Dear Dave,
I was racking my brains today thinking;'what makes a place holy?' I was feeling my way around (in my mind's eye) my parish church in England. There is the beautiful statue of Saint Joseph, his serene benign face I've always loved, I thought of the Lady altar, the serene feeling you get in there... I marvelled again (in my imagination) at the intricate carving of the reredos...and over it all the heavenly Holy Rood; (the church is called Holy Rood) Christ crucified, Mary and Saint John.
'but what makes it holy?' I thought again.
Now, like a revelation, I've just read your new post and find the answer; 'These churches are holy precisely because Jesus is there'
That's what I forgot.
in Christ
On the off chance you have not seen it Dave, here is ecclesia de eucharista: http://www.vatican.va/
holy_fathe...aristia_en.html
In chapter 5, JPII uses the biblical examples of Jesus being annointed with luxurious oils, and the preparation of the upper room, to demonstrate that worship places should reflect what is due to a king.
Heyyyyy. That's what I said days ago. My exact words were, "the presence of God makes a place holy". So you'll listen to Dave but not Grubb. 
.
Dave,
The crux of the difference between our positions (you mention it also) is that the RC believes Jesus is continuously present in a church building in "Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity" while the Reformed Christian doesn't (except that we believe in His omnipresence ). THAT alone will make a huge difference in the way one views the building and will probably be the center of our impass.
If you site what David and Solomon did for the Temple, because God was present in it (you agreed that not every synagogue was done that richly), why doesn't the RCC make EVERY church building as nice as every other? You believe Jesus is present body, blood, and soul, why not make each one richly extravagant? And I've seen some plain, ho-hum RC churches. Does that mean they're disrespecting the body and blood of Christ?
I said the Temple of the NT is a Christian which you agree with, but then you said,
That continues the Old Testament temple concept in the sense that God is now spiritually inside of us through the indwelling, just as He was in the Shekinah cloud and in the Tabernacle and Temple in the Old Covenant.
The second fallacy in your argument is that it presupposes that an earthy, physical Temple and ourselves as temples of the Holy Spirit are mutually exclusive
the Bible informs us that "Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour" (Acts 3:1). So now you have two temples, not mutually exclusive
Is the OT Temple REALLY still intact? Paul said, "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple." (I Cor 3:16-17) No mention of buildings here.
II Cor 6:16, "What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.'" Here, just as in I Cor 3:16-17, Paul says WE and YOU are THE or THAT Temple of God now. If he wanted us to understand the synagogue was still a Temple, he would have said we/you are A temple of God.
And finally, in Matt 26:64 Jesus testifies that He said, "I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days." (Matt 26:61b) So Jesus destroyed the OT temple and rebuilt it in man. Now God dwells in man not in a church building (unless men are there ). Would God destroy the old Temple and rebuild two Temples? There's no need. Col 3:16-17 says, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." The OT Temple was a "shadow" of what was to come: the NT Temple, which is man. Many things in the OT are
Oops. Here's the rest.
Many things in the OT are a symbol of what was to come. There's no reason to have 2 temples.
6) Therefore, deductively and analogically, the Bible sanctions Christian church buildings, and the "biblical evidence" for same is the above.
I don't have a problem with church buildings, my concern is with 2 "Temples". There is no scripture to indicate that they believed God was still in the Holy of Holies after the veil had been torn. That they didn't change the name from Temple to "Church" overnight isn't a big deal. That God no longer dwelled in the building but rather in man IS a big deal.
He didn't abolish the Law and then give us 2 laws. He didn't get rid of sacrifice and then give us 2 sacrifices. He didn't get rid of circumcision and then give us 2 circumcisions. In each of these instances (as with the Temple) He got rid of one (the "shadow of things to come") and replaced it with one other thing. Why would He make the new way AND keep the old way?
.
The crux of the difference between our positions (you mention it also) is that the RC believes Jesus is continuously present in a church building in "Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity" while the Reformed Christian doesn't (except that we believe in His omnipresence ). THAT alone will make a huge difference in the way one views the building and will probably be the center of our impasse.
Indeed it is, and you agree that this is the key issue. Thanks for verifying the central difference.
If you cite what David and Solomon did for the Temple, because God was present in it (you agreed that not every synagogue was done that richly), why doesn't the RCC make EVERY church building as nice as every other? You believe Jesus is present body, blood, and soul, why not make each one richly extravagant?
Ain't got enough money. Contrary to the stereotypes, the Catholic Church is not filthy rich. We have to deal with self-absorbed, materialistic congregants just as every Protestant communion does.
And I've seen some plain, ho-hum RC churches. Does that mean they're disrespecting the body and blood of Christ?
I think so. Architectural mediocrity or downright ugliness in churches is a direct reflection of the loss of faith of the liberal "architects" who designed them, just as shoddy liturgy is also.
As for the Temple discussion, you miss my point almost entirely. I suggest that you read what I wrote again.
Dave,
You said,
As for the Temple discussion, you miss my point almost entirely. I suggest that you read what I wrote again.
I reread it, and here are the parts that caused me to miss your point.
This is one reason why we have very ornate churches and altars, because God is present. It's exactly the same principle of the Temple: if God is present, then it is clearly appropriate to be ornate, so as to celebrate His presence, just as we do every earthly king.
But eucharistic physical presence takes it a step further and continues the Temple concept and develops and expands it, making God's presence even more profound for us than it was then, for them.
I can see how these two comments may not be saying what I thought they did: that there are now two temples, and RCs decorate their churches so nicely, because the church is a temple that Jesus dwells in just as the Ark of the Covenant (and in some form, God Himself) dwelled in the Temple of Solomon's day.
The second fallacy in your argument is that it presupposes that an earthy, physical Temple and ourselves as temples of the Holy Spirit are mutually exclusive, with one replacing the other. But this is untrue and unbiblical,
So now you have two temples, not mutually exclusive
But the next 2 comments you made say point blank that there are 2 temples, and the church building is one of them. That's the point I took issue with, and even after rereading it, I don't see how I misinterpreted what you were saying. If I did, could you dumb it down a little? That may not have been your main point, but it's definitely a point you made.
I get your point about making churches nicer than the houses we live in, but I would actually take the discussion in the opposite direction: we should probably make our houses less nice than the church we attend. Ironically this is something my Bible study group has been discussing lately.
Again, I'm not completely against nice churches, but I'm not completely for them either. I'm still working on my "final answer"...and this forum is one way I'm doing that. But what did Jesus say to Peter when Peter acknowledged he loved Jesus 3 times? "Feed my lambs." "Take care of my sheep." "Feed my sheep." Clearly Jesus' heart was for His followers more than the buildings they would meet in. Building a super, nice, fancy building can make one wonder where the builders' priorities are. They may be completely noble, or they may be completely prideful. In a fallen world like ours, I'm afraid the latter may be more common.
.
What happened to the Barak Obama article, video and 10-12 links that was up a few hours ago?
I was hoping to look at your links on that issue more.
Hi Ken,
I never seem to get any discussion with political issues, so I decided to scrap it. I wish we could have more of that here, at least once in a while. I see it happen at other places, and it is frustrating. I guess I'm seen as "apologetics only." Granted, I mostly am (blog-wise), but I'm interested in lots of other things, too.
You can still get to the links on a Google cache:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=c...clnk&cd=2&
gl=us
I got most of them from the Real Clear Politics site:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Hi Grubb,
I appreciate your clarifications and stated ambiguity on some aspects of the matter.
