P
Suggesting it should be sold is somewhat daft...
you could use it for landfill, however
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
rach , how much did the trip to Paris cost ?P
I don't know as it was a present from my Grandmother - point taken however.
Still, I make no claims that a trip to Paris for me is in any way holy or wonderful or important. That is in contrast to many peoples views of tat.
Rachel.
But on another level we are all to keen on throwing things out, perhaps some people like them, perhaps they bring some people closer to God?
If not then melt them down, but they might have some longer lasting use...perhaps...
Neil
<Monty Python voice on>
Wasn't there some foolish tat queen in the gospels running around with an over-priced box of aromatherapy essence doing some new-age massage-type thing with her hair?
Slathering the stuff all over the place and causing our Lord's feet to smell like a tart's window box!
<Monty Python voice off>
And all that money could have been given to the poor - as someone so rightly pointed out at the time. But Jesus told him to stop being a kill-joy and to get lost if he didn't like that sort of thing (I may be translating very loosely).
And there's your precedent for going OTT in extravagance out of devotion to Christ.
Not to mention that as a historian I would have an absolute fit if people went around destroying historic devotional artifacts - even baroque ones.
cheers,
Louise
In a "Wat Traimit" in Thailand there is a 5 1/2-tonne golden Buddha. Just so I can understand you correctly, would you advocate that the Buddha should be melted down as well?
Jesus said on the occasion mentioned 'the poor will always be with you, but I will not always be with you' or words to that effect. I take this to mean that throwing money at the poor is not a solution to poverty; only a change in attitudes will solve that.
Your granny probably got a lot of pleasure out of giving you such a lovely present!
Gold and jewels only have value as long as people value them. If everyone were to start unloading their gold and diamonds they would be worthless and wouldn't do a damn thing to put a roof over a homeless person's head or food on a hungry person's table.
Second, I can safely assume, then, that you have nothing that doesn't meet the immediate needs of food, shelter, clothing? After all, everything beyond that is superfluous.
The other week. A lovely. And she is lovely. Generally kind-hearted even though she can be a bitch at times. 70 yr old Woman. Worked selflessly for the church all her life. Stood up and delivered a tirade against extravagance and poppycockery in church. When she had finished, she got into her expensive, petrol guzzling, environmentally destructive brand new 4WD with her shy, unassuming husband age 76 (whom I adore) and went home to her executive, architect designed, tastefully decorated residence filled with good things.
I got into my falling-apart lunchbox and drove back to my bare hovel.
How dare these people who are surrounded with comfort and richness on a daily basis try to take away the little bit that belongs to me in my Father's House?
A scent of ripeness from over a wall.
And come to leave the routine road
And look for what had made me stall,
There sure enough was an apple tree
That had eased itself of its summer load,
And of all but its trivial foliage free,
Now breathed as light as a lady's fan.
For there there had been an apple fall
As complete as the apple had given man.
The ground was one circle of solid red.
May something go always unharvested!
May much stay out of our stated plan,
Apples or something forgotten and left,
So smelling their sweetness would be no
theft.
Robert Frost
Different people have differing ways of worshipping God. Some find tat a very useful visual stimulus. (Others will find it very annoying and want it un-raveled, or melted down.)
On reflection, we all have to responsible for how resources are used at our local churches.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Wasn't there some foolish tat queen in the gospels running around with an over-priced box of aromatherapy essence doing some new-age massage-type thing with her hair?Slathering the stuff all over the place and causing our Lord's feet to smell like a tart's window box!
And didn't Jesus say 'the poor you will always have with you... but I'm not going to be around much longer'. (New Wood Translation)
The point being, that it was OK because Christ was there in person. But He isn't any more. I direct you to one of Christ's other sayings: 'when you do it for one of these, you do it for me'.
I'm sure that there are plenty of plausible arguments for the existence of tat, but this is not one of them.
You are obviously a puritan. They expressed the same desires, and for much of the same reasons. But they were wrong, becasue they failed to appreciate the importance of beauty. SO they ended up with not celebration of beauty in their churches. We would all be much poorer if we lost that. And one persons beautiful object is another persons hideous monstrosity. We should not melt them down, becasue as such would be to destroy works of art.
But I would agree, in some cases, with selling them and using the money for the appropriate furtherance of the churches aims. Like, maybe, commissioning some art for the church, and celebrating the creativity of God, because we must not lose that.
And out of the celebration of the creativity of God, we should be moved to work with the poor, to help alleviate their situation.
Well that's what I think.
bb
Either way, what, exactly, does it mean?
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Is "tat" short for something? Or is it a British word like "tot"?Either way, what, exactly, does it mean?
It's the stuff you find in churches, particularly Anglican and Catholic ones. you know, the camp outfits, the silver communion plates, the altars, the bells, the incense.
That sort of thing.
Can we consign the golden buddha to the crucible or not?
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
None of you tat-melters (not even rachel_o) has answered my question.Can we consign the golden buddha to the crucible or not?
Dude, what's it got to do with anything? It's utterly beside the point.
So there
This is exactly the kind of attitude the puritans had and ... grrrrrrr. !@#$%^&*() 
God deserves the best of everything we have. We crown kings and bedeck queens at their coronations.
Are you suggesting that along with the Buddha, we chuck out the Crown Jewels and melt down the Crown? Often vesting things and people in expensive and beautiful garments/tat is a mark of honour and respect.
In the slums of London in the late nineteenth century it was often that the tat in Anglo-catholic parishes spoke more loudly than words to the illiterate - who then could understand the Divine Majesty, and how worthy it is indeed of worship.
Grrrrr.
I should add that in catholic thought, anything that has been used for sanctified purpose is not free to be just chucked out or remodelled, but has to be properly disposed of as it has come into contact with the Holy. This is especially true of Eucharistic vessels: pyxes, ciboria, monstrances, patens, chalices etc etc.
quote:
The point being, that it was OK because Christ was there in person. But He isn't any more.
On the contrary, I think there is much more to this than this one literal way of looking at it.
I find the words
"The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me"
very interesting.
I would have thought that the point of the resurrection and pentecost and communion was that we do have Christ with us always in one way or another. He gives extravagantly to us and we look for extravagant ways sometimes to express our own love and sacrifice.
And the point of a lot of the 'tat' Rachel is mentioning eg. monstrances is that they are used for displaying things like the host which people think that Christ is REALLY present in.
Symbolically to people who hold such a belief, I think they would see it as doing just the same thing as Mary, to a Christ who for them is also REALLY there, or as close as they will come to it this side of heaven.
Now whether you hold that belief or not, I think I'm right in saying that this is a part of the thinking behind those things.
Christ also makes the point of saying that she has 'done a beautiful thing for me' in response to the sanctimonious utilitarian kill-joy comments of those around him.
In some poor places the greatest things of beauty they have are the glorious churches and church furniture for which the widow often sacrficed her mite as well as the local nobility showing off how open-handed they were.
So go on - take 'em away from where the poor can enjoy them and flog 'em to sit in some rich man's collection where he can take them out of his bank vault to impress his fellow collectors from time to time.
(you'd get a lot more for them that way, than melting them down)
You point out the 'what you do for the least of these' saying but think that the reason both sayings are in the gospels is to teach us to do both things: to love beauty and generosity and to offer our very best to God AND to care for the poor and those in need.
A church which does one and not the other is probably failing.
A church which does neither - bleurrrgh!
cheers,
Louise
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc_Dimittis:
God deserves the best of everything we have.
I agree. But isn't there some prohibition against "graven images"??
And how could a Buddha even be considered as anything having to do with God - isn't this a Christian board?
Melt the Buddha!
(Wood stops stirring and puts on his serious face.)
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc_Dimittis:
This is exactly the kind of attitude the puritans had and ... grrrrrrr. !@#$%^&*()
You say that as if it were a bad thing.
