M
mary_bobo
Guest
Is the National Shrine a Catholic Church?
- Status
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
You’ve been given some answers and so I will not comment on your question directly but will rather simply offer an observation based on my experience with those who raise this question and I will preface my observation by saying I don’t know you or you economic circumstances nor how you live and so the following should not be taken personally.
I have found that often the person raising this question–lives in a much larger and nicer house than they really need. They don’t live in humble digs giving the difference to the poor.
I have found that they often have too many clothes–many hardly, if ever, worn and probably of a nicer quality–or at least higher price–than is truly needed. They don’t have only the clothes they need giving the difference to the poor.
I have found that often they have more cars than they need and that these cars tend to be more than just basic transportation. They don’t have basic transportation giving the difference to poor.
Of course this list could go on and on. So I tend to take what they say with a grain of salt as apparently for these people–nice things that give glory and honor to God–that are build with funds donated to give glory to God–things that show our love for God–are wasteful and misspent. However, at the same time funds spent to provide them with nice things and comfort and esteem in this world–are not wasteful. I tend to see a disconnect in their thinking. They seem to advocate skimping on God but not on themselves.
I would suggest that if we skimped on ourselves there would be plenty to both give due glory and honor to God and to take care of the poor–the two are not mutually exclusive. If we can’t give our best to God–how can we give it to the poor? We need to do both and deny ourselves. Let us remember that Christ is truly present in the Church.
Peace,
Mark
C
clem456
Guest
This is really a non-issue spiritually. We are called to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and give glory to God in ALL that we do. Giving glory to God throught beautiful buildings and caring for the poor are not mutually exclusive. In other words, spending money to glorify God does not mean we can’t also take care of the poor. In God’s plan, economy is not a zero sum game
We are told in Matthew chapter 6 to seek his kingdom and righteousness and all the rest will be added. This detachment works both ways. It does not mean everyone is called to live as Mother Teresa with the poorest of the poor. Some have money, some have construction talents and artistic ability. If the right use of beauty and materials gives glory to God and brings us closer to him, then it is good. If I am detached from material things, that doesn’t mean I will just go without. It also means I will part with materials things, as well as my time and talent, for God’s purposes. God will be the judge whether individuals fatten themselves at the trough, as I am sure we all do sometimes. We should not refrain from giving glory to God due the abuses of some.
We are told in Matthew chapter 6 to seek his kingdom and righteousness and all the rest will be added. This detachment works both ways. It does not mean everyone is called to live as Mother Teresa with the poorest of the poor. Some have money, some have construction talents and artistic ability. If the right use of beauty and materials gives glory to God and brings us closer to him, then it is good. If I am detached from material things, that doesn’t mean I will just go without. It also means I will part with materials things, as well as my time and talent, for God’s purposes. God will be the judge whether individuals fatten themselves at the trough, as I am sure we all do sometimes. We should not refrain from giving glory to God due the abuses of some.
M
murraymuzz
Guest
Another thing to note is that in terms of churches, the vatican and the pope has no say as to what churches look like, except in the diocese of Rome, each diocese runs independently from the vatican and so what ever churches you see around the world will be there because the local laity funded the projects, not the vatican.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Yes. It is dedicated to the Immaculate Conception, the patroness of the United States.
You may have thought I was referring to the National Cathedral in D.C. which is not Catholic and not to be confused with St. Matthew’s Cathedral in D.C. which is Catholic.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Some of it is practical, or was intended to be.
Catholic parishes, particularly in cities, tend to be quite large, thus the need for quite a bit of space.
In my part of the country, virtually the only “old” churches are the Catholic churches; largely built by immigrants a long time ago, who built them to last, just as they did in the old country. There are not very many “old” protestant churches, and the ones there are were usually built for and by some other congregation. There are many, many protestant church buildings that simply fell down, rotted away or were converted to some commercial use.
Now, I’ll also observe that in the inner parts of many cities there are a number of magnificent churches no longer in use because the Catholics moved to the suburbs. There they built new ones. So, in some instances the immigrants were mistaken in believing their descendants would always remain in the same general locale, as people did in Europe at the time. And in Europe, you could believe you were building for the next 500 years or more and be right in believing it. If you want something to last 500 years, you have to build it well.