But the next 2 comments you made say point blank that there are 2 temples, and the church building is one of them. That's the point I took issue with, and even after rereading it, I don't see how I misinterpreted what you were saying.
It was two examples of argument by analogy (a technique I commonly use).
First I argued that the indwelling and us being temples, is a continuation or development of the OT Temple concept, and we have no disagreement on that.
I then made a second analogy to Catholic Churches also being a development of the Temple Concept, but taking it a step further, to substantial presence as well as what might be called "extraordinary spiritual presence."
The "two temples" thing was in response to what seemed to be your argument that the two were mutually exclusive. With further clarification you have shown that you didn't mean it in that way, right?
But anyway, I was arguing that indwelt Christians were still worshiping at the Temple. Whether God had departed from the temple is a separate interesting question that didn't occur to me. I would suspect not, myself (why, after all, would the apostles worship in a place where God no longer was? They even worshiped in synagogues).
Then I noted that Jesus called Himself a temple while standing in front of the building-temple.
The larger argument was to say that the OT Temple was very ornate and had God present, therefore, present-day churches ought to be also, by the same token (and even going beyond that).
I would think that the argument could be made on non-sacramental Protestant grounds as well, on the basis of the Indwelling:
1) The OT Temple was elaborate and ornate because God was specially present.
2) God is now specially present in each Christian (indwelling) and indeed we are called temples.
3) Therefore, God is specially present in any church as soon as a Christian walks into it.
4) Ergo, today's churches ought to be elaborate and ornate by the same principle of the OT Temple being so: by principle and by analogy.
Whaddya think?
Interesting discussion . . .
Something of a case can probably be made from John 12 as well: 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
Hey, Grubb,
When I said,
[“ornate metal work, mosaics…” etc] do not oppose themselves to “a more austere environment.”
I meant of course, that the one does not oppose itself to the other, insofar as the spiritual or meditative aspects of religion are concerned, any more than, let’s say, the profound scholarship of St Thomas Aquinas opposes itself to the simple unlettered faith of a peasant. Or the exquisite grandeur of Chartres Cathedral, which has one kind of glory, oppose itself to the slums of Calcutta – where Mother Teresa spent a lifetime – which has another. Neither does the shame of the Cross, by which Our Lord suffered the wicked abuse of vile and ungrateful men, opposes itself to the unspeakable glory of His Transfiguration!
All represent the ineffable mercy, goodness, and providence of God.
Christ Glorified, is also the very same Christ crucified!
He is the eternal Priest. He is the eternal Victim! And, if I may digress for a moment, this is why, in the book of Revelation, in the Apocalypse, the Lord is portrayed as Lamb i.e. a victim! You see, He is the Lamb of God, and as such, He is always and forever, a Victim – a Victim for sin! He is the Lamb of God, “slain from the foundations of the world.” Remember, he still bears the marks of his victimhood, even in glorified body! "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." St. John, 20:27
You know, even as a child, I remember wondering why, why would the Lord be resurrected with the wounds of his Crucifixion! It seemed to make no sense. But now, I believe I understand (despite still being confronted with an impenetrable mystery): He is the eternal priest-victim!
But anyway, before I digress to far, let me just say that I do hope this make some sense to you, Grubb, despite my groping for the right words. There is of course, so much more yet to say.
That's what I said days ago. My exact words were, "the presence of God makes a place holy".
I would agree; the presence of God does make – or at least can make - a place holy: a stable in Bethlehem, the hill of Golgotha (the place of the skull) – I think, proves this out. http://www.biblestudytools.net/L...898&
version=kjv
Of course, this begs the question: what of the Virgin? What of her womb, in which the in which the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity dwelt, bodily? If we are the temple of the Holy Spirit (in a state of grace), certainly the Most Blessed Virgin was the Temple of the Holy Spirit -- par excellence! I know, I know: Such questions can really opens things up! And oh yes, I know, I’m digressing a bit. But how could I resit?!
But now, getting back to the matter at hand, here is an image, in case you missed it, of the OT Temple that I posted a while back.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/icVQrI5B.jpg
The Temple, Rose Publishing, ISBN 159636001
http://www.echurchdepot.com/
prod...roducts_id=4454
This little foldout (from a Protestant publisher btw) is small enough to fit in one’s glove box. It can also be had on the cheap. I recommend checking it out.
And then, there is this:
Monastic church at Einsiedeln, Switzerland. http://thumbsnap.com/v/0z1C5jUh.jpg
Source: Switzerland: A Picture Book To Remember Her By, 1988, (64 pages of color photography) ISBN 0517263076 http://www.amazon.com/Switzerlan...r/dp/
0517263076
Neither of these images really needs any comment from me. I think they both, in their own unique ways, speak volumes about the value of beauty in religious worship.
Grubb,
That's what I said days ago. My exact words were, "the presence of God makes a place holy'
He is there Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Not just spiritually.
God is omnipresent, Jesus is everyhwhere. Why build a 'church' at all? n fact from your basic position I think it would be more natural to worship in nature. To go into a wood somewhere.
' So you'll listen to Dave but not Grubb'
At he risk of upsetting you Yes, I would always listen to another catholic over a Protestant.
What are we dicussing? WHETHER we ought to beautify a church. Not how we should but WHETHER we should. And you don't feel any incongruity in that.
In Christ,
I realize you guys are way out of my league, but to me it is very simple. We build beautiful churches for the greater honor and glory of God.
Look at the precise instructions God gave for the Dwelling of the Ark of the Covenant. Also for the vestments he wanted the priests to wear.
Since God dwells in the Tabernacles of Catholic Churches, of course we should make our churches beautiful.
We have non-Catholic churches in my city that look like warehouses. The only way you can tell the difference is because they have a small cross on top & a sign out front. Most of the people who attend these churches have very expensive cars, beautiful homes, boats, and top of the line motor homes. I would have to think they put God last in their lives.
Mary
I lose the ecumenical spirit at times.
I mean Grubb, not that you have not interesting things to say or that your Biblical exegesis is not insightful, but it's just the basic position that you are strarting from; Protestant Bible- based Christianty which to my mind leads up a lot of dark alleys.
Ending up questiioning WETHER churches should beautified or not.
Should we teach our children the rules of Hygiene?
Should we educate our children?
Should we put them to bed at night or leave them on the floor?
is the only way I can analogise it
in Christ
Hi Mary,
You're right in our league. That was my entire argument in a nutshell. Great job!
Dave,
The "two temples" thing was in response to what seemed to be your argument that the two were mutually exclusive. With further clarification you have shown that you didn't mean it in that way, right?
I do believe the two NT temples you propose are mutually exclusive. I believe the OT temple was a "shadow of things to come" which is the 1 NT temple, man.
why, after all, would the apostles worship in a place where God no longer was?
Anyplace a Christian worships, God is there, because He's in each Christian. Why would He need a special presence in a building that's empty 90% of the time, when He already has a special presence in EVERY Christian 24/7/365?
Then I noted that Jesus called Himself a temple while standing in front of the building-temple.
At that point the new temple hadn't been established. It wasn't until His death & resurrection. But you cited Apostles calling it the Temple after He had died as well. They simply hadn't changed the name. Why don't we call it the temple today? Because WE are the temple.
The larger argument was to say that the OT Temple was very ornate and had God present, therefore, present-day churches ought to be also, by the same token
But the only Temple I know of that was commanded to be richly decorated was the one that God actually dwelled in (the one Solomon built). I don't believe each synagogue was commanded to be ornate.
2) God is now specially present in each Christian (indwelling) and indeed we are called temples.
