJ for another retiring bishop, among many other extras all sound like surplus to me. We can still have all those things, just at a more basic level.
E
estesbob
Guest
And who decides what common sense is? This appears to me to be another case of people being very, very charitable with other peoples money.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Exactly. And notice how the scattershot examples are lumped together. “Marble floors” of what? A church? A cathedral? How old? what makes “marble” a 'luxury material? As opposed to what? Wood? Concrete? Dirt? over a period of decades or centuries, does marble hold up better? Does a marble floor which might have cost the equivalent of 10K a couple of hundred years ago and did not any further upkeep beyond sweeping and occasionally ‘deep cleaning’ with products like soap and water all that time and is good for at least another 500 years make more ‘sense’ and ‘cents’ than say a wooden floor ‘replacement’ which would cost the equivalent of 100K today and would need at least 1K ‘treatment’ every couple of years and full out replacement in 100 years for a cost THEN of perhaps 250K?
Coffee shops. And of COURSE the revenue they generate as net profit after meeting expenses doesn’t matter, because it is just too ‘much’ to have a coffee shop in a contemporary cathedral.
“Luxury cars”. . .(often donated, and often more cost effective than a cheaper one which is more prone to breakdowns and poorer gas mileage and more frequent parts replacement).
And when you point out that God doesn’t ask people to give Him ‘cheap’ because He is offended if you used money that ‘you could have spent on the poor’, why, it isn’t the problem of the poster who is trying to claim his personal scriptural interpretation as binding, it is you causing the problem because “you” are greedy, trying to cover up greed, hateful, in love with ‘lavish things’.
Etc.
Classic (and logically fallacious) attempts to use every type of emotionalism and dodge in an ‘argument’ which is basically a poster trying to use the ‘bully pulpit’.
You give people the benefit of the doubt at first. Are they genuinely convinced of their ‘righteousness’ because they are truly concerned about the poor? Are they the Mother Teresas of our time trying to be a voice for the poor?
Or are they more concerned about trying to enforce their views on others? Is it a power play going under the guise of ‘concern?’ You can usually pretty soon tell if a person is truly more concerned for the poor, because that person usually comes on with a much more ‘charitable’ kind of attitude. Mother Teresa never came on with, “don’t you people know the Vatican and Church are sitting on millions while people starve, get rid of your WEALTH you greedy beasts” but rather, "Will you good people join with me in trying to help people? There are so many with needs, but together, we can make a difference. Even the littlest help means so much, we are so grateful.’
Because she also realized that the poor in ‘material wealth’ should not be treated like ‘things’, to be thrown ‘only’ food, while the thrower basked in his Christ-like ‘concern’ and ignored the fact that ‘man does not live on bread alone’. That acting as though all a poor person needs is food in his body, and that neither he nor the person with ‘enough food’ already need anything MORE than just a full stomach. . .certainly that they do not need art, music, beauty, cultural heritage, and a ‘connection’ to people not just ‘today’ but past and future too. . .
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Thorns, are you listening?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I guess not . . .he’s posted on other threads in the last few days but not here. . .Thorns, are you listening?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Thorns, since you started this whole thing, and since you’re obviously still around the site, it would be kind of nice if you said either, “OK, everybody, you’ve convinced me I wasn’t looking at the whole picture, let’s move on” or “I’m not convinced so just stop posting please, because I’m not going to be checking this thread anymore.”. by just ‘dropping out’ like this was a hot potato, first you look as though you’re a tad lacking in the manners department (I said ‘look’, not ‘are’), and you look as though you’re either afraid to acknowledge you were wrong, or else, after YOU started the whole thing, you look as though since people didn’t agree with you, you’re just going to run away so you can think you ‘won’. 
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
You’re assuming that an uplifting and inspiring sacred space that facilitates the worship of God, motivates people to practice His teachings, and stands as a reminder of the divine presence and the demands of His word doesn’t contribute to the alleviating of human suffering.
You’re also assuming that unless we just give free stuff to people we’re not helping the poor or alleviating their suffering which is often far deeper than material deprivation. You know, I’m really sick of the idea that unless you give people hand outs and create dependency relationships which emasculate them and kill their individual initiative, somehow you aren’t caring for the poor. The only way for poor nations to free themselves is to increase the production of goods and services; it is not by depending on aid. Same with individuals, unless they are highly incapacitated. Even then many have made contributions to society unless they’ve been taught to posture themselves as hapless and helpless victims to gain more hand outs.
Not so. Study the liturgy and Catholic theology. Jesus had a body and the arts have always been used and recognized by the church as a vehicle for access to God.
Again, they’re not a distraction to a Catholic they are “windows to the divine or holy objects they represent.”
So then, to answer my initial question, you would have us all imitate Jesus literally and all follow the evangelical councils. If not, then you are being selective.
And we’re back to giving out free stuff again . . .
(4) So if we prayed in stripped down wooden churches in a community that suppresses human talents in so-called imitation of Jesus where we at best appear to be rustic bumpkins if not anti-human Manicheans, we are going to bring people of all strata into the Faith and light of the Gospel exactly how?
So fine art and nice buildings is more of a political move in order to attract more members? What happened to having faith in the Holy Spirit to convert hearts and bring them to the fullness of truth?