Some of us quite like a lot of Puritan thinking, remember.
(Wood reaches over and brushes off the dust from his collection of Banner of Truth books 
)
quote:
God deserves the best of everything we have. We crown kings and bedeck queens at their coronations.Are you suggesting that along with the Buddha, we chuck out the Crown Jewels and melt down the Crown?
Well, I would. But then I'm a leftie. They don't call me 'red Wood' for nothing.
Actually, they don't call me 'Red Wood'.
But anyway...
quote:
Posted by Louise:
...the point of a lot of the 'tat' Rachel is mentioning eg. monstrances is that they are used for displaying things like the host which people think that Christ is REALLY present in.Symbolically to people who hold such a belief, I think they would see it as doing just the same thing as Mary, to a Christ who for them is also REALLY there, or as close as they will come to it this side of heaven.
Now whether you hold that belief or not, I think I'm right in saying that this is a part of the thinking behind those things.
Basically, this is where we need the understanding.
To someone not experienced in this theological position, you have to appreciate just how bizarre it sounds to have the presence of gOD - sorry, God I mean (damn you, caps lock!) - more immanent in, say, the elements or the water in the font than anywhere else.
I think this is the key to understanding this. I haven't helped here (I was enjoying stirring too much), but basically, just as we on the protestant side have to understand that the tat is not a form of idolatry (which is where Sharkshooter's going off base) or a misuse of the wealth of the church, and - the important part, this - that it comes from a developed and valid theological position, you on the Anglo/Catholic side also need to understand that what you see as the cavalier treatment of holy goods and the 'wrong' performance of communion also it comes from a developed and valid theological position. It's often characterised as superstition; but it's theology. It's just a different theology.
BUT: As much as people seem to like to think so or claim it, the protestant dislike of tat stems from the strongly held conviction that God is not any more present anywhere, and does not offer specific blessing to objects, rather blessing the people who comprise the church herself.
What you see as a desecration of holy ground, Nunc, is nothing more than a treatment of what is seen as just a building for the purposes of what is essentially fair use.
In my experience (note, Nunc: in my experience), when this rides roughshod over the equally strongly held beliefs of Christians who hold the AC viewpoint, it stems less from malice than from a basic lack of knowledge as to what the AC position actually is, or (as mentioned above) a dismissal of it as superstition, which also shows a lack of understanding.
I vote for giving Rachel a break. Partly because I sympathise, but also because:
If (and I am also guilty here) we'd actually calmed down enough to explain why the various groups in the church do what they do rather than getting pissed off, we'd have gotten a lot further.
I'm kind of at the end of my tether with this, as those of you who have been paying attention should well be aware.
Look. We can't argue from our own experience here. Partly because many of our experiences are bad (again, I have to namecheck Nunc_Dimittis here. Look, I'm not picking on you, honestly, Nunc - it's just that you make such a good example), and partly because if we really wanted to get a full and unbiased view of the church, we'd have had to have been in every part of it for 2000 years.
(For those of you reading in black and white, when I say 'the Church', I mean the total communion af all believers, past, present, and possibly even future, regardless of denominational affiliations).
I seem to remember someone promising a reasoned and sensible apologia for AngloCatholicism. Maybe one of our A/C friends who's capable of holding a reasoned discussion could do so.
Then maybe we could begin a reasonable dialogue instead of fighting, hmm?
Or maybe it's too much to ask. 
Oh, and by the way, the big gold Buddha is still completely beside the point. Could we stick that on the back burner please? It's not really what we're arguing about, is it?
It's a representation of a particular human being who was believed to have attained the state of enlightment.
Buddhas are for meditating in front of, not directly worshipping (at least not usually - there may be exceptions where buddhism is mixed up with older beliefs).
But that's irrelevant, love your neighbour and do unto others as you would have done to yourself.
If you don't approve of people desecrating churches or burning bibles, then don't go around suggesting the destruction of things important to the faith of others.
Louise.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
...just as we on the protestant side have to understand that the tat is not a form of idolatry (which is where Sharkshooter's going off base)
I admit I do not understand "tat" (that is why I asked for a definition earlier), but how can a Buddha be anything but an idol? It certainly cannot be said to be an aid to the worship of God.
You want to discuss the merits of idolatry and buddhism, IMHO, maybe we should start another thread about it.
quote:
Maybe one of our A/C friends who's capable of holding a reasoned discussion could do so.
And you say you've stopped stirring it!
I award you, Sir, a large jewel-encrusted wooden spoon, to replace the ol' flaming sword , of course.
Louise
I am not talking about graven images or the merits of Buddhism.
Let me try to re-phrase so that we're all on the same page.
rachel_o asked whether or not we should melt down the valuable artefacts of the catholic faith in order to feed the poor.
If rachel is serious (and not just winding up the catholics) I would like to know why we should stop at the monstrances. Why not also melt down the golden Buddha to feed the poor.
Or the treasures of the ancient Egyptians. That golden mask of Tutankamun isn't doing any poor people any good in Cairo. Shouldn't we melt that down, too?
And if not, why not?
And don't try to back-burner me because the question is awkward. Why is catholic gold more useful to the poor than buddhist gold or ancient egyptian gold?
HT
I come (originally) from a church tradition that is so low it has almost fallen off the scale (hence the moniker), but I want to know why people at the other end of the scale think the way they do (especially as I now attend a church with tat so spectacular that in the past it has been loaned to the Victoria and Albert Museum for a special exibition).
It's no use simply dismissing the idea of getting rid of tat as "puritan", because my reaction will be to think "Goody, so that's what we should be doing!"
Bringing in the Crown Jewels or golden Buddhas isn't, to me, relevent as they don't belong to an organisation, of which I am a member, that professes love for God and man as principles above all others.
Saying that we musn't destroy these things because they are art I would certainly agree with, but it doesn't explain why these things should not be transferred (sale, gift or otherwise) to museums where they might well be seen by more people than they will in church.
Pointing out that these things have helped draw others into the church seems a good reason to keep them, but in these days where images of fine art and other beauty are widespread, does it still hold good, or is conspicuous wealth on the part of the church more likely to be a hinderence to faith than a help?
Saying that the church should keep these things because they have been given by individuals to the church appeals to me as far as those items acquired in that way are concerned, but what of all the items that the church as an organisation has bought?
Finally, thank you to the posters who have put forward the 'giving the best to God' view, it helps to clarify the thinking in this muddled mind at least. I still find it hard to reconcile this with the way Cchrist lived on earth and the (hugely limited) image I have of God, but at least it is something to think about.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I vote for giving Rachel a break. Partly because I sympathise, but also because:If (and I am also guilty here) we'd actually calmed down enough to explain why the various groups in the church do what they do rather than getting pissed off, we'd have gotten a lot further.
I'm kind of at the end of my tether with this, as those of you who have been paying attention should well be aware.
Absolute BULLSHIT. If you don't want to piss people off, you don't start out with tradition-trashing garbage such as this:
quote:
At that point, all those shiny things will become holy in my eyes. Until then, they are not in the least bit holy.So, come on all you Tat Queens - tell me why this stuff shouldn't be melted down, before I go on some kind of mad rampage.....
If you want to denigrate other's faith traditions don't be shocked and offended when they shove it right back down your throat.
OK, I'll start from the top...
quote:
Originally posted by louise:
Wasn't there some foolish tat queen in the gospels running around with an over-priced box of aromatherapy essence doing some new-age massage-type thing with her hair?Slathering the stuff all over the place and causing our Lord's feet to smell like a tart's window box!
Yes, Jesus did approve this action, in one very specific situation, he also said:
For God said, `Honor your father and mother' and `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, `Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to `honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition
(Matthew 15).
If our traditions are to put riches over the compassion of our Lord for the needy, then we have a problem. I don't think that one proof text is about to solve this issue.