3) Therefore, God is specially present in any church as soon as a Christian walks into it.
4) Ergo, today's churches ought to be elaborate and ornate by the same principle of the OT Temple being so: by principle and by analogy.
But by that reasoning my car, house, and office should all be elaborate and ornate, because I worship God in all 3 and He's specially present in all 3. In fact, I probably worship Him more at each of these places (maybe not the car) than I do at church.
(continued...)
.
Here's a real life Reformed church example. Initially my church met in an old funeral home. It's all we could afford to buy in the early days. We made it look as nice as we could. 10 years later (5 years ago) we built a 1.5 million dollar church building. It's nice but not very decorated. We did that in order to keep the cost down and help pay it off quicker. Last year we had a $30,000 surplus in the budget. We could have used that money to put up gold candle holders, get a hand crafted podium for our pastor, got nicer chairs or pews, and put in some chandeliers (or something to make it more elaborate).
We gave $15,000 to a pregnancy support center who helps women avoid abortions and the other $15,000 to multiple missionaries we're supporting in India. Which one is more constructive? Spending $30,000 to make our church look nicer or giving it to places that are on the frontlines of fighting abortions and winning souls for Christ in a non-Christian land? I bet if you're the baby who avoids abortion or an Indian who avoids Hell, you'd argue for spending the money on something besides the church building.
Before anyone goes attacking the $1.5 million price tag, our church is nice, but not elaborate. It's what a building in our town costs, and we even got it cheaper, because one of our members was the architect (worked for cost), and some of the contractors gave us a price break.
I understand trying to glorify God by making his church elaborate and ornate and magnificent, but I think it's better to glorify God by supporting missionaries and pregnancy centers to the maximum of our abilities. Wouldn't you agree?
Interesting discussion . . .
Indeed.
.
James,
Why build a 'church' at all? n fact from your basic position I think it would be more natural to worship in nature. To go into a wood somewhere.
The woods are cold! My point wasn't that we should meet for church at the time or place that we can experience God's greatness and grandeur the most. My point was that we can see God's greatness and grandeur more in nature than in any building man builds.
At he risk of upsetting you Yes, I would always listen to another catholic over a Protestant.
I'm not upset in the slightest. I fully expect that, just as I would put more trust in what Ken Temple says than a RC. That being said, I have learned (and would encourage in you too) not to completely discount what Dave (or in your case, Grubb and Ken) says, just because it's Dave (Grubb and Ken) saying it. Dave, just like Grubb, always intends to speak the truth, and I always weigh what he says in the light of scripture. I apply that to all my other friends here as well. In fact, you should read every word Ken writes. I love the Lord and His Word, but Ken does that too, but he's super smart and wise. Seriously.
I mean Grubb, not that you have not interesting things to say or that your Biblical exegesis is not insightful
Thank you.
Protestant Bible- based Christianty which to my mind leads up a lot of dark alleys.
(humorously)We certainly wouldn't want to base our Christian lives on the Bible, now would we (end of attempted humor) Which do you think would lead up more dark alleys? A church who bases their beliefs on God's Word only or a church who bases their beliefs on God's Word AND traditions (some of which didn't start until more than a 1000 years after the Apostles died) that are non-Biblical? Note: I didn't say anti-Biblical, although I believe some are.
(continued...)
.
Should we teach our children the rules of Hygiene?
I'm all for hygiene but not vanity. Brush your teeth so you can keep them and so you don't offend others with bad breath, but don't get all your teeth capped, just so they look beautiful.
If we are the temple (and we are), treating our body and more importantly our spirit, is good. But notice what Paul says about physical appearance, "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." (I Tim 2:9-10) And in I Pet 3:3-5, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful."
Should we educate our children?
How else will they work for a living? "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (II Thess 3:10b)
Should we put them to bed at night or leave them on the floor?
I don't get this last analogy. Are you really comparing a basic act of love (and possibly health, depending on the floor) to spending money unnecessarily on a church building instead of giving it to a pregnancy center? Would putting your child to sleep on the floor next to his bed help prevent abortion? I think you're comparing apples to oranges on this one.
is the only way I can analogise it
Sounds like you may be done discussing. If so, I've enjoyed it. If not, I look forward to more.
.
I can't seem to find the verse right now, but didn't God say if we will put Him first that He would put us first, or something similar? Also, in 2 Chr.7;14 He said, if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
If priests and ministers in our churches were teaching what they should, people might not think they need to buy every new gadget or new car that comes along. And some of the houses you see now are simply outrageous. I can do anything in my house they can do without spending a million dollars.
If people just lived like they should, there would be enough money for beautiful churches plus money for every other problem. If we would just worship God the way we should, He has told us He would take care of the rest.
Why build a 'church' at all? n fact from your basic position I think it would be more natural to worship in nature. To go into a wood somewhere.
I think we can worship God in nature, but that is something He has given us. We give to Him through sacrificing and making beautiful churches for His honor and glory.
Why didn't God tell the Israelites to just worship Him in nature, He could have done that. Instead, He told them how He wanted to be worshipped and everything had to be very precise and up to His standards.
Grubb,
You make some good points worth considering. However, I get that nagging feeling like it's only "Half-truths."
I don't know about this but I've often wondered why Jesus said, " zeal for my Father's house consumes me." Refering, of course, to the Temple. The same Temple He would tell us would be destoyed. Interesting.
Also, ther have been throughout the 2000 year History of The Church, ie. Roman Catholicism/ Eastern Orthodoxy any number of commited religious who have taken vows of poverty. Basically donating there life to Christ and His Church. Not to mention the practices and disciplines of Monks and Friars throughout the Church's History that is anything but extravagant. St. Francis of Assisi comes to mind. So, it would be just as easy to make the opposite charge against Roman Catholicism saying that it is too bare and poor and austere. In fact, this leads to exactly the type of thing that struck GK Chesterton about Christianity. Namely, that its critics contradicted themselves in their accusations against it.
Mary,
Hi. Nice to talk to you.
I realize you guys are way out of my league, but to me it is very simple. We build beautiful churches for the greater honor and glory of God.
I'm not out of anyone's league.
Did Jesus ever command or commend elaborate churches/temples? I don't know the answer to this for certain, but I suspect it's "No". If it wasn't Dave, Ben, or James would have mentioned it. The Apostles commanded Paul to help the poor, "All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Gal 2:10) and Jesus commanded us to evangelize the nations, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matt 28:19-20)
Which do you think would glorify and honor God more? Building a $1.5 million church and giving $500,000 to the poor and missionaries or building a $2 million church and giving none to the poor and missionaries? We need buildings to meet in. That's Biblical. But a nice looking church glorifies God and allows money to go to the things God commanded us to tend to. An extravagant church may glorify God (assuming one's motives are pure), but it would leave no money for the poor and lost, the ones Jesus commanded us to look after and seek out. Don't you agree?
Most of the people who attend these churches have very expensive cars, beautiful homes, boats, and top of the line motor homes. I would have to think they put God last in their lives.
Careful. I don't doubt what you say is true, but I've driven by some RC churches and seen the very same thing. The RCC and its members aren't immune to materialism.
When we decided to build a new church building, our pastor went out to the parking lot and said, "These aren't the cars of people who can afford a new church building." My truck is a '94 F-150. My wife drives a much newer vehicle, a 2001 Mazda Minivan. And we're the norm at my church. I don't know anyone that has a motor home or a boat. I'm sure some do, but most don't.
We're commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves. Do you think your lost or poor neighbor would rather you give $200 to buy a gold chalice for your church when a nice $5 cup would do or give $200 to help feed their family, keep the electricity on, or bring the good news to them? Not many people sitting in the freezing dark would say, "No, no. We don't need electricity; go ahead and buy that extravagant chalice for church" would they?
.
Pat,
Glad to hear from you. I appreciate you sugar coating it, but a half truth is deception and (in my opinion) a lie. I believe it is never right to deceive or lie!! What have I said that makes you think I'm being deceitful? Surely it wasn't the scripture I quoted. My church really did build a $1.5 million dollar church building, and we really did give $30,000 away last year (assuming my pastor and elders were telling the truth). Do you think I really drive something nicer than a '94 F-150 with 123,000+ miles on it (which needs a new fan clutch assembly according to my mechanic). My church building really is nice but not extravagant.
I never claimed I don't have some nice things at home nor that my house is nicer than I NEED. Nor did I claim I've arrived at Monk-like status. I told Dave I've read The Treasure Principle which is helping reshape how I view money and stuff and that I agree with his assessment that people tend to give their leftovers (not their first fruits) to God and keep the best for themselves. That's not exactly how I said it, but it's a good, concise synopsis I think. All that's a complete truth.
As to your point about the men and women in the RCC who've taken vows of poverty or who have lived simply even without a vow, I commend them. The issue I might have is that Jesus said, "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (Matt 5:15-16) Are monks hiding their light if no one ever sees them? But that's a whole 'nother topic.
The way to break the hold something has on you is to get rid of it. Whether it's a tv, an extravagant house, or money. I don't think anyone really has a leg to stand on when they criticize someone who gives everything to follow Jesus, when that's exactly what Jesus told the rich man to do.
I look forward to you clarifying your initial comment; and I'm not saying that in a defensive or aggravated way either. If I've come across as disingenuine or as telling a half truth, it would help me to know how/where in order to avoid it in the future. Is it just because I'm saying something reformed Christians don't normally say?
.
To approach things from another angle, I view the primary function of a church's decorations and design as one of communication. The church communicates to the faithful by way of many symbols, some of which are words, others are visual, others are scents, others are gestures, others are sounds and music, others are languages themselves (like Latin, Greek and Hebrew), etc... Even not using a symbol communicates something.
To take an example, gold. The use of gold is not just for beauty. Gold symbolizes worth and the idea of worth cannot be communicated with glass, plastic, clay, etc... The use of gold for candles, tabernacles, patens, chalices, etc... communicates the worth of the thing they're used for. You can preach all you want about how sacred the Blessed Sacrament is, but if you use cheap materials and a casual presentation, you're contradicting yourself symbolically and fighting a very steep uphill battle.
That's not to say that every decision to buy expensive liturgical articles is wise and good... I've been in some impoverished missionary churches up here in the Arctic and they convey sacredness just fine without many frills. And of course, we are all familiar with the church that spends a fortune and ends up with a sanctuary looking like the bridge on Star Trek. This is often because, no matter how much money you have to spend, if you don't know what you want to communicate, you won't be able to do it.
Grubb: Regarding spending an extra $30K on a Baptist building, I can understand your congregation's decision. I was Baptist before I became RC, and thinking back, I can't think of what I'd spend that money on either. Potted plants? New carpet? That communicates nothing, whereas austerity at least communicates otherworldiness and humility. The point is, I think, that Baptists have nothing to communicate that isn't already communicated by the spoken word, which requires no extra symbolism. To take a case, if you wanted to better instruct the congregation on the Baptist doctrine on the Sacrament of Communion, using non-verbal symbols, how could you spend the $30,000? I can't think of how to spend $300, really.
As far as supporting pregnancy centers and missionaries, this is hard to respond to, as those things are certainly important and often vying for the same resources as liturgical upgrades. Remember, though, what Our Lord told Judas: "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." (John 12:1-7) In other words, there will always be little expenses and charities to donate to - but don't let that stop you from doing something big and beautiful for the Lord.
Mary,
I didn't see your 2nd comment until after I posted my reply to you. You quoted me quoting James Morris when he asked,
Why build a 'church' at all? n fact from your basic position I think it would be more natural to worship in nature. To go into a wood somewhere.
You replied,
I think we can worship God in nature, but that is something He has given us. We give to Him through sacrificing and making beautiful churches for His honor and glory.
Did Jesus command us to make beautiful church buildings for His honor and glory? I don't think He did. He did command us to help the poor and preach the Word.
Why didn't God tell the Israelites to just worship Him in nature, He could have done that. Instead, He told them how He wanted to be worshipped and everything had to be very precise and up to His standards.
Yes, and in the NT He tells us how He wants to be worshipped now. He told Peter to, "Feed my lambs." "Take care of my sheep." and "Feed my sheep." (John 21:15b, 16b, 17b) Very few other places in the Bible is the same thing repeated 3 times. That's like highlighting, bolding, capitalizing, and putting 3 exclamation points in modern writing. His last words on earth were, "Therefore go and make disciple of all the nations..." (Matt 28:19-20) And the night before He was crucified, He drove home the lesson He had been teaching for 3 years by His very example, "Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:43-45)
Throughout His ministry Jesus taught caring for the poor and widows and seeking and saving the lost. If you only had one day before you died, what lesson(s) would you reaffirm to your children? Probably the most important ones. And the last lessons Jesus reaffirmed were to take care of His chosen ones, serve others, and to seek and save the lost. THOSE are the ways we worship God along with a life of purity, so I agree with you that we should worship Him as He commanded us.
If Jesus is present in body, blood, and spirit in every RC church building (which I disagree with), why isn't every one of them as elaborate as the one Solomon built? Plus there are some fairly ho-hum RC churches that fall WAY short of glorifying God with ornate interior design. Dave did say he believed they were disrespecting God by doing so (maybe not his exact words, but close).
Paul quoted where Jesus said He had zeal for His father's house, but that's referring to the kingdom of God not a well decorated building. Is there any place in the NT where Jesus specifically encourages or commends an elaborate church building?
Ben M.,
I'll have to get to your comments tomorrow. Sorry my friend.
.
You're right in our league. That was my entire argument in a nutshell. Great job!
Thanks Dave, but I'm letting everyone know before hand that I am a senior with only a high school diploma. After reading some of your debates on your site, I feel very intimidated, but I really enjoy reading them anyway. All of you can put things so eloquently. I will stay out of the debates when they are over my head.
Grubb said:
But the only Temple I know of that was commanded to be richly decorated was the one that God actually dwelled in (the one Solomon built). I don't believe each synagogue was commanded to be ornate.
This is where we differ with non-Catholics Grubb, because we believe that God does dwell in every Catholic Church. He is there body, blood, soul, and divinity in the tabernacles of our churches, and that is why we believe we should use every means we can to give God the best that we possibly can.
Grubb said:
Careful. I don't doubt what you say is true, but I've driven by some RC churches and seen the very same thing. The RCC and its members aren't immune to materialism.
Please don't think I'm saying there are no Catholics who are materialistic Grubb, I know quite a few who are. I also know some who think abortion is alright. These people are fooling themselves when they call themselves Catholic.
When we decided to build a new church building, our pastor went out to the parking lot and said, "These aren't the cars of people who can afford a new church building." My truck is a '94 F-150. My wife drives a much newer vehicle, a 2001 Mazda Minivan. And we're the norm at my church. I don't know anyone that has a motor home or a boat. I'm sure some do, but most don't.