Nooooo, they’re a human move (or better, statement) to show that the Lord actually cares about human talents and realizes that the arts have always motivated people. They can be and are very effectively being used to lead people into error and sin these days. Do you have a problem using them to lead people to God and making a statement about Christians commitment to Him? It really makes me wonder.
The Holy Spirit works through human instruments. Even Augustine noted that Christians should study rhetoric since the pagans had it at their disposal to persuade. That costs money. Just use it to give a few hand outs or use it to persuade masses to care for the poor? You seem to side with the former.
Now, I do agree that there is a line that should be identified over which expenditures are exorbitant. I’m not disputing that. I’m just not quite as miserly when it comes to beauty and the human talent to create it for God.
T
TEPO
Guest
Not only does the Church love her city state the Vatican, but we also love our Papal Palace in France that was seized by Napoleon and the revolutionaries and turned into military barracks and prison. Seven Popes ruled the Church out of that palace which they built and still stands today as a museum. We want it back! 
that’s stolen property. 
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_des_Papes
that’s stolen property. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_des_Papes
T
TEPO
Guest
Also, what happened to the Papal library in French palace? Did the Church get all her belongings out of the palace before it was seized, or do some of the remnants remain as part of the “museum”…? 
T
TEPO
Guest
What’s interesting to me about Vatican City is the 4000 year old Egyptian obelisk that was transported there and weighs over 300 tons. There are a total of 13 of them there. It’s a strange number. Personally, I don’t much care for obelisks, I prefer crosses.
archaeology-travel.com/street/vatican-obelisk-in-st-peters-square/
…I’d like to see the Church sell them.
archaeology-travel.com/street/vatican-obelisk-in-st-peters-square/
…I’d like to see the Church sell them.
A
anixx
Guest
If you notice all of them a cross on them. The specific obelisk in St Peters Square is there for a reason. That obelisk was in the center of Circus Maximus. St Peter was crucified there. That obelisk was the last thing St Peter saw on this earth. It is only fitting for it to be there.What’s interesting to me about Vatican City is the 4000 year old Egyptian obelisk that was transported there and weighs over 300 tons. There are a total of 13 of them there. It’s a strange number. Personally, I don’t much care for obelisks, I prefer crosses.
archaeology-travel.com/street/vatican-obelisk-in-st-peters-square/
…I’d like to see the Church sell them.
And the obelisks weren’t brought by the Church in Rome, but by the roman empire.
T
TEPO
Guest
After further investigation, Pope Sixtus V (supposedly born on the 13th day of Dec.), had allegedly spent 13 months (between 1585 and 1586), moving and re-erecting the 4000 year old obelisk. He is also accused of erecting all 13 obelisks by some sources throughout Rome… There is also the tale of a 13th century Egyptian Obelisk that was struck by lightening which was kindly rebuilt and immediately sent back to its home in Egypt.
Realistically, Pope Sixtus V only erected 4 obelisks. I’m not sure how many obelisks stand in Rome, but as far as I know there is only 1 in Vatican City -and that is the one that was used in the Circus near where Nero slaughtered and martyred Christians… Pope Sixtus V seems to have gotten a bad rap from some sources but even though he raised taxes I’m not convinced that he was quite as bad as some sources try to portray him as. Also, he didn’t erect 13 obelisks most importantly. He did however write a revision of the Vulgate, but he died before it’s release… What’s ironic is that he intended to limit the powers of the Jesuits yet it was a Jesuit who re-wrote his work for him calling it “Edito Sixtina” in the Popes name. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgata_Sixtina
Pope Sixtus V was very pro-Christianization and was suspicious of and disfavored the Jesuits. He meditated radical changes to their constitution, but death prevented the execution of his Purpose. This was actually just prior to the Reformation…
A
adawgj
Guest
For historical purposes it’s good that the Vatican owns such art, even if it’s not Catholic.After further investigation, Pope Sixtus V (supposedly born on the 13th day of Dec.), had allegedly spent 13 months (between 1585 and 1586), moving and re-erecting the 4000 year old obelisk. He is also accused of erecting all 13 obelisks by some sources throughout Rome… There is also the tale of a 13th century Ethiopian Obelisk that was struck by lightening which was kindly rebuilt and immediately sent back to its home in Ethiopia.
Realistically, Pope Sixtus V only erected 4 obelisks. I’m not sure how many obelisks stand in Rome, but as far as I know there is only 1 in Vatican City -and that is the one that was used in the Circus near where Nero slaughtered and martyred Christians… Pope Sixtus V seems to have gotten a bad rap from some sources but even though he raised taxes I’m not convinced that he was quite as bad as some sources try to portray him as. Also, he didn’t erect 13 obelisks most importantly. He did however write a revision of the Vulgate, but he died before it’s release… What’s ironic is that he intended to limit the powers of the Jesuits yet it was a Jesuit who re-wrote his work for him calling it “Edito Sixtina” in the Popes name. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgata_Sixtina
Pope Sixtus V was very pro-Christianization and distrusted the Jesuits. This was actually just prior to the Reformation…
T
TEPO
Guest
I agree. I don’t like the fables that media sources try to create though with all the “13’s” for whatever reason. They had me chasing my own tail there for a minute but I can see right through the lies.
There’s only 1 obelisk that the Vatican has… And it’s the coolest one.
- Status