Wealth & Riches

[FightingFat]

I know we’ve done this, but I spent hours searching for previous threads last night to no avail!

Basically, I was looking for the Scripture that gives us the reasons for having beautiful Churches and altars etc. In light of Luke 18:22 can anyone help me defend the wealth of the Vatican insofar as the treasures etc are concerned?

 

[mlchance]

Whenever I read someone criticizing the Vatican or the Church for its so-called enormous wealth, and then referencing the story of the rich young man, I can’t help but wonder why the critic has followed the advice he wants others to follow.

(Not that I’m saying you, FightingFat, are such a critic.)

I’m sure others will be along to give more cogent responses.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

FF, the Vatican per se does not have ‘wealth’. The Pope (in the Vatican) presides as a guardian of any ‘wealth’, and that ‘wealth’ is simply a temporal reflection of some 2000 years of people wishing to honor God by either creating or donating items or other ‘wealth’ in a particular gesture of praise, honor, and glory to God. . .and as for beautiful churches, etc., look no further than what God COMMANDED the Jewish people to build as His temple. . . (and remember that since God is eternal and unchanging, He doesn’t command beauty and wealth in His temple then and completely do the old ‘switcheroo’ and demand ‘no beauty, no wealth!’ for us today).

Do you remember when the woman broke the alabaster jar of ointment, and annointed the feet of Jesus–and Judas grumbled about the “waste” of this ‘wealth’ which ‘could have been sold and the money given to the poor.’

Remember Jesus’s response?

The people who over time have ‘given wealth’ gave it to God of their own free will and their desire to honor Him.

The Catholic Church is a STEWARD of this wealth, which belongs to GOD overall, and is to be used by us and enjoyed by us (in the asthetic sense) ‘to the greater glory of God’.

Pope John Paul II had absolutely NO worldly goods to leave behind, in his will. . .does this sound like the Vatican and the Church are full of wealth and its members personally wealthy, eh?

 

[FightingFat]

Thanks for your response!

FF, the Vatican per se does not have ‘wealth’. The Pope (in the Vatican) presides as a guardian of any ‘wealth’, and that ‘wealth’ is simply a temporal reflection of some 2000 years of people wishing to honor God by either creating or donating items or other ‘wealth’ in a particular gesture of praise, honor, and glory to God

. . .and as for beautiful churches, etc., look no further than what God COMMANDED the Jewish people to build as His temple. . . (and remember that since God is eternal and unchanging, He doesn’t command beauty and wealth in His temple then and completely do the old ‘switcheroo’ and demand ‘no beauty, no wealth!’ for us today).

That’s the bit I was looking for-- it’s in Exodus isn’t it? Anyone know the chapter & verse???

Do you remember when the woman broke the alabaster jar of ointment, and annointed the feet of Jesus–and Judas grumbled about the “waste” of this ‘wealth’ which ‘could have been sold and the money given to the poor.’

Remember Jesus’s response?

Yes, but didn’t Judas have a point?

The people who over time have ‘given wealth’ gave it to God of their own free will and their desire to honor Him.

The Catholic Church is a STEWARD of this wealth, which belongs to GOD overall, and is to be used by us and enjoyed by us (in the asthetic sense) ‘to the greater glory of God’.

Pope John Paul II had absolutely NO worldly goods to leave behind, in his will. . .does this sound like the Vatican and the Church are full of wealth and its members personally wealthy, eh?

BUT…We can’t deny the Popes do live quite well don’t they?

 

[mlchance]

Yes, but didn’t Judas have a point?

Given the stern rebuking he got, I’d say, “No, he didn’t.”

BUT…We can’t deny the Popes do live quite well don’t they?

So? Lots of people live even more well. It isn’t a sin to live well.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks for your response!

BUT…We can’t deny the Popes do live quite well don’t they?

What do you mean by ‘live quite well’ though? And what standard are you judging that by? Consider that the Pope is the secular head of the nation-state of Vatican City with all that entails (travelling to visit other countries, sending ambassadors and delegates all over the place), as well as spiritual head of 1/6 of the world’s population.

I’d say his needs are far greater than, and his personal style of living a fair bit more austere than, most any other president, monarch or Prime Minister even, not to mention many spiritual leaders.

 

[Trad_Catholic_1]

Yes, but didn’t Judas have a point?

Yes, a point, but he missed the point. The point is not that we should not give to the poor, but that we should give to God the very best we can whatever that may be. Love God with all your heart. Perhaps Judas did not recognise God in Jesus but the sinful woman did. Instead, like the Pharisees he plotted to destroy Jesus.

Luke tells us the story of the Pharisee, named Simon, who as a Pharisee kept himself ritually clean. Simon couldn’t believe that Jesus would allow such a woman who was not ritually clean to even touch him.

Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little." Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” – Luke 7:44-50

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Judas, poor soul, was exhibiting the ‘Devil’s ability to quote scripture’. Judas was making ‘care for the poor’ (and John I believe makes the further point that Judas did not want money for the poor but, since Judas ‘held the purse’, wanted to embezzle the funds for himself) somehow ‘a greater good’ than honor to Almighty God.

Yes, one way to honor God is to give alms and to care for the poor.

But too many people today are C.S. Lewis’ ‘Christians-and’. The “Christianity” comes in second place to whatever aspect of Christianity is seen as ‘most important’. The “social justice” Christians, for example, are “social justice” first, “Christian” second (if that high). You can pretty much tell the “Christians -and” not by their lip service or their ‘nominal’ membership in a church or denomination, but on their actions. The Christians who are always writing letters or making speeches about “the status of the poor”, especially those poor in ‘other lands’, yet who barely acknowledge God in any aspect of their lives (such as never having personal prayer to him on any other but their prefered subject matter; never following any prescribed practices unless it is considered germane to their preferred focus; never seem to recognize God in anybody unless they are lock-stepping to the ‘correct’ words and actions for the ‘most important part of Christianity’). . .are not truly exercising Christianity. They could be anything from Druids to Muslims to pagans and still practice ‘social justice’ exactly as they do as “Christians for social justice” so the Christianity portion is decidedly ‘non essential.’

P.S. I am not picking on anyone, Christian or nonChristian, who believes in ‘social justice’. I believe in it myself. I try to practice it and I believe it is important. And I also believe that this ‘transcends’ things like political persuasion. The term ‘social justice’ might appear politically liberal but it is not really, and many aspects in life which might appear politically conservative are equally matters which would fall under ‘social justice’ umbrella as I see it, and comment on it, above. So please don’t think I’m singling out a particular subset or political entity. I’m not!