But there are still a lot of very old Catholic churches in use in some neighborhoods, certainly in small and medium sized towns. It is difficult to imagine how much money gets saved by building any kind of building that is then in continuous use for 100 years and more. But it would be a lot.
It can also be noticed that most Catholic churches (though not all) are built in approximately the manner of the times for nearly any kind of building. The big differences are inside. In some of them, the interiors are very costly and were when built. In some of them, not so…the beauty is in the artistry, not in the materials.
Finally, though it’s a longer subject than I can really cover here, there is a philosophic difference between Catholics and many Protestants about the nature of man as a composite being. European churches are the best exemplars of that, particularly in Germany. Protestant churches there are masculine, patriarchal and austere, reflecting a conviction that man is a soul trapped inside a clay body. Catholic churches are ornate and replete with images of not only men, but of women and babies, reflecting the more “Catholic” view that man is a more integrated being.
Incidentally, that also reflects a difference between the Protestant and Catholic views of the meaning of the Incarnation. The views are very different, and are reflected in many ways, architecture being one of them.
Catholic parishes, particularly in cities, tend to be quite large, thus the need for quite a bit of space.
In my part of the country, virtually the only “old” churches are the Catholic churches; largely built by immigrants a long time ago, who built them to last, just as they did in the old country. There are not very many “old” protestant churches, and the ones there are were usually built for and by some other congregation. There are many, many protestant church buildings that simply fell down, rotted away or were converted to some commercial use.
Now, I’ll also observe that in the inner parts of many cities there are a number of magnificent churches no longer in use because the Catholics moved to the suburbs. There they built new ones. So, in some instances the immigrants were mistaken in believing their descendants would always remain in the same general locale, as people did in Europe at the time. And in Europe, you could believe you were building for the next 500 years or more and be right in believing it. If you want something to last 500 years, you have to build it well.
But there are still a lot of very old Catholic churches in use in some neighborhoods, certainly in small and medium sized towns. It is difficult to imagine how much money gets saved by building any kind of building that is then in continuous use for 100 years and more. But it would be a lot.
It can also be noticed that most Catholic churches (though not all) are built in approximately the manner of the times for nearly any kind of building. The big differences are inside. In some of them, the interiors are very costly and were when built. In some of them, not so…the beauty is in the artistry, not in the materials.
Finally, though it’s a longer subject than I can really cover here, there is a philosophic difference between Catholics and many Protestants about the nature of man as a composite being. European churches are the best exemplars of that, particularly in Germany. Protestant churches there are masculine, patriarchal and austere, reflecting a conviction that man is a soul trapped inside a clay body. Catholic churches are ornate and replete with images of not only men, but of women and babies, reflecting the more “Catholic” view that man is a more integrated being.
Incidentally, that also reflects a difference between the Protestant and Catholic views of the meaning of the Incarnation. The views are very different, and are reflected in many ways, architecture being one of them.
A
Actaeon
Guest
I think others have elaborated on all of the points I would usually address, so I’ll bring up a different one that I haven’t seen posted yet…
Here’s an exercise: go to Mexico, to the poorest community you can find that still has an ornate and beautiful Catholic Church. Go to mass at that church. Afterwards, tell those parishoners that they should sell off the church building and all its art, worship in a plain building instead, and use the money to help themselves. See how they respond (actually, don’t do this, as they will likely get angry with you).
You see, a parish is not JUST the property of the priest or the bishop… it is the property of ALL the people. It is a bastion of art and a communal offering to God. It is an escape from the despair of daily poverty… a chance to experience the beautiful just the same as any rich person can and on totally equal grounds… and it is the chance to contribute to that building as an offering to God as well. The poor may look on their parish and think “I may not have much, the world may not regard me as a financial success, but I have helped to build this for God and it is beautiful.”
You see, there is MEANING for all who attend a beautiful parish. They have something of beauty which is THEIRS and which they can be PROUD of, and that they can offer to God together with anyone free of any social status constraints.
I don’t know about you, but I dare not take that away from people for the temporary satisfaction of spending it on temporal goods.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
M
Miriam1947
Guest
Yet another awesome post on this thread.
I thank God every single day that He made me Catholic.
S
sojo
Guest
YES! I have traveled throughout Mexico, many times before my own conversion experience, and I’ve experienced this.
E
Elizium23
Guest
The Church is akin to both a government and a corporation, and has attributes of both. She is a government because she was erected by Christ to rule over the faithful on earth, and therefore has a visible head, a hierarchy of administrators, laws, and a bureaucracy to support herself. Her mission is to save souls, give glory to God, spread the gospel, and perform acts of charity. It is a spiritual business, but a business nonetheless, and to this end she needs assets and revenue to accomplish it. With more assets and revenue she can accomplish her goal more easily and more widely than without them. Therefore, it is in our best interest to support the Church, which does not sell anything per se. Our offerings are made in the spirit of stewardship: time, talent and treasure offered as a sacrifice to God and His people. The faithful have a right to see their offerings used in a way that benefits the people of God and supports the Church best in her mission. Our bishops and Pope have a duty to us and God to oversee the distribution of funds and assets so that everyone is cared for.
There is also the duty of each individual Christian to help the poor and needy on his own initiative. You have heard it said, “Charity begins at home.” Whether you give to the St. Vincent de Paul Society or if you volunteer in a food bank, the burden is not on the Church as a body to help the poor, it is on each and every one of us to go out there and see Christ in others in order to serve Him better.
There is also the duty of each individual Christian to help the poor and needy on his own initiative. You have heard it said, “Charity begins at home.” Whether you give to the St. Vincent de Paul Society or if you volunteer in a food bank, the burden is not on the Church as a body to help the poor, it is on each and every one of us to go out there and see Christ in others in order to serve Him better.
B
Bonocorium
Guest
Yes, the church is rich and very efficiently uses its money. No one will ever come close to matching the church and atheists will have to live with that.
The problem I have with the extravagance issue is that although it glorifies God, I am sure that it could be used better. I mean, I must admit, some Catholic churches are a bit excessive, as are the Orthodox ones. I have seen Catholic churches on the other hand that have 1 simple stripped down altar and 1 or 2 icons only and yet it could hold 200-300 people.
If only all Catholic churches were so simple (which the earliest ones in Rome and Jerusalem would have been), we could have used the extra money to bring more people out of poverty and bring more into the faith.
Another thing which I have a problem with is the expensive robes/crowns worn by the Pope. Although I think that the Orthodox ones are more excessive, I would be a lot happier if the Pope wore something more simple, just like St Peter. It seems that laymen are dressed more like Peter than the Pope when he wears that crown. I saw one video of an Orthodox patriarch and they had to carry the end of his robe because of how long it was. The heretics must be laughing at that.
I really dont want to defend something like this against atheists and heretics. I just cant help thinking that some of the heretic denominations are outdoing the Church in terms of punching above their weight when it comes to feeding the poor etc.
The problem I have with the extravagance issue is that although it glorifies God, I am sure that it could be used better. I mean, I must admit, some Catholic churches are a bit excessive, as are the Orthodox ones. I have seen Catholic churches on the other hand that have 1 simple stripped down altar and 1 or 2 icons only and yet it could hold 200-300 people.
If only all Catholic churches were so simple (which the earliest ones in Rome and Jerusalem would have been), we could have used the extra money to bring more people out of poverty and bring more into the faith.
Another thing which I have a problem with is the expensive robes/crowns worn by the Pope. Although I think that the Orthodox ones are more excessive, I would be a lot happier if the Pope wore something more simple, just like St Peter. It seems that laymen are dressed more like Peter than the Pope when he wears that crown. I saw one video of an Orthodox patriarch and they had to carry the end of his robe because of how long it was. The heretics must be laughing at that.
I really dont want to defend something like this against atheists and heretics. I just cant help thinking that some of the heretic denominations are outdoing the Church in terms of punching above their weight when it comes to feeding the poor etc.
R
Rolltide
Guest
73% of the Christians in the world are either Catholic or Orthodox, so it doesn’t seem to be hurting them too badly. I’d argue that the beautiful churches attract more people than they put off. Also, I’m presuming you’re talking about the ceremonial robes that the pope and priests wear, and not their ordinary, everyday clothes, which are quite plain. Finally, I think most Catholics don’t have a problem with it because Jesus didn’t have a problem with it, and he specifically says so, as mentioned in the Biblical quotes above.