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
This raises the question whether Rachel's Tat in Paris is actually being used for love of Jesus. If it's just hanging around, then I agree with Rachel; it's better being melted down and saving a few lives. Sometimes old tat is ugly anyway....But maybe when it was being made, it provided an income for a craftsman?
My Tat in Paris was doing the excellent job of being sat around whilst being stared at by Japanese tourists, who (like me, cos I'm a silly, sinful fool) had paid good money to come and see it. This true of both the tat in churches and the tat in museums. This drove me particualrly crazy in the case of those boxes which are used to keep saints bones in. Don't know what they're called. In Notre Dame , they had taken out the bones, replaced them with wooden or plaster replicas, and put the (rather tacky) boxes on display. Now where is God in that?
May I point out here to everyone that I only used the melted down comment as a provocative line to get discussion going. I know that it would probably be a better money raising ploy to sell things off as they are.
quote:
Originally posted by Arietty:
Well if it is to be melted down and sold it will be sold to someone who could be giving their money to the poor instead......so what does that solve?
I don't see the general secular populace as having miuch of a duty to worry about Jesus words. The church however, is a different matter. If someone who would always have used their large amounts of excess cash on themselves wants to buy gold etc fair enough. One hopes that God's people will aim for something better.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And I would say that this museumed tat doesn't have to be in use to justify its existence. It's art. And even if it's bad art, it has historical significance.
Fair point. OK - I restrict my demands to excess tat owned by churches.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Gold and jewels only have value as long as people value them. If everyone were to start unloading their gold and diamonds they would be worthless and wouldn't do a damn thing to put a roof over a homeless person's head or food on a hungry person's table.Second, I can safely assume, then, that you have nothing that doesn't meet the immediate needs of food, shelter, clothing? After all, everything beyond that is superfluous.
Oh dear. I am too small and scared to argue with Erin. Nonetheless......
1) I don't think the church owns the majority of the world's gold and gems. If it starts selling some of it, the world gold/gem market is not about to crumble.
2) No, I am not a perfect person. I am not living on the breadline. I have, very recently, lived at the point where I couldn't afford anything superfluous however. It's no fun. However, if I gave everything I possess to the poor including this computer which I am so successfully using to irratate you all, I still could not feed, clothe and shelter one man for more than a year, I suspect. However, one out of use gold chalice is probably worth enough to keep the same man for life. I have no wish to start defending my personal giving here - I am a person, not an issue - but even if I were an issue, I would be a separate, and much smaller issue.
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
Different people have differing ways of worshipping God. Some find tat a very useful visual stimulus. (Others will find it very annoying and want it un-raveled, or melted down.)
Another fair point - but how much of this stuff is actually needed. I saw a whole load of chalices for example, all of which seemed wonderfully locked up, and untouched in a side chapel. Are they helping anyone worship?
quote:
Originally posted by steve:
You are obviously a puritan. They expressed the same desires, and for much of the same reasons. But they were wrong, becasue they failed to appreciate the importance of beauty.
Oh dear. I didn't know I was obviosuly anything. I like beautiful things in churches. I like giving our best to God. However, Jesus did say something along the lines of "Whenever you do this for one of my brothers, you do it for me" when talking about helping the poor. So if we take a load of this (not actually particularly) beautiful stuff, and use it to help the poor, aren''t we still giving our best to him?
Next point:
Nunc is cleary so cross with me that I don't know how to reply. That's why I started this thread in hell, rather than purgatory, I guess.
I'll give replying a go however...
quote:
Originally posted by nunc_dimitis:
In the slums of London in the late nineteenth century it was often that the tat in Anglo-catholic parishes spoke more loudly than words to the illiterate - who then could understand the Divine Majesty, and how worthy it is indeed of worship.
In M(not even vaguely)HO, it would have been better to use the money spent on the tat to teach the people to read, allowing them to (a) make there own informed decisions about God and (b) have a better chance of having a standard of living.
quote:
Originally posted by nunc_dimitis:
I should add that in catholic thought, anything that has been used for sanctified purpose is not free to be just chucked out or remodelled, but has to be properly disposed of as it has come into contact with the Holy. This is especially true of Eucharistic vessels: pyxes, ciboria, monstrances, patens, chalices etc etc.
I'm sorry - I just come from a different point of view. My preferred example - although probably not very theologically correct - is that the water freely given to save a man who is dying of thirst is far more holy than anything that has been blessed by a priest, or used in communion, or whatever else is done to make "holy water".
quote:
Originally posted by amos:
I vaguely remember that there was recently a lot of building and remodelling going on at St. Aldate's in Oxford, at considerable expense. Would not this extravagantly modernized place of worship serve the Lord better as a day centre and night shelter for the many rough-sleepers in Oxford's streets?
Although I didn't mention this in the "Advice needed on moving church" thread - since anyone who had lived in Oxford would have recognised St A's if I had and I didn't want that - this is one of the reasons why I myself left St Aldates. I am now going to a church which gets the congregation to do its redecorating, and uses its money, in part, to get people off the streets.
Ok. Apologies for the disgustingly long post. I was a bit behind! I have not addressed the Golden Buddah Issue, because I do not feel equal to offending people of another religion whose teachings I do not pretend to know in any form. I am talking, mostly, about hypocrisy in the church - I'm sorry if it came out mostly as attack on Cs and ACs - iot extends to evos etc. I know I am a part of that hypocrisy in many ways - and I hope God will forgive me for this. However, if we all had to be perfect before we could post here, this would be a VERY quiet bulletin board.
All the best,
Rachel.
PS... Bound to have cross posted with someone while typing all this. Profuse apologies again.
R.
[Tidied up UBB code. It is not necessary to add a "bold" tag to quotations in addition to the "qb" tag.]
[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: tomb ]
quote:
In M(not even vaguely)HO, it would have been better to use the money spent on the tat to teach the people to read, allowing them to (a) make there own informed decisions about God and (b) have a better chance of having a standard of living.
It isn't just enough to have what (someone else thinks) we need. Sometimes we need a glimpse of what is beyond. For those from a relatively well off back ground, this comes from seeing in people what is beautiful.
For those that are poor, who often see each other binding together to look after each other, they want to see what is beautiful.
Yancey (in Soul Survivor) comments on how, without wanting to glorify poverty, he saw the poor often had a strength of spirit that the rich longed for.
I guess it boils down to one group not telling another what is best for them. Speaking as someone from a poor background with a rich man's education.
Angel
You must understand that to us who believe in the sanctificability of matter (to coin a very awkward term -- please correct me if there's a better word out there), matter is capable of being made holy (this is a tautology but stick with me a bit). It can be made holy "directly" by a "fiat" of God; or "indirectly" by coming into contact with something that is holy. That something could be the elements of Communion, or the body of a saint, or the altar in the OT tabernacle (later temple).
Those who do not think that matter is capable of being made holy have the whole of the Bible to contend with. I don't have the time nor the inclination to start looking up all the texts where this is the case, but it is an easy exercise with a text-searchable electronic bible, or a concordance. A few examples will perhaps suffice. First, the ground Moses was standing on (before the burning bush) was holy. Second, the incense altars in the temple were holy.
The second point to argue is that things once made holy remain holy. This is perhaps most clearly seen from the holy things of the temple. Q.V.
Finally in the book of Ezekiel we are told, "Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them."
This in turn looks back at Leviticus 10:10, "You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean."
There is a trend of belief, fairly modern, which says that with the new covenant, the distinction between holy and common was done away with. We traditionalists claim this is not the case and ask you "all-the-same-ists" to substantiate your claim.
PS why isn't this thread in Purgatory?
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc_Dimittis:
Are you suggesting that along with the Buddha, we chuck out the Crown Jewels and melt down the Crown? Often vesting things and people in expensive and beautiful garments/tat is a mark of honour and respect.I should add that in catholic thought, anything that has been used for sanctified purpose is not free to be just chucked out or remodelled, but has to be properly disposed of as it has come into contact with the Holy. This is especially true of Eucharistic vessels: pyxes, ciboria, monstrances, patens, chalices etc etc.