I know there are people in non-Catholic Churches who are not materialistic, but I have been to affluent neighborhoods where you wouldn't believe the size and beauty of the houses & then you see something that looks like a warehouse and that is the local Protestant church.
My point is people in the U.S. have just gone crazy with materialism. I say if you can sleep great on a $500.00 bed, why does anyone have to have a five thousand dollar bed. Some of the refridgerators and other appliances today are unbelieveable. I saw a fridge the other day that had a $7,000.00 pricetag on it. Do you think it really kept food longer? It's just getting rediculous.
I think moderation is the key. That's why I said if people would live like they should, there would be enough for the poor and more than enough for beautiful churches.
Mary,
Being a senior gives you a huge advantage. I'm 42 and am learning that there's a certain wisdom that only comes from experience. There's a reason they wanted leaders in the church to be "elders".
I'm going to say something I rarely say to people on this forum. I agree with your last comment 100%. Materialism is a disease that infects probably 99% of Americans to some degree.
All of you can put things so eloquently. I will stay out of the debates when they are over my head.
If I'm included in the "All of you", thank you. Unlike Dave, who writes fast and well, I write either fast and poorly or slow and not as poorly. Please feel free to join in any debate I'm ever in.
Grubb
True Christian humility is represented by Chartres cathedral NOT the Quaker metting house NOT The Methodist 'Hall"
That's false humility.
True humility was shown by the peole who built Chartres cathedral-creating (in gratitude) to God, something awsomely beautiful for Him. They wanted to enrich life. Christianity is about enriching life to the fullest, not paring things down, not stripping away but building up, beautifying life.
I am reminded of Uriah Heep in connection with this debate; 'I am very 'umble an' I live in a numble abode'
And of course we know Uriah wasn't very humble at all.
'I am very humble and so I worship in a humble place' is the Chritian equivalent in this connection.
It's all just false humility and (at the risk of being too Dickensian in my language) HUMBUG.
And on that ecumenical note, I wish all here a Happy Easter,
especially Griubb,
Ben M.,
I left your comment for today, because I thought it was going to take a lot to respond; but as you pointed out, there really isn't much to address. You digressed a little (by your own admission), and then you showed a few extremely nice pictures.
Yes, the Temple Solomon built was glorious, but it wasn't the standard. Can you make a case for having one tremendously elaborate cathedral in every country or every state based on The Temple Solomon built? I suppose you could; but that should be the exception not the norm.
I have a point that would fit well here, but I'm going to present it in a comment to Everyone right after this. I look forward to your reply.
.
Everyone,
As I was reading scripture today and thinking about the RC argument that Jesus is present in every RC church building in body, blood, soul, and spirit, there seemed to be a contradiction between the two.
When Judas objected to the pure nard that Mary, Lazarus' sister, poured on Jesus, what did Jesus say? "'Leave her alone,' Jesus replied. 'It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.'" (John 12:7-8 )
So your argument that each RC church building should be very ornate, because Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity contradicts scripture. Even if somehow we can allow that Jesus was physically present in each church (as the RCC teaches), Jesus implied that while He was alive was the time to adorn Him with elaborate treatment. Once He ascended, we should take care of the poor.
This contradicts us having Him present body, blood, soul, and spirit in every church: "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."
.
Everyone,
Happy Good Friday and have a Glorious and thankful Easter. I'm thankful for this blog, for being welcomed here, and for the friends I've made over the years. Prov 27:17 says, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." You all have sharpened me through your knowledge and adversity, and I really am thankful for that.
I believe the Reformed Church has it right; most of you believe the RCC has it completely right. In light of that, I pray that you all will find truth in all areas of Christianity, just as I hope y'all pray that I find truth in all areas of Christianity. There is no sense in believing untruth, even if it makes us feel good. It doesn't benefit anyone. So I will gladly part with beliefs I have that are shown to be untrue, and I hope all of you will too if what you believe is shown to be an untruth. We all stand alone before the judgment seat one day, and we don't get to stand with our church. If there is something in your church or my church that is imperfect or ungood, Paul tells each one of us (not just the church leadership), "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Rom 12:2)
Praise God for sacrificing His only begotten Son that all who put their faith in Jesus may be saved. So today I lament what had to happen roughly 2000 years ago, but Sunday I will rejoice greatly at what happened on the 3rd day...Jesus' resurrection.
Praise God and Happy Easter Everyone!!
.
Thanks James,
And a Happy Easter to you as well.
Is having a humble church really false humility? If I have a humble heart and build a humble church and give money not used for the church to the poor and needy, is that false humility?
If it is, I think we have different definitions of "humility".
.
Hey Grubb, happy Easter to you, too.
Regarding John 13:7-8 and Jesus not being with us now:
Obviously, in some sense, Catholics believe that Jesus is not with us right now. I can think of two proofs for this. 1) We believe he will come again, therefore, he must not be here now. 2) The Pope is often called the vicar of Christ, and to be a vicar is to act in someone's absence on their behalf, therefore Christ is in some sense absent from us.
But against that, he tells us that when two or three will gather in his name, he'll be present amongst them.
Therefore, I would say that the Church teaches that Christ was referring to his absence in the first senses in John 13, not in the sense that he would not be present in the Eucharist.
Clavem,
Glad to talk to you. You do bring a different perspective to this topic which has some merit. If I told my fiancé (we're married now for 16 years; we had our 4th anniversary on Feb 29th) she meant the world to me then bought a $20 engagement ring, she might feel like she doesn't mean that much to me due to the cheapness. But was the cup and plate used for the first communion extra special? We don't know for certain; but if it wasn't, that would give a precedent from Jesus Himself to use everyday stuff instead of gold and silver. It's more likely they had common plates and cups in my opinion.
Even if we all agreed using gold and silver was acceptable to show things of worth (i.e. the Eucharist, holy water, and such) how many nice things would you need? A couple of chalices, a nice baptismal, and a nice container for holy water. You certainly wouldn't need cathedral ceilings, stained glass windows, gold candle holders on the walls, expensive statues, and exquisite paintings on the walls. You should be able to move into a reformed church's building and bring the few nice things you need to convey the importance of the sacraments.
For the most part I agree with you...what would a reformed church upgrade to show its importance? We could get a gold covered Bible to symbolize how valuable the Word is. We could have a platinum cross to convey the worth of Jesus dying on the cross. We could have diamond studded microphones for our praise team, because praise and worship is important to God. Our pastor could preach from a podium of the finest wood to show (again) how valuable the Word is but also to show how important a preacher is.
I say this partly in jest, but by using your logic it would actually make sense to do that, wouldn't it? I asked the question to everyone but will ask you specifically since you referenced the scripture I also referenced. The RCC claims Jesus is present in every church building in body, blood, soul, and spirit (or divinity), but the scripture you quoted said, "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."
So which is it. Do you have Him in body and spirit or don't you? If you do, it seems to violate scripture. And if you don't, not only does it remove 1 excuse for making every church building nice but also poses a dilemma of epic proportions regarding infallibility. This is unthinkable for a RC isn't it? Yet it's a very real and difficult contradiction in the RC theology. Don't you agree?
.
Clavem,
Sorry, I didn't realize you had commented just now. I see what you're saying, but one of the arguments many (not necessarily you) are using to support spending a LOT of money on a church building is that Christ is there "body, blood, soul, and spirit." At the very minimum the passage we both cited should encourage RCs to spend little money on the church, because once He was gone He wanted us to take care of the poor more than buy exquisite stuff for Him.