R
Rolltide
Guest
Question… are you put off by the elaborate ceremonial caps and gowns worn by college professors and graduates at graduation ceremonies? If not, why not?
John 12:4-7.
B
Bonocorium
Guest
Well, I agree that beauty is useful for attracting people, which is why I think that the Latin mass is better than the new mass. I am just saying that some aspects of Catholic/Orthodox churches seem almost excessive in their beauty and that if more churches followed the stripped down Catholic church example, then we could do a lot better with our money. Although beauty can attract people, I think that the most important thing to attract people is the Church’s teaching rather than beauty, because this “appeal to the senses” technique is also abused by heretics with their “contemporary worship” to attract people, while some of the heretic churches like the English church also use beautiful buildings.
Personally, I would feel happier if the ceremonial robes etc were more plain and more like those worn during apostolic times. Some of the Orthodox robes especially look very excessive in my opinion and some look like they might have some real gold on them. As to the papal crown, I am not too sure what year it was instituted, but I would be happier if it was more plain. If only we knew what St Peter wore…
Although Jesus didn’t have a problem with the excessiveness, there must be a threshold somewhere down the line, just like how he didnt abolish slavery but would have done so if it crossed a certain threshold. I am in no position to judge the suitability of the current level of “pomp and splendor” in the Church or in the Schismatic churches, but surely there is nothing wrong if more churches adopted the more stripped down style and in that manner, the Church could use the money in an even more efficient manner.
I was just inspired by looking at some of these stripped down churches and how they could operate the rituals like Mass etc just fine while appearing so humble. It looks almost as if it was converted from a classroom or school hall in 10 minutes. The parishioners all look so happy as well.
As to universities using robes etc, I dont really worry about them, because Universities often represent the secular world and they can set their standards.
Well I guess I am a bit of a traditionalist and a modernist at the same time.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
I suppose someone might be attracted to the Church by the beauty of the churches and robes but I don’t think it’s that many.
I wrote in an earlier post that the iconography, etc. “feeds” the faithful. The church I go to has a booklet that gives a “tour” of the church descibing the symbolism of the stained glass, the statues (why those saints are featured), the 12 steps leading up to the church, even symbolism of the acanthus embellishment at the top of the pillars. That church is a catechism and one can’t look anywhere without being reminded of God.
And unfortunatly most newer churches are simple, to the point that they don’t even seem Catholic. The parish church I was baptised in was renovated a couple of decades ago and was stripped of nearly every thing that made it seem Catholic. The statues that remained were whitewashed (they have been restored, thankfully), there wasn’t a crucifix in the sactuary for years (the original was placed in the school) and the stained glass symbolizes the environment (earth, sky, water) with a nod the the seven sacraments represented by seven half-dollar discs of glass. There was very little that might offend a anti-Catholic protesant, pagan or atheist. No mystery, no beauty, no wonder.
I’ve also noticed that older churches often feature architeture common in the country that the saint was from. So if the church was St. Bernadette’s it had a notable French style to arches, windows and doors. they could be so simple but they made it feel like you could be in a church that the saint prayed in.
I wrote in an earlier post that the iconography, etc. “feeds” the faithful. The church I go to has a booklet that gives a “tour” of the church descibing the symbolism of the stained glass, the statues (why those saints are featured), the 12 steps leading up to the church, even symbolism of the acanthus embellishment at the top of the pillars. That church is a catechism and one can’t look anywhere without being reminded of God.
And unfortunatly most newer churches are simple, to the point that they don’t even seem Catholic. The parish church I was baptised in was renovated a couple of decades ago and was stripped of nearly every thing that made it seem Catholic. The statues that remained were whitewashed (they have been restored, thankfully), there wasn’t a crucifix in the sactuary for years (the original was placed in the school) and the stained glass symbolizes the environment (earth, sky, water) with a nod the the seven sacraments represented by seven half-dollar discs of glass. There was very little that might offend a anti-Catholic protesant, pagan or atheist. No mystery, no beauty, no wonder.