Yes
quote:
This drove me particualrly crazy in the case of those boxes which are used to keep saints bones in. Don't know what they're
called. In Notre Dame , they had taken out the bones, replaced them with wooden or plaster replicas, and put the (rather tacky) boxes on display. Now where is God in that?
They're called reliquaries or shrines.
Like, for instance, the Monymusk reliquary which was used to bless the Scottish army before Bannockburn (although I imagine it's smaller less spectacular and shows more wear and tear than anything in Notre dame). It once contained a relic of St Columba.
The cult of relics and saints - whatever you think of it - was one the most important devotional and artistic developments of the middle ages and is still a live tradition in the catholic church.
I am a Presbyterian. I use neither monstrances, nor relics in worship. But having a nodding acquaintance with several hundred years of European history, I appreciate the importance of these things to others - both the living and the dead. I also appreciate their role in my own history.
Many, many relics were destroyed in the French Revolution. Either loss of the originals or conservation reasons might lead to replicas being displayed in Notre Dame.
Where was God? I would say in the lives of people whose relics were originally contained in the reliquaries. People whose stories of their contact with God were powerful enough that after their death their communities would not let them go, but kept some tangible part of them to give them a sense of contact with that person, with the holiness they represented.
People who believed that a person could be so holy, that somehow part of that could persist in their bones after death - could even somehow be touched and felt and communicated.
It's a pity you didn't take the time to learn the names or any of the stories associated with the saints whose relics were once in those reliquaries.
I've often found such stories interesting or moving.
I also trace my own conversion to a remarkable experience I had at the shrine of St Alban - despite the fact that I was studying Calvinist piety at the time - go figure!
You never know how an expression of piety you dismiss can be affecting other people or touching them or changing them.
Leave churches with different devotional traditions to work out for themselves what is important and what is surplus to requirements.
If you don't even know what these things are called or the history behind them, then may I respectfully suggest that you shouldn't be making judgments about their proper use or whether they should be melted down or not.
Louise
'Royalty' - wealth from colonial exploitation? How many people could the Koh-i-Noor educate?
Any decoration in churches acts as a distraction from God, and therefore a plain simple building is best. Many people, anyway, find simplicity most beautiful. But no beauty can compare with God's creation, even damaged as it is by humanity.
The poor-friendly churches in 19thC London were not all high CofE; the Salvation army was thriving, the Ragged Schools grew. Evangelicals were at the forefront of social action. Even now there are Mission Halls in poor areas where people help each other. Evangelicals are not all the way HTB is stereotyped, as prosperous middle-class.
The disciples were not all utilitarian kill-joys; Judas made a fuss because he was dipping his hand in the bag and so he was missing out; maybe some folk today make a fuss because they would miss out feasting their eyes on church wealth, and wallowing in their own.
People who would buy religious artefacts would not necessarily give to charity, and so selling stuff could bring in "new money'. So go for it, anything not being regularly used, let it be melted or sold.
quote:
...because I do not feel equal to offending people of another religion whose teachings I do not pretend to know in any form.
But you think it's a-okay to offend people in a religious tradition that you only THINK you know in any form.
And Rachel, it makes not a whit of difference whether or not what you sacrifice is enough to feed another man for a year. What makes the difference is whether or not you are prepared to make the same kind of sacrifice you are demanding others make. If you're not, then you can't justify the demand.
quote:
This seems to come from a puritan angle. This is what I was taught and role-modelled. God deserves the best, and so we give ourselves to God, who has already redeemed us. We are enthralled to God, and so everything we possess is God's and not ours to dispose of as we wish. We are obliged to share with our brothers and sisters whenever they are in need, or just for the sake of sharing. We must use worldly goods prudently; no indulging in gold, jewels or frippery for our persons or the church.
'Royalty' - wealth from colonial exploitation? How many people could the Koh-i-Noor educate?Any decoration in churches acts as a distraction from God, and therefore a plain simple building is best. Many people, anyway, find simplicity most beautiful. But no beauty can compare with God's creation, even damaged as it is by humanity.
Ah-ha!!! Thanks for expressing the Calvinist view of the world so clearly, daisymay (even though I am gagging with fury and absolute nausea).
I think it is fairly clear that preferences in theology and worship stem at least partly from personality. You see, catholics (C and A-C) do not find tat distracting but uplifting and even the vehicle of encounters with God of the most amazing proportions. Conversely, I have to really let go and pray for patience when attending, for example, my parents' Orthodox Presbyterian church which has little visual stimulus to worship (and what it has is sacramentally abominable - the pulpit in the middle, huge and overshaddowing the tiny altar to the left and the meagre font on the right with its enormous Bible).
However, I can understand other people preferring a bare, unadorned, whitewashed fourwall square wooden structure for their worship - my best friend is such a Reformed Calvinist. She is also very prudish and straight up and down, not given to showing her emotions, and not too good at empathy.
On the other hand, many of us catholics are Mary Magdalene types; MM was the instrument of my conversion, and I know several other shipmates identify very strongly with her for various reasons. I am very emotional, and very imaginative and a little flamboyant.
So I guess what I am saying is that allowance is made both in the gospels and in the church (eso in the Anglican church) for people of different personalities. On the one hand, Mary with her nard box and on the other Martha buzzing around. Not to mention the doubting Thomases, the sons of thunder (James and John) and others of which the first apostles were types in many ways.
Of course, if we are spiritually aware enough, worshipping anywhere and anyway shouldn't be an issue. But even in raising a question about melting down and disposing of that which is important to other people, an issue is made.
I need to ask WHY Calvinists/Protestants think that everyone must necessarily agree with them on the issue of church adornment. WHy do we all have to agree that everything beautiful should be done away with in the name of feeding the poor?
I believe as I have indicated that there is more than one way to feed the poor - they need to be fed body and soul... And beauty is part of that, as well as an acute sacramental awareness of Christ, both in the world around us, and in the Eucharistic elements.
And those places that do have tat: do not ever accuse them of not giving to the poor. In the !@#$%^&*() Diocese of Sydney, where most of the parishes are Evangelical, the general comfortable middle class attitude is "give the money to Anglicare; we don't have to do anything about the poor."
Bollocks. The only churches in the city which are doing anything to help the poor are the catholic places - [b] who have loads of tat [/].
And rachel_o, I tell you the A-C slum priests helped the poor by opening their eyes to the vistaes of glory, aiding them financially and serving them in their troubles financially, with food and shelter and in other ways - and you go and tell me, "well they jolly aught to have taught them to read."
I challenge you to follow through with your own statements, and sell all you have and live amongst the poor, helping them, before you start harrassing those who are already out there living the gospel and carrying it amongst the needy. Open your eyes, girl.
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc_Dimittis:
I think it is fairly clear that preferences in theology and worship stem at least partly from personality.
I think that's a massive oversimplification.
quote:
However, I can understand other people preferring a bare, unadorned, whitewashed fourwall square wooden structure for their worship - my best friend is such a Reformed Calvinist. She is also very prudish and straight up and down, not given to showing her emotions, and not too good at empathy.
And you're saying that your austere reformed chapel only attracts uptight prudes, right?
Give me a break.
Similarly, I've met some really unimaginative A/C types. Doesn't mean they're all like that.
quote:
I need to ask WHY Calvinists/Protestants think that everyone must necessarily agree with them on the issue of church adornment.
I could send that one right back atcha.
quote:
WHY do we all have to agree that everything beautiful should be done away with in the name of feeding the poor?
Because, in the Protestant view, it's just stuff, and often we Protestants just don't understand what it's there for. We've been through this. Were you paying attention?
quote:
And those places that do have tat: do not ever accuse them of not giving to the poor. In the Diocese of Sydney, where most of the parishes are Evangelical, the general comfortable middle class attitude is "give the money to Anglicare; we don't have to do anything about the poor."
Nunc, while I'm sure that the Diocese of Sydney is an earthly extrusion of the Tenth Circle of Hell itself, it is not the only evangelical group in the world. Basing your opinion of evangelicals on those of one denomination in one city in one country in the world is SO flawed. Give it a rest, already.
Look: in other places - Plymouth, England, for example - the opposite is true.
I'll agree with you on this: that no one has the right to characterise a group as being better or worse in their Christian ministry purely by dint of being in that group. It is SO much more complicated than that.
quote:
And rachel_o, I tell you the A-C slum priests helped the poor by opening their eyes to the vistaes of glory, aiding them financially and serving them in their troubles financially, with food and shelter and in other ways - and you go and tell me, "well they jolly aught to have taught them to read."
Nunc, you're right here, and I must join you in giving Rachel a slap on the wrists.
quote:
I challenge you to follow through with your own statements, and sell all you have and live amongst the poor, helping them, before you start harrassing those who are already out there living the gospel and carrying it amongst the needy.
Which exhortation we could all take on board.
quote:
Open your eyes, girl.
Careful when you say things like that: you might have to open your own as well...
Again, while Erin is right, that Rachel shouldn't have started the thread in the way she did, I still think we should give her some respect for sticking around and arguing it through, rather than doing a 'hit and run'.
If we can discuss this without getting furious with each other, we could make some progress.
I think about the tat surrounding the ceremonies of the Royal Family for example. It used to be a symbol of greatness, for people to look at in wonder, but to the modern eye many of the wigs, knickerbockers and capes just look plain ridiculous and get laughed at. I wonder if this change in attitude is reflected also in attitudes to the church.
Old robes lovingly made and of deep significance to the community, or just comical and silly?
But of course fashions change - because the church is so far behind the times, just as the evangelical attitude of get rid of it all and use the money to feed the poor finally takes hold, all that tat will suddenly be in vogue again, the poor will want to be lifted out of their misery by the church's mystery, splendour and wonder, and the church will be wrong-footed once more. Think of the expense of restoring it all again once it has been got rid of!
BTW Wood, Plymouth, England is not without its (evangelical, etc) problems, either, which is probably hidden from all except those who have lived there long-term and experienced it first-hand, so maybe not such a good example.
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
BTW Wood, Plymouth, England is not without its (evangelical, etc) problems, either, which is probably hidden from all except those who have lived there long-term and experienced it first-hand, so maybe not such a good example.
Actually, you're right. Although its evangelical problems are, if I remember right, Plymouth's problems are of a very different nature.
I'm originally a native of Plymouth: my brother still lives there and attends a HUGE mainstream evangelical church which does not IMV foster community or care for its members. And it's not a proper Baptist church either. But then, what do I know? Having lived there for 20 years, I have to say that in a straight choice between returning to live in Plymouth and having myself slowly flayed alive while Tomb drops lemon juice on my skinless body... I'm for the lemon juice.
But... point taken. Let's leave the World's Armpit, err, sorry, Plymouth, out of it.
quote:
the city is divided into those who think tat is the best thing since sliced bread, and those who think that their only mission in life is to convert those who think that tat is the best thing since sliced bread into the only TRUE way of believing!
The churches there must be bloody effective if the whole town is divided into two Christian camps whpo spend their whole day arguing about ecclesiology & church furnishings!
I suspect however that most people in Plymouth could not give a stuff about it, but might wonder if they came across such a dispute in what way it was meant to further the relationship of the unchurched (i.e. THEM) with Jesus.
Inicidentally, is the thinking that austerely beautiful worship spaces come [I]cheap[/I}?
But when some churches go out of their way to be exciting (regardless of the depth of the theology) and market themselves aggressively, it does seem to be that their numbers grow more from other church deserters rather than to increase the overall number of Christians. Conversions from tat lovers to doughnut lovers - does this really help the cause of Christianity one jot? I wonder.
(Is this a suitably hellish post for hell? I think I'm better at writing the milder ones for Heaven and Purg).
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I do not have a problem with tat per se, but I do wonder about what sort of tat and what image it is projecting.I think about the tat surrounding the ceremonies of the Royal Family for example. It used to be a symbol of greatness, for people to look at in wonder, but to the modern eye many of the wigs, knickerbockers and capes just look plain ridiculous and get laughed at. I wonder if this change in attitude is reflected also in attitudes to the church.
Old robes lovingly made and of deep significance to the community, or just comical and silly?
But of course fashions change - because the church is so far behind the times, just as the evangelical attitude of get rid of it all and use the money to feed the poor finally takes hold, all that tat will suddenly be in vogue again, the poor will want to be lifted out of their misery by the church's mystery, splendour and wonder, and the church will be wrong-footed once more. Think of the expense of restoring it all again once it has been got rid of!
I do agree that it's also to do with fashion. I was told that chasubles came in when Constantine was so ashamed of the poverty-stricken clothes of his court Christians that he issued them with uniforms. But as well, it's to do with the doctrine of identifying with 'God's bias to the poor'. If the church looks rich, it puts many people off.
Also, Nunc, it's not all about character - it can be a really painful sacrifice not to indulge our sensations, just as it can be painful for you to worship without the expressive artefacts. This was one of the problems with the Quakers, who were supposed to dress plainly, and many ended up dressing plainly, but in rich silk.
quote:
Originally posted by Arietty:
I suspect however that most people in Plymouth could not give a stuff about it, but might wonder if they came across such a dispute in what way it was meant to further the relationship of the unchurched (i.e. THEM) with Jesus.
WHICH IS MY PROBLEM! IT'S THE THING THAT'S PISSING ME OFF ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION!
WHY THE HELL IS NOBODY PAYING ATTENTION?!
DO YOU ENJOY BICKERING AND BITCHING ABOUT OTHER CHRISTIANS? DO YOU WANT TO STARE DOWN YOUR NOSE AT OTHER CHRISTIANS FOR REST OF YOUR LIVES?
I am just as bad as anyone else, I often keep special clothes to wear on Sundays which I would probably not wear on Saturdays. Fortunately, because I sing in the choir I do not feel I have to try as hard as the congregation to look 'smart', as I know as soon as I get there I can put on a cassock and surplice and no-one can see what I am wearing anyway.
(On hot days some of the female choristers -not me! - take off their dresses and just wear underwear underneath their cassocks, but that is another story 
the point is nobody can see so nobody knows)
First, I'd like to say that, inflammatory as my initial post was I did not actually mean that any particular style of worship should be swept from the planet. I just meant found it disturbing that churches I visited had large "treasuries" of no-longer-used religious objects, and that maybe better use could be made of them. These things were not displayed in a way which IMO glorified God, but in a way which glorified wealth.
OK, now for mousethief's extremely erudite post.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You must understand that to us who believe in the sanctificability of matter ... matter is capable of being made holy (this is a tautology but stick with me a bit). It can be made holy "directly" by a "fiat" of God; or "indirectly" by coming into contact with something that is holy.The second point to argue is that things once made holy remain holy. This is perhaps most clearly seen from the holy things of the temple. Q.V.
There is a trend of belief, fairly modern, which says that with the new covenant, the distinction between holy and common was done away with. We traditionalists claim this is not the case and ask you "all-the-same-ists" to substantiate your claim.
I think that my question isn't whether these things can be holy, but whether they remain holy, not only in the short term, but in the long term. In every generation there will be talented craftsmen who feel called to make beautiful things for God. Hence new things come into use, and old things fall out of use and are put in cupboards. It doesn't seem to me that we are in anyway respecting the holiness of these objects by leaving them to collect dust, or by allowing tourists to stare at them, but not giving any information as to their signifcance. Hence, either we don't think they're very holy any more - in which case we can sell them off with impunity - or, if they are holy, we should do something more in line with God's will with them.