It still seems contradictory to say Jesus is present in a place body, blood, soul, and divinity when scripture says we won't have him in person anymore. Obviously Jesus is omnipresent but not necessarily in the physical sense. And "Where 2 or 3 are gathered, there am I with them" doesn't necessarily convey in body and blood; it only insinuates He's there spiritually.
Well, I need to go finish a program now. Have a Happy Easter, and I hope to talk with you next week. God bless.
.
Grubb,
So your argument that each RC church building should be very ornate, because Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity contradicts scripture.
Not at all; it only contradicts your interpretation of scripture
The argument, I think, is more like this: every Church should be built for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. And for this reason, beauty in religious art and architecture ought to be employed. For by such means we are better helped recall to our minds the holiness of God and the holiness of his saints, and in so doing, we are better able to glorify Him and to sanctify our souls.
But I suppose your reluctance in this matter is somewhat understandable, given your dogma of “guaranteed salvation,” which admits of no need to sanctify the soul in order that it may inherit eternal life – basically, “once saved, always saved.”
Then there is the little matter of the saints: Any reminders of them – however simple or ornate- undoubtedly serves as a witness against Protestantism in general. And this I suspect, is really what’s at the heart of your theological difficulty with respect to religious art.
.
Even if somehow we can allow that Jesus was physically present in each church (as the RCC teaches), Jesus implied that while He was alive was the time to adorn Him with elaborate treatment. Once He ascended [and thus no longer with us??], we should take care of the poor.
Curious ‘implication,’ Grubb!
How can you think Christ is no longer with us?
“….and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matt. 28:20
In any event, during or Lord’s earthly ministry, he constantly obliged his followers to care for the poor, for the less fortunate. This he taught both through word and deed.
Besides, helping the poor may take various forms, monetary assistance being but one. There are also such things as spiritual works of mercy.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
10198d.htm
Now with that in mind, listen to what Christ told his disciples before sending them out to preach the Kingdom of God (bear in mind that, at this point, his disciples understood nothing of his cross, resurrection, and ascension! Only later – much later – would they finally come to understand). Now Christ told them to,
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Matthew 10:8
All these constitute "helping the poor.”
So I just don’t see how you could conclude that the Lord, “who went about doing good,” (acts 10:38 ) could have ever taught or “implied” that such charity was to be postponed until after his ascension!
I believe the Reformed Church has it right; most of you believe the RCC has it completely right.
But now which do you suppose the Lord actually founded?
Praise God for sacrificing His only b
Praise God for sacrificing His only begotten Son that all who put their faith in Jesus may be saved
Or you could have just quoted Christ own words, which are little more demanding.
“And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” Matthew 10:38 KJV
Or said something more like: “Praise God … so that all who put their faith in Jesus [and who do not knowingly and willingly separate themselves from his One Church and who obey his commandments] may [hope to be] saved.”
“For who of the multitude of believers can presume, so long as he is living in this mortal state, that he is in the number of the predestinated?” - St. Augustine.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...athers/
1513.htm
Anyway, Grubb, I wish you peace and a most blessed Easter.
Grubb said:
I believe the Reformed Church has it right; most of you believe the RCC has it completely right. In light of that, I pray that you all will find truth in all areas of Christianity, just as I hope y'all pray that I find truth in all areas of Christianity. There is no sense in believing untruth, even if it makes us feel good. It doesn't benefit anyone. So I will gladly part with beliefs I have that are shown to be untrue, and I hope all of you will too if what you believe is shown to be an untruth. We all stand alone before the judgment seat one day, and we don't get to stand with our church. If there is something in your church or my church that is imperfect or ungood, Paul tells each one of us (not just the church leadership), "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Rom 12:2)
I actually appreciate what you said in the above Grubb. I have met so many non-Catholics who are not open to anything a Catholic says, and you can tell, when you are talking to them in person, that they aren't really listening, but thinking of the next question they're going to ask you.
I am a cradle Catholic and was never really confronted with the fact that Catholics could be wrong until I got out of highschool. The neighborhood I grew up in, everyone was Catholic & I went to only Catholic Schools. When I Started working, I was bombarded with all the things people say about the Catholic Church. I started studying everything I could get my hands on, because I didn't want to be in a church that was pagan or was not following the true Gospel of our Lord. After reading what other religions had to say and then comparing what the CC teaches, I came up Catholic every time. I may not be as intelligent as I would like to be, but I do think I have a logical mind. I don't think many non-Catholics even read what Catholics really believe or why we believe what we do. They say we are brain washed, but who are really the brain washed ones, when they won't even consider reading a Catholic book? Be right back.
Concerning our Lord's presence in the Holy Eucharist, this is one of the areas where I can't understand why it's so hard to believe. Could our Lord have made it any clearer? How many times or ways did He have to say it? He did everything short of twisting our arms to get us to believe in His true presence, and is there any limit to what God can do ? Personally, it is very easy for me to believe because I don't put limits on what God can do. When our Lord said "This is my body", can you honestly say "It is not His body?" Whom should I believe? I'm sure Dave has given all the verses where Jesus taught His true presense in the Eucharist, like "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55). This is not the language of symbolism! And what about, Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:27). How can we be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, if His body and blood aren't really there in the Eucharist? Paul's words are meaningless without the Real Presence.
I only had a few minutes this morning, it's still early here on the west coast. Going to be very busy today getting ready for a family celebration for Easter tomorrow. It was nice talking at you, tee hee. I to hope everyone has a blessed Easter and Easter season.
Grubb:
There are many other verses that indicate Jesus is no longer with us, like Luke 5:35, "But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast". I don't see how you interpret these as allowing for him to be spiritually with us, but not physically with us. It seems quite ambiguous either way. That seems to be your own eisegesis.
You're just forgetting the "both/and" principle of Catholicism. We'd rather assert two truths that seem contradictory, than assert one and deny another, according to our preference, and lose out on half the truth.
Regarding churches made out of gold, you have to understand it's the heart that matters, not the price tag or materials. Money helps if it's available, but for those who say "Oh, it costs so much to have a nice church", I really have to say "O ye of little faith". For instance, my parish last year was made for 70K in the 1976 and it's in the Arctic, and it's beautiful. The brothers who made the Church worked for nothing. Here's the best shot I have of the sanctuary:
http://pics.livejournal.com/cnap...an/pic/
0002bb0b
(Yes, the tabernacle is an igloo but that's a matter for a different post - the architect had a sense of humour, I guess)
And the outside:
http://pics.livejournal.com/cnap...an/pic/
0005yfyk
I been to the Vatican in Rome two times and it is jar droping when you first go in to see it. So inspireing and beautful to see in person. The 16 Chapel is amazeing look upon and ponder the story it tells. The Preist that I was with told me that people was coming up to him asking if they can give there confession to him, and these people have not been in years. We just had a new Cathedral built in Houston and I cant wait its open the public soon. God bless Jerry
“The temple I am going to build will be great, because our God is greater than all other gods”. – 2 Chron. 2:5
"Our holy and glorious temple, where our fathers praised you, has been burned with fire, and all that we treasured lies in ruins." - Isaiah 64:11
Grubb,
Before reading, please take a look at this.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/C...gi?
number=T4888
Did Jesus ever command or commend elaborate churches/temples?
Well, no. But then again, he never commanded - nor even suggested - the building of any kind of church / temple, ornate or otherwise. And as I'm sure know, in the formative years of the NT Church, Christians celebrated the Mass, celebrated the Eucharist – with some exceptions - in houses of various individuals - the so-called “house-churches.” Separate buildings set apart for worship were to come later – much later.