I’ve also noticed that older churches often feature architeture common in the country that the saint was from. So if the church was St. Bernadette’s it had a notable French style to arches, windows and doors. they could be so simple but they made it feel like you could be in a church that the saint prayed in.
B
Bonocorium
Guest
I guess the most important thing is not what we get out of the worship service. The most important thing is what God gets from our worship. Whether we worship at Notre Dame Cathedral or a plain modern church, as long as God is glorified and worshiped properly, there is no reason to care how beautiful a church is. Apostolic Doctrine should be the thing to attract people, not cathedral beauty (which in some ways is not apostolic).
E
Elizium23
Guest
The church building belongs to the community who built it and they have a right to have it furnished as they would prefer. Is it immoral for a private citizen to purchase a painting to decorate his home? Think about how he used his money - he just supported an artist’s livelihood as well as those of the people who sell paint and canvas. Is it immoral for me to have a DVD collection when I should be helping the poor? When any of us spend money on creature comforts, we are helping someone earn a living. Frequently we are helping many people at once. I wonder about those who say it is criminal that the Church does not help the poor more, what do you think of capitalism? Is it ethical for executives to have cushy offices and private jets when they could sell it all to help the poor? How many people does a billionaire support by spending his money lavishly? The fact of being human is that we are all obliged to work for a living and earn our keep unless we are prevented by some disability. Money and the value of goods only exist because we trade one thing for another, goods for services and services for goods.
The Church supports millions of people, some directly and some indirectly, in the pursuit of her mission. The Church has revenue only because people give of their own free will and from a sense of religious obligation. The Church sells nothing and taxes nobody, yet she offers her services free of charge to even the poorest of the poor. Everyone in the pews is entitled to the sacraments and eternal life. What a pearl of great price she offers us! It is only fitting that all communities around the world equip her with the very finest materials in order to do her job. The goods and services of the Church belong to all the baptized. We are all shareholders in this corporation. We are all citizens of this government.
The Church will tear down her treasures and sell them off to help the poor right after Microsoft and Google sell their assets and lay off all their workers to feed the hungry (and then promptly go out of business, waving goodbye to their revenue stream.) The Church will warm the poor with chasubles as soon as the United States tears down her buildings and dissolves her government so that our tax dollars can go straight to welfare. (What’s that? Can’t collect any more tax without a government? Hello, anarchy.) The Church’s mission is more valuable than any corporation or government, but we need all three types of these to sustain society as we know it.
The Church supports millions of people, some directly and some indirectly, in the pursuit of her mission. The Church has revenue only because people give of their own free will and from a sense of religious obligation. The Church sells nothing and taxes nobody, yet she offers her services free of charge to even the poorest of the poor. Everyone in the pews is entitled to the sacraments and eternal life. What a pearl of great price she offers us! It is only fitting that all communities around the world equip her with the very finest materials in order to do her job. The goods and services of the Church belong to all the baptized. We are all shareholders in this corporation. We are all citizens of this government.
The Church will tear down her treasures and sell them off to help the poor right after Microsoft and Google sell their assets and lay off all their workers to feed the hungry (and then promptly go out of business, waving goodbye to their revenue stream.) The Church will warm the poor with chasubles as soon as the United States tears down her buildings and dissolves her government so that our tax dollars can go straight to welfare. (What’s that? Can’t collect any more tax without a government? Hello, anarchy.) The Church’s mission is more valuable than any corporation or government, but we need all three types of these to sustain society as we know it.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Which is why the symbolism is important: it was what aided the illiterate faithful centuries ago and now it serves people like me who are very visual and easily distracted. Every step I take into my parish church reminds me of the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes of Israel. I can begin to leave some of my racing thoughts behind and think of how far back the Faith goes and how deep it is. I’m not an ascetic. My spiritual life does benefit from this. Who do you think is ultimately my focus in prayer and worship?
I live in a very simple home and the place I go with the most beauty is my parish church. All that beauty is there for God. People donated money to build that church, to buy the art so that they could honor God in that moment and for decades and centuries to come and so that others might see the statue and think of God or the notice the gold tabernacle standing out from the wood or plaster surrounding it.
- Status