I also believe that there are other ways things can effectively be made holy - and that includes using them to do God's will. So in my eyes, selling an unused monstrance to someone who will admire it and take care of it, and using the money to buy food for a large number of hungry people, might make it more holy rather than less.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's a pity you didn't take the time to learn the names or any of the stories associated with the saints whose relics were once in those reliquaries......
I've often found such stories interesting or moving.
.....
Leave churches with different devotional traditions to work out for themselves what is important and what is surplus to requirements.
If you don't even know what these things are called or the history behind them, then may I respectfully suggest that you shouldn't be making judgments about their proper use or whether they should be melted down or not.
If Notre Dame were in any way serious about showing God through its requilaries etc, all it would take would be to provide a short card beside each treasure, or perhaps a leaflet at the entranc, giving some details of what each object means. The only information given went along the lines of "Monstrance, 17th C". it is very obvious that the majority of the visitors to the church will not be well-educated in the catholic faith. I'd love to know more about these objects - but wouldn't know where to look in terms of specifics. Again, it seems to me that the church is not glorifying God through these things, nor treating them with respect.
In reference to your last point - may I respectfully add that in several threads, people who seem to know little or nothing about charismatic evangelical worship have denigrated it quite severely - and never seemed to wish to know any of the reasons behind what we do. I am, clearly, interested in the defences people are giving of these objects and practices, so why should I not put forward my opinions and questions?
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But you think it's a-okay to offend people in a religious tradition that you only THINK you know in any form.And Rachel, it makes not a whit of difference whether or not what you sacrifice is enough to feed another man for a year. What makes the difference is whether or not you are prepared to make the same kind of sacrifice you are demanding others make. If you're not, then you can't justify the demand.
1) I may not know about the C or AC tradition, but I do know something about the teachings of Jesus. I know nothing about the teachings of Buddah - for all I know he was all in favour of gold statues.
2) I am not demanding anyone sacrificae there comfortable lifestyle. I am questioning whether unused and apparently unloved old religious objects could be put to better use. Whilst I am fully aware that most of the ship would currently like to melt me down and feed me to the poor, I would like to know since when one had to be a perfect human being to take part in debate here? The benefit of storing old tat is a perfectly valid issue.
quote:
Originally posted by blackbird:
helping a lost soul turn their life around in the name of Christ is an admirable pursuit and does take money...but surely the Church is more than a soup kitchen? one does not need Christ to distribute food to the poor. what of the poor in spirit?
I agree that the church is more than a soup-kitchen - and I reiterate that I see the value of C and AC worship, and realise that it brings people closer to God.
Overall, I apologise for the way I started this thread - which was unnecessarily provocative - but I still think I have a valid question:
How many chalices, monstrances, empty reliqaries etc does any church really need? Are they really being treated as holy objects if you put them in a cupboard, or put them on display to gawkers? And if not, what would be a better use for them? Could they be used to help someone in need, to glorify God more effectively, or to bring people closer to Christ?
All the best,
Rachel.
PS - apologies for long post
PPS - don't expect me to post at this time of day regularly. Came home from work for a bit, as I have a tmmy bug.
Now, as I missed part of what Mousethief said first time round, I feel I must offer my apologies: you asked a question, Alex, a good one which deserves an answer.
So here goes:
quote:
Posted by Reader Alexis a little while ago: Those who do not think that matter is capable of being made holy have the whole of the Bible to contend with.
Well, the Old Testament, anyway.
quote:
There is a trend of belief, fairly modern, which says that with the new covenant, the distinction between holy and common was done away with.
Depends on what you call 'modern'. What about the iconoclasts of the middle ages?
Now, I could prooftext too. What about the part about the temple veil being torn, for example? Or the epistolary assurance of Paul that we are all priests? for every verse you pull out, I'm pretty positive I could pull out one to 'prove' my point.
What does that prove? That we can quote the Bible? Cool. But that's about it.
Anyway. I think that you have the Protestant view slightly distorted, Reader Alexis. In fact, I'd say that it was as much a distortion as it would be to baldly say that Catholics and Orthodox 'worship Mary'.
It is not that there is no longer a distinction between holy and 'common'; the belief is that [/i]there is no 'common' any more[/i]; that we who believe are all holy.
I'm sure that you can see that this is an important distinction. Rather than bringing the holy down to the level of the 'common', it sanctifies the 'common' and makes it holy as well.
It's misunderstandings of the views of our two traditions (please offer me the dignity of accepting that I have one) which cause the problems.
Of course we don't have to agree. But I know that my own view has changed a great deal from my discussions on the Ship, and that while I still have theological reservations about tat, I can at least see that there is a theological/ecclesiological basis for it.
But there is also a theological basis for not having it. Do not assume that those who do not use 'tat' don't use it because they're stupid or shallow.
As to how many chalices does any one church need? In my church we need ten, minimum. Certain times of the year we have at least three services happening simultaneously in locations several miles away, so unless you want everyone to be there for several hours while one or two chalices are passed around to several hundred people and trucked up and down SR 13, you need to invest in more than a couple of chalices, patens, lavabo bowls, etc. And the same thing goes in churches as it does in regular life -- if you don't want your stuff to fall apart in five years, you've got to shell out for higher quality things in the beginning. Gold and silver do not rust and fall apart, making them quite a logical choice for vessels. Unless, of course, you think churches should be in the habit of buying these things every ten years. I do not.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
What you are demanding is that other faith traditions ditch their own worldview and conform to yours, which I think is complete and utter crap, no matter which side of the anglo-catholic fence you sit on.
I assume this is directed at Rachel, right?
quote:
Originally posted by rachel_o:
I have not addressed the Golden Buddah Issue, because I do not feel equal to offending people of another religion whose teachings I do not pretend to know in any form.
This is exactly my point. Why do you feel equal to offending catholics but not Buddhists?
I think it's rich that a courtesy that is extended to those of another faith cannot be (in Christian charity) extended to those of our own.
I wish someone would open up his or her eyes and see that the suggestion that you raid catholic churches and melt down their tat, or sell their tat or put it in a museum is simply the worst form of cultural imperialism.
HT
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I wish someone would open up his or her eyes and see that the suggestion that you raid catholic churches and melt down their tat, or sell their tat or put it in a museum is simply the worst form of cultural imperialism.
Yes, it certainly is cultural imperialism, stemming from a basic misunderstanding of 'tat theology'... but you know what?
I don't think Rachel's actually saying that. She's backed down on her original statement. What she appears to me to be saying now (correct me if I'm wrong, Rachel) boils down to this:
quote:
Posted by Rachel_o:I just meant found it disturbing that churches I visited had large "treasuries" of no-longer-used religious objects, and that maybe better use could be made of them. These things were not displayed in a way which IMO glorified God, but in a way which glorified wealth.
IE that the tat in Notre Dame which does not appear to be used is actually not much use and, although it was made to glorify God, it is not, in Rachel's opinion, being used for that purpose any more. Rachel, having repented her first post, is asking, 'is an object still holy if used for non-holy purposes'?
If the answer to this is 'yes', then the question remains, 'why is it not being used for holy purposes?'
Now, I'm of the opinion that if something is a work of art - or if it's of historical significance - it should be kept, because it's a link to the past.
Personal interest statement: notwithstanding my own flippant remark concerning landfill at the start of this thread, I don't really think that any church should be denuded of its tat (no matter how lame and/or tacky I may personally find it, and regardless of my theological opinion, which, if you were paying attention, I've pretty much outlined AGAIN above).
Rachel has changed her point. You want to stomp on her for what she's saying now, fine. But at least read what she's actually saying.
