I cannot say any more than what my fellow Catholics and Orthodox have stated to explain the reasons for the “STUFF.” That being said, I myself find simplicity very attaractive. Have you ever visited the Portiuncula at the Franciscan University in Steubenville? I visited there many years ago, and I really felt the Presence so powerfully, and this WITHOUT ANY of that “STUFF.”
I think people who are concerned about this issue fall into three camps: 1) Those who require the embroidery to inspire them during liturgical worship; 2) Those who DON’T require the embroidery to inspire them during liturgical worship, and would consider the embroidery a distraction in focusing on God; 3) Those who can worship God in any litrugical setting without cognizance of their surroundings.
Orthodox usually fall in the first category. Catholics who fall in the first category normally go Eastern or Oriental. Catholics usually fall in the second and third categories. I’ve never met an Orthodox who falls into the second or third categories. Orthodox who fall into the second or third categories are more appreciative of Catholicism, from my experience.
Blessings,
Marduk
Hopefully this isn’t breaking any rules.
The extreme of your category three is represented in Orthodoxy by the non-possessors, which came to a head of sorts in Russia between 1489 and the first half the 16th century, the possessors led by Joseph Volotsky and the nonpossessors by Nil Sorsky. Both are glorified saints of the Orthodox Church.
In 1489 a synod was held to deal with an outbreak of heresy. Both saints took part. They, and their followers, seem never to have dealt with each other. The hiearchs at the synod decided to burn all the heretics at the stake. Its decision, however, only defrocked a few of its priests, and executed no one.
In 1503 a synod was held to secularize the monastic estates. Nil wanted the monks to possess nothing, but instead live the cloistered life and practice Hesychasm. This included quietism and a deemphasis on religious images.
Joseph fought for the right of monasteries to own property, in order to engage in social work (hopsitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, etc.). Along with this went an emphasis on social work and corporate worship, including beautification of churches.
Joseph also supported an active rold of the state, i.e. the Grand Duke, activism in Church affairs. He also held the ruler to Christian morality (no private matter a la Clinton).
The extremes became more extreme with the Old Ritualist schism and the Spiritual Regulation (Peter’s reorganization of the Russian Church). The possessors held the upper hand: the non-possessors went underground, not only in the Old Ritualists into schism, but also the Church of the Starets (a la St. Seraphim of Sarov), which operated as a counterbalance to the attempts to impose the possessor vision as the only Orthodoxy.
Given only your three choices, I have to pick 3, but having grown up in an Evangelical Church that didn’t have a Crucifix (the debate on putting an antique one on ,the altar found in the old parish, was quite a debate) and who was burning icons within a year of converting to Orthodoxy, I can’t claim to be typical Orthodox.
One point: the Muslim historian/geographer al-Maqdisi (the name indicates it was from Jerusalem) indicates that once, complaining why the caliph spent so much money on the Dome of the Rock and other mosques, his uncle pointed out that the caliph did so because the beauty of the Christians’ Churches was alluring the Muslims (historical records show many succumed). Remember St. Vladimir’s envoys?