See pp. 49-50 of The Church According to the New Testament, 2001, Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., ISBN 1580511112.
http://books.google.com/books?id...&
hl=en#PPA50,M1
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...niv&
language=en
Note also that Christ never condemned the Temple for its beauty, for its elaborateness. Perhaps this explains why, at least in part, the early Christians, even in the Catacombs, were wont to make their worship as beautiful and as reverential as possible, despite their very trying circumstances.
Btw, since the “house-church” was pretty much – again, with some exceptions - the NT norm and pattern, shouldn’t Protestants reject as non-biblical and as “traditions of men,” any other kind of place for worship?
Ben M.,
every Church should be built for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. And for this reason, beauty in religious art and architecture ought to be employed. For by such means we are better helped recall to our minds the holiness of God and the holiness of his saints, and in so doing, we are better able to glorify Him and to sanctify our souls.
So you have a hard time recalling the holiness of God without a beautiful building? You can better glorify God in an ornate church than an average building? How does stained glass, statues, and gold chalices help you recall God's holiness? I agree a church building should be built to glorify God, and in that regard, it shouldn't look "crappy".
“guaranteed salvation,” which admits of no need to sanctify the soul in order that it may inherit eternal life
Wasn't it Luther who separated Justify & Sanctify? Doesn't the RCC believe justify & sanctify are interchangeable? Reformed Christians believe we're justified once but continually sanctified, so there is a need for sanctification, but it's God who sanctifies me through the Holy Spirit, an elaborate church building isn't part of the equation.
Any reminders of them – however simple or ornate- undoubtedly serves as a witness against Protestantism in general.
The Apostle Paul wrote to many churches (including the church in Rome), but he never wrote to the RCC. Why would a reminder of him be "a witness against Protestantism"? If anything, the church in Paul's day was more like it is under Protestantism than RCism.
How can you think Christ is no longer with us?
Jesus said that we wouldn't always have Him but then says "surely I am with you always." So is the Bible false due to this contradiction? No, we understand that in the first instance He's referring to the bodily form and in the second instance He's referring to the spiritual form. Wouldn't you agree? If not, what else could He have meant in John 13:7-8?
I didn't say (or even insinuate) that Jesus didn't help or encourage His followers to help the poor. Surely you knew that's not what I was saying. I was merely pointing out that Jesus said that while He was here physically was the time He thought it appropriate to adorn Him with expensive things, and even then it was only for a specific purpose (His burial).
Did you really have to critique my Happy Easter comment?
.
Mary,
Thanks. I too was born and raised RC. Unlike you, when I started considering what the RCC taught verses what the Bible says, I left the RCC and began attending a Bible church. Now the church I attend is a Southern Baptist church, but it aligns itself with the Bible very well.
They say we are brain washed, but who are really the brain washed ones, when they won't even consider reading a Catholic book?
Unfortunately there are tons of people in both your church and mine who don't read ANY spiritual book including the Bible.
Concerning our Lord's presence in the Holy Eucharist, this is one of the areas where I can't understand why it's so hard to believe. Could our Lord have made it any clearer? How many times or ways did He have to say it? He did everything short of twisting our arms to get us to believe in His true presence, and is there any limit to what God can do ?
I spoke with a Dallas Theological Seminary professor (a VERY conservative Southern Baptist seminary), and he said something like, "Isn't it interesting that reformed Christians take the Bible literally everywhere but on the issue of the 'body and blood'." I really can see both sides of the argument, but my pastor and Ken Temple have both provided convincing reasons for believing in the symbolism rather than transubstantiation. In the end I submit to my church's teaching on this.
How can we be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, if His body and blood aren't really there in the Eucharist? Paul's words are meaningless without the Real Presence.
Can you not profane another person without them being present? Suppose I take a picture of myself and give it to my daughter as a reminder of me while I'm on a business trip for a month. She treats it with great care sets a place for it at her tea parties, and that honors me. But when I call and say I have to stay another week, she gets angry and draws horns on the picture and then burns it. Is she profaning the picture or me? She's profaning me by her actions to the picture. She's not really mad at the picture; she's mad at me. That's one way one could profane the Lord's body and blood even if they aren't actually present.
.
Clavem,
I don't see how you interpret these as allowing for him to be spiritually with us, but not physically with us. It seems quite ambiguous either way. That seems to be your own eisegesis.
Not just mine. Every time He said He wouldn't be with us any longer, He seems to be referring to His physical presence. And then when He says He'll be with us always, it only makes sense that He's speaking spiritually. I don't mean to be irreverent, but have you ever seen Jesus physically? No. None of us have (barring a miracle), but we have seen His spirit work through people. When a Christian gives a $5000 car to someone in need, that person has experienced the love of Jesus through that person. The person helped may even say they've seen Jesus (referring to the person who donated the car), but they would never say that person WAS Jesus. What they saw was Jesus working through someone not His physical being.
Why affirm 2 seemingly contradictory truths when the belief that in some passages He's referring to His body and others His spirit makes perfect sense? It's a very easy distinction.
Regarding churches made out of gold, you have to understand it's the heart that matters, not the price tag or materials.
There's an old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I can have a good heart about doing the wrong thing, but in the end it's still the wrong thing. For example, if my wife asks what I think about her new dress, I could lie to make her feel better. My heart has good intentions, but lying is a sin. I believe (and there's scripture to back me up) God will be merciful to the person who does the wrong thing with a right heart just as most earthly fathers would be. But the question here isn't, "Was it done with a right heart?" The question has to be, "Is it the right thing to do?"
I agree, the heart of the person building a church (whether it's ornate or not) is very important as is the heart of the person worshipping in that church.
Unfortunately I couldn't view your pictures at work; the website was blocked. I'll have to view them at home.
.
Dear Clavem,
I really like your igloo church. Really looks homely there in the cold. I am reminded of a quote; (maybe you could help me again with who said it) 'the Catholic Church is forever ancient, forever new'.
Unusual for me because I am by temperament very conservative regarding developments of liturgy and church building.
For instance, I really don't care for 'Paddy's Wigwam' in Liverpool, England. It was the great new catholic cathedral built in the sixties. When I got there I found to my horror a lot of the outside was made of concrete NO...Smooth bare walls NO... And the stained glass was all symbolic: Christ represented by shafts of light NO NO NO.
It was a holy place (because it is Catholic) and you can't always have improvement (almost impossible I would think to improve on the Gothic), but I don't care for it (to say the least)
But I really do like your igloo church. Maybe there'll be a movement-The Iglooesque?
In Christ
Jerry,
(Ben, this sort of addresses your comment as well...the last paragraph where I talk about cathedrals spread out)
The Preist that I was with told me that people was coming up to him asking if they can give there confession to him, and these people have not been in years.
I'm glad you commented. It's true, something like that really can encourage an emotional response, and the response may even be genuine. The problem is it's only a temporary feeling. After they left the cathedral, how had their lives changed? It's probable every one of them went back to their old life style of not confessing and/or repenting. And even if they could visit the cathedral regularly, the "awesomeness" would wear off, and it would become normal or mundane.
That's true of a local church too. Most people will take their local church for granted for years and hardly notice the beauty at all until a stained glass window gets broken or a chalice gets ruined or stolen. So in a sense, all the elegant and ornate stuff is symbolic, unless it's only viewed periodically. Most men can relate to this: when I first saw my wife, her beauty was breath taking. The 2nd & 3rd time it was the same. After a while, she was very pretty, but it didn't necessarily take my breath away. Later, her beauty wasn't enough to get me to run to the refrigerator to get her a soda, let alone running to the store to get her something. Initially her beauty was enough to get me to skip work, write poems, and buy dozens of flowers. Months later (even though she was just as pretty) I remember thinking, "I could go buy her flowers or go to lunch with the guys." At first I gladly sacrificed lunch with the guys to get her flowers, but after I got used to her beauty, I didn't.
That's partly why I said one could make a case for building a cathedral in every country or state; so people could go there and be reinspired by the beauty man is capable of. And even then it's only helpful for those who truly believe or are on the threshold. Every one else will see it, be moved for a short while, and go back to their godless life style (note: this is a conviction of people who aren't true followers of Jesus in both the RCC and the Reformed Church) But on a church by church basis, the beauty gets taken for granted after a while, and the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
.
Grubb,
So you have a hard time recalling the holiness of God without a beautiful building? You can better glorify God in an ornate church than an average building?
Well, let me put it this way: generally speaking, I would say that true beauty in religious art and architecture is always more conducive to recalling God’s holiness than are any of their the run-of-the-mill counterparts.
Reformed Christians believe we're justified once but continually sanctified, so there is a need for sanctification, but it's God who sanctifies me through the Holy Spirit, an elaborate church building isn't part of the equation.
But you still believe, “once saved always saved.” Your theology and religious worship admits of no helps for souls that they may better prepare for eternal life. For what is there to prepare for – salvation it is a fait accompli?
In any event, we are justified and sanctified through the Church. And to the extent that you are incorporated (however imperfectly) into the Lord’s one Catholic Church, you too are being sanctified and justified through this same Church.
The Apostle Paul wrote to many churches (including the church in Rome), but he never wrote to the RCC.
Dear heavens, Grubb, how is it you can make such an ignorant statement! Father Paul praised the faith of the Roman Church, saying that it was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8 ). Now “throughout the whole world” means universal or catholic. Thus the Roman faith was indeed “catholic.” And because it was “Roman,” it follows that it certainly would qualify as being “Roman Catholic!” So Fr. Paul, contrary to your assertion, did write to the “RCC.” I know I’ve said all this before, but it just never seems to penetrate the ingrained Protestant prejudice!
Now, dear Grubb, please listen as the saintly and celibate Bishop Augustine mentions in his writings against Pelagius, certain praises of Pelagius toward the saintly Father Ambrose: Augustine writes:
“Archbishop Ambrose, whose faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers of the Latin Church.”
- On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, Bk. II, ch. 47. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...thers/
15062.htm
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ni..._Sin/
Chapter_47
And what is this “most perfect” faith? Augustine, in another place, also quoting approvingly from Pelagius, tells us:
"The blessed Bishop Ambrose," says [Pelagius], "in whose writings the Roman faith shines forth with special brightness, - On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, Bk. I, ch. 47. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...thers/
15061.htm
So you see, it is the “Roman faith,” – so praised by the apostle - which, even well into the fourth century, is recognized by saints and (in this instance)
heretics alike, as most worthy of praise.
Jesus said that we wouldn't always have Him but then says "surely I am with you always."
When Christ showed himself to his disciples after the resurrection, did he have a bodily form or a spiritual form? Or did he have a “spiritual body,” which was truly present?
I didn't say (or even insinuate) that Jesus didn't help or encourage His followers to help the poor. Surely you knew that's not what I was saying. I was merely pointing out that Jesus said that while He was here physically was the time He thought it appropriate to adorn Him with expensive things, and even then it was only for a specific purpose (His burial).
I stand chastened and corrected.
Did you really have to critique my Happy Easter comment?
Didn’t mean to offend
And here I believe, is the source of the quote you were looking for.
“Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you!”
http://www.feastofsaints.com/anc.../
ancientnew.htm
Now, if I may, I’d like to interject something here. My brother, who thinks religion is, basically, a lot “bullshit,“ forwarded me an email Sunday which contained an un-sourced link to a Dean Martin, John Wayne vid. A quick search of You Tube found it. Please listen to the whole thing, but pay particular attention as John Wayne responds to Dean Martin’s question, “What do you want for [your new baby daughter]?”
I suspect that, despite our differences, we would both find ourselves in perfect agreement with Mr. Wayne’s splendid answer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A...h?
v=AucxqtpCZL0
God bless John Wayne!!!
God bless our poor, battered, America!
And God bless you, dear Grubb.
Grubb:
By "intentions", I meant that if the community sincerely loves the Faith, put their resources (not just cash) into it, they can produce a beautiful sanctuary on a shoestring. I didn't mean it in any spiritual or profound way.
James:
I love the Igloo church too. It might be "modern" in some ways (portable altar, no rails, round worship space), but it is very traditional in others, like the statues of St.Joseph and St.Therese, the crucifix, the central tabernacle, the Marian side altar, etc...
Another Arctic example, Our Lady of Good Hope in Fort Good Hope:
http://img.groundspeak.com/
wayma...2f0c2b2b3bd.jpg
No gold, no statues, no imported Italian marble - just wood, paint, time and lots of love.
That's beautiful. See it's not so much a church built in the round or no railings what you said as long as it is decorated. I hate bareness in a church.
But that's fantastic-can't stop looking at it.
It's tterrible that I haven't a pictire of my parish church back in England. Anyway it's an opportunity to inflict soemthing I wrote about it on all of you here
Thanks
A Place
The mosaic on the pulpit;
In a white tunic,
Jesus as the Good Shepherd.
On this side of the sanctuary;
The story of Abraham and Isaac,
The other side Calvary.
The reredos has scenes from the Via Dolorosa,
The Acts of the Apostles,
Paul on the road to Damascus.
The Sacred Heart altar;
A life size statue of Christ,
Palm out, punctured.
Our lady, Mother of Sorrows;
Her head hid,
Christ’s ribs.
St. Michael the Archangel;
His sword unsheathed,
The Serpent round his knees.
St. Anthony, Help of the Sick;
Tonsured,
Cradling a baby.
St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland,
One of his fingers missing,
The one that is blessing.
The Black Madonna tended by that polish couple.
The blood on that crucifix is really realistic.
That reminds me-
One Christmas a lady came into the church-
Took the baby Jesus from the nativity display,
Replaced it with her baby!
A real baby in the nativity display!!
A famous event
In the history of:
Holy Rood Catholic Church,
Barnsley.
South Yorkshire,
England.
United Kingdom.
The thing is, everybody here seems to assume that it takes money to make a church beautiful. Er, no. It takes people who want to make or get beautiful things for the church. There is nothing stopping any church from finding out who among the members is a good crafter, and asking them to make something nice. Even a non-artist could create beautiful geometric designs which incorporate, say, a network of crosses or other ancient Christian motifs. You could have beautiful designs just about anywhere: floor, ceiling, walls. You have your folks who are good at sewing make rugs or tablecloths or streaming banners. You could do any number of things, without spending any great amount of money.
This gentleman takes this principle perhaps to an extreme, but he pretty much transformed his very bare church into a very lovely one! With nothing but plywood, paint, and a lot of labor.
http://www.sistinechapeluk.co.uk/
Good comments, Maureen. I quite agree. Even Grubb said his building was built for just the cost of the materials. This is good.
And when you think of Michelangelo, it's not like they paid him (the equivalent of) millions of dollars to paint the actual Sistine Chapel. He was patronized, as were all artists, which means posh room and board plus a small stipend. The modern approach is to throw money at strangers and hope something beautiful and meaningful comes out of it. It's often a disappointing process.
Commenting by HaloScan