Hooker's Trick: I must offer my apologies to you. I misunderstood your point about the Buddha. FWIW, I'd actually say that Catholic Gold, if it's really sanctified, would actually be a better thing to buy food with than Buddhist Gold, because it is blessed by God. Of course, it would have to be freely given first. But that's my slant.
To be honest, though, I think that actually I still consider the question of what to do with church tat qualitatively different to the Buddha question because (notwithstanding the views of many on both high and low sides of the equation) catholic and Protestant are parts of the Same Religion.
[tongue in cheek]Anyway, what's the point? It's a plea for sanity, so you're all going to ignore it. [/tongue in cheek]
That is not the churches' fault, they would love to be able to use them regularly, but the risk is too great.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Depends on what you call 'modern'. What about the iconoclasts of the middle ages?
I rather doubt they lacked a concept of the distinction between holy and common, but if you have evidence to this effect by all means present it.
quote:
Now, I could prooftext too. What about the part about the temple veil being torn, for example? Or the epistolary assurance of Paul that we are all priests? for every verse you pull out, I'm pretty positive I could pull out one to 'prove' my point.
What do those have to do with the question of holy vs. common? You can pull out verses all you please, but they ought to at least have a nodding acquaintance with the topic under discussion.
quote:
Anyway. I think that you have the Protestant view slightly distorted, Reader Alexis. In fact, I'd say that it was as much a distortion as it would be to baldly say that Catholics and Orthodox 'worship Mary'.It is not that there is no longer a distinction between holy and 'common'; the belief is that [/i]there is no 'common' any more[/i]; that we who believe are all holy.
I wasn't talking about believers. I was talking about physical objects. Don't change the subject.
quote:
I'm sure that you can see that this is an important distinction. Rather than bringing the holy down to the level of the 'common', it sanctifies the 'common' and makes it holy as well.
If everything is holy and nothing is common, then "holy" has lost all meaning; it just means "everything". And even the "lowest" of "low church" Protestants don't really act like they believe everything is holy -- they very likely act differently in a church than they would in another building, and treat their bibles with more respect than their other books. So I would claim that this distinction has not been done away with at all, just narrowed so that vanishingly few things are really "holy."
quote:
It's misunderstandings of the views of our two traditions (please offer me the dignity of accepting that I have one) which cause the problems.
Of course you have a tradition. It's your "side" which more often eschews this word and insists it has none, and I am at great pains to point out the nonsensicality of such an idea.
quote:
Of course we don't have to agree. But I know that my own view has changed a great deal from my discussions on the Ship, and that while I still have theological reservations about tat, I can at least see that there is a theological/ecclesiological basis for it.But there is also a theological basis for not having it. Do not assume that those who do not use 'tat' don't use it because they're stupid or shallow.
On the contrary. The question is, should those who don't have or value it it be allowed to force those who do to melt it down and sell it to feed the poor?
Reader Alexis
Obviously that doesn't apply to monstrances and reredoses (ae? i?) and that sort of thing.
Regarding things that are simply beautiful and not edible by the poor, I think the point is that "church tat vs. feed the hungry" is not a zero-sum game. In many cases, (at least with present-day tat purchases) such things are bought by a wealthy parishioner and dedicated to the memory of his dead Granny or something like that, and this parishioner would not have given that money instead to the shelter. Other parishioners give money to the church for general use, or to soup kitchens and other worthy things.
If an individual chooses to buy fancy altar frontals for his church, and people who attend enjoy looking at them and are brought closer to God, mightn't they be more likely to act in a Christian way and help the downtrodden? Might there not be a tat -> food for the poor cycle that is being missed here?
I am a lifelong ECUSA, with a liking for sacred beautiful things. I think it lovely that artists worship God by making lovely things for use or enjoyment by all in a church. And I think that the Church should patronize such art, just as it has music. After all, the same argument could be made regarding the commissioning of works for the great Anglican church choirs (an ancient tradition), or even having choirs at all? Or music?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On the contrary. The question is, should those who don't have or value it it be allowed to force those who do to melt it down and sell it to feed the poor?
Don't be stupid. I don't think a single person here doesn't agree that they shouldn't. Not even Rachel. She just posted the OP to wind people up and has since apologised for that.
quote:
What do those have to do with the question of holy vs. common? You can pull out verses all you please, but they ought to at least have a nodding acquaintance with the topic under discussion.
I was simply demonstrating that I can prooftext just as well as you can. We are clearly (*sigh*) talking at cross purposes again.
OK. Let me try again. (remember to prefix all these sentences with 'Protestants believe')
The Catholic/Orthodox view includes the possibility that objects can be made holy, and that some people can be given the authority of the priesthood over others.
The Protestant view says that there is no need for some things or people to be holier than others, demonstrated by the rending of the temple veil (which has much, much more than a 'nodding acquaintance with the subject in question', Alexis. Please do not patronise me) and the atonement of Christ. Instead, we argue, the Spirit resides wholly in believers, who we see as the Church, rather than the organisation or the building. The 'holy' to us is the Church: i.e. us.
We are all holy; but the objects are not. With the Atonement, the need for sacred objects, along with sacrifices etc. was negated and we are now the church, all sanctified, all equally holy.
Now I know you disagree with it, Alexis, but can you at least see the difference?
Laura's just posted.
quote:
I think it lovely that artists worship God by making lovely things for use or enjoyment by all in a church. And I think that the Church should patronize such art, just as it has music.
You know, I'd like to second that.
quote:
---------------------------------------------
Quote from conversation between Nunc and Wood
-----------------------------------
I need to ask WHY Calvinists/Protestants think that everyone must necessarily agree with them on the issue of church adornment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could send that one right back atcha. End quote.
Well, no, Wood, you really couldn't. There's a huge difference between saying "This place does not inspire me" and "Let's destroy this place."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY do we all have to agree that everything beautiful should be done away with in the name of feeding the poor?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because, in the Protestant view, it's just stuff, and often we Protestants just don't understand what it's there for. We've been through this. Were you paying attention? End quote.
Actually, your point is an accurate statement of the Protestant viewpoint as explained previously. (See, we were paying attention.) It does not bind us to agree with it.
I have no objection to the Protestant or Puritan-type viewpoint, even though I don't agree with it. When those people who hold it turn to destruction of things which do not belong to them and which they've already said they don't understand, it's not Puritanism. It's vandalism.
Bene
Bene
Physician, heal thyself.
quote:
We are all holy; but the objects are not. With the Atonement, the need for sacred objects, along with sacrifices etc. was negated and we are now the church, all sanctified, all equally holy.
Again, I ask: how does the fact that WE are all holy obviate the "need" for holy items?
When it comes to that, who said anything about a "need" for holy items at all? God, and worship of God, isn't about what God NEEDS. God doesn't need our worship at all. WE need to worship him. Does the atonement obviate the need for holy objects? How? Why? These are the questions you haven't answered.
Yes it is clear you believe these thigns, and I believe you believe them. But the only reason you can provide for this new state of affairs is a torn curtain in the temple. Which is all well and good, but how does it prove that objects are no longer capable of being sanctified and retaining this sanctification?
The end result of such a view, it would seem, is not that all things are seen as holy, but that most (but not all, as I pointed out above vis-a-vis the bible) things are seen as profane. The whole sense of mystery and awe is totally missing from "low church" (for lack of a better term) life. Is this a good thing? The end result is that all distinctions get thrown out, and we end up with bare churches and Christians living lives that are indistinguishable from well-intentioned atheists except for the fact that they go to church one day a week (or two if they're Baptists ).
I'm not sure the Protestant experiment of doing away with the sacred/profane distinction in order to make saints has been a rousing success. What you end up with is people whose daily lives are nearly indistinguishable from those of non-Christians. That may be a good thing, but I would have to see some arguments for it before I agreed to that point. For myself I find it easier to worship, and easier to understand the holiness of God and the immensity of what we are called to be and do, when there are objects and days that are set apart as holy. Your mileage may vary. But I've tried both and find the protestant model lacking in life-changing power. Have you tried both? If so then we are at an impasse and must agree to disagree, and that is fine.
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by Benedictus:
I could send that one right back atcha. End quote.Well, no, Wood, you really couldn't. There's a huge difference between saying "This place does not inspire me" and "Let's destroy this place."
Point taken. However, I would contend that most protestants today don't see what they do to church buildings as destruction, rather as necessary to continue their work. Iconoclasm is quite rare these days, in my experience. The reason they don't see it as destructive is because they don't understand that it's believed by a big chunk of the church to be holy.
Example: St. Aldates in Oxford was recently stripped out and almost completely rebuilt by its evangelical leadership. Opinions gathered here over the last few months suggest that some see it as a terrible act of vandalism. However, the reason they did it was not to vandalise the church, but to (in their eyes) improve it for the uses to which their congregation wished to use it.
quote:Actually, your point is an accurate statement of the Protestant viewpoint as explained previously. (See, we were paying attention.) It does not bind us to agree with it.
I don't want people to agree with me. I just don't want to be one of the 'bad guys'.
quote:
I have no objection to the Protestant or Puritan-type viewpoint, even though I don't agree with it. When those people who hold it turn to destruction of things which do not belong to them and which they've already said they don't understand, it's not Puritanism. It's vandalism.
True. But, as I just said, in this day and age (bearing in mind that once the Puritans did indeed smash up icons and statues right left and centre... and even cancel Christmas) nine times out of ten, it's not deliberate vandalism.
That doesn't make it right. But is it not better to educate rather than to assault? Or am I just a ridiculous idealist?
[note for Nunc_Dimittis: before you say 'in the Sydney Diocese...' please note that I said 'nine times out of ten', mm?]
quote:
Posted by Mousethief:Can it be true that the same person who started his post with "Don't be stupid" also included "Don't patronise me"?
Physician, heal thyself.
I unconditionally apologise. Tensions are getting high here. You're getting annoyed, I'm getting annoyed. Hand of friendship?
Look, Alexis, I like you. I really do. I see that you have a lot to add to the Ship and like reading your posts. I don't agree with most of what you write, but that's OK. Life would be boring etc.
Again, I apologise. I know you're a man of honour and hope you will accept my apology in the spirit it's offered.
quote:
Again, I ask: how does the fact that WE are all holy obviate the "need" for holy items?
It's in the lack of a need for mediation. The objects and places of the old covenant mediated, just as the priests did, between Man and God. Protestants believe it's just Us and God, Father/Son/Holy Spirit. No need for priests to mediate, no need for holy objects. Hence the temple veil being rent. That's what we think it symbolises. The objects and priest of the old covenant all served the same purpose, and all are done away with.
quote:
The end result of such a view, it would seem, is not that all things are seen as holy, but that most (but not all, as I pointed out above vis-a-vis the bible) things are seen as profane.
Some protestants do hold a dualistic view of the cosmos, which is faulty. But then, that's their fault, not the fault of protestantism.
quote:
The whole sense of mystery and awe is totally missing from "low church" (for lack of a better term) life. Is this a good thing?
Mystery, yes. Awe, no. Is it a good thing? A lot of people think so.
quote:
The end result is that all distinctions get thrown out, and we end up with bare churches and Christians living lives that are indistinguishable from well-intentioned atheists except for the fact that they go to church one day a week (or two if they're Baptists
The interesting thing is, I hear accuasations of that kind levelled at 'high church' people every day. Po-tah-to, po-tay-to. I think it depends on the Christian in question, frankly.
quote:
I'm not sure the Protestant experiment
quote:
of doing away with the sacred/profane distinction in order to make saints has been a rousing success. What you end up with is people whose daily lives are nearly indistinguishable from those of non-Christians.
Again, I say to you, if that were the case, what of the 1904 Welsh revival, which was almost wholly Baptist and Methodist, and which reputedly caused the closure of several pubs and brothels? I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, but you CANNOT say that Protestants do not live lives as holy as Catholics/Orthodox, any more than Protestants could say the same of their Catholic and Orthodox brothers.
quote:
Your mileage may vary. But I've tried both and find the protestant model lacking in life-changing power.
Again, others say the opposite.
quote:
Have you tried both? If so then we are at an impasse and must agree to disagree, and that is fine.
I went to a high anglican chapel for a few years as a teenager. If that counts, I'd say, yes, I have, and yes it was only the Protestant church which brought me to God (note: brought me, singular. This is not a policy statement or anything).
MT, we're from different countries with very diffrent cultures. Of course we're going to see things differently. I'm happy to agree to disagree with you, as long as this is amicable.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I unconditionally apologise. Tensions are getting high here. You're getting annoyed, I'm getting annoyed. Hand of friendship?
Accepted and reciprocated. Thank you for your apology. I also apologize for my sharp tone and any comments which came across as uncharitable.
quote:
Look, Alexis, I like you. I really do. I see that you have a lot to add to the Ship and like reading your posts. I don't agree with most of what you write, but that's OK. Life would be boring etc.
Well I'm flattered that you like me and think I add something to the ship, even if you don't like what I add.
I appreciate your willingness to hash over these things and make your point understandable, rather than just fling barbs and hide behind excuses like some people do (NO i DON'T mean rachel_o!). That is very honourable and I respect it and you for it. I don't like you yet but maybe that's coming soon too.
quote:
It's in the lack of a need for mediation. The objects and places of the old covenant mediated, just as the priests did, between Man and God. Protestants believe it's just Us and God, Father/Son/Holy Spirit. No need for priests to mediate, no need for holy objects. Hence the temple veil being rent. That's what we think it symbolises. The objects and priest of the old covenant all served the same purpose, and all are done away with.
Okay, now I have some bearing on this. The problem is that I don't see priests or holy objects as mediators. I see them as gifts from God for the edification of the church. God works in us directly, through the Spirit and through the elements of Communion, and indirectly, through fasts and feasts and holy objects and priests and all the "trappings" of worship. It's not that we can't approach God directly: we all do, all the time, in prayer (the best of us, anyway; for myself I confess that prayer is far less than "unceasing"). But God for reasons which we may never comprehend also wants us to seek Him through others, and present Him to others. As well as holy objects such as relics or icons.
quote:
The end result of such a view, it would seem, is not that all things are seen as holy, but that most (but not all, as I pointed out above vis-a-vis the bible) things are seen as profane.Some protestants do hold a dualistic view of the cosmos, which is faulty. But then, that's their fault, not the fault of protestantism.
You've missed the major point in fixing on the minor: when the holy/profane distinction is discarded, everything becomes profane, not holy.
quote:
The whole sense of mystery and awe is totally missing from "low church" (for lack of a better term) life. Is this a good thing?Mystery, yes. Awe, no. Is it a good thing? A lot of people think so.
If you lose the idea that God is mysterious, you descend into the chummy "me and my bud Jesus" kind of thinking. Yes, God is love, and Jesus became a man like us. BUT God is also wholly other and unknowable in His essence.
And where is this awe? What, in the neo-puritan tradition you appear to be espousing, displays awe? Where does it reside? In what way are your actions different than they would be if you had no "awe"?
Maybe this is one of those potayto potahto things too, but I don't see a heck of a lot of awe in the low-church denominations. A lot of chumminess, and friendliness yes. Awe or worship? Nah.
Are there good, holy people in low church denoms? No doubt. Although closing brothels and pubs strikes me as a funny criterion: it's very easy to denounce others' sins. If they closed due to lack of business that's one thing. If they were closed by busybodies minding other people's business, that is hardly a criterion of holiness I'm willing to accept.
quote:
MT, we're from different countries with very diffrent cultures. Of course we're going to see things differently. I'm happy to agree to disagree with you, as long as this is amicable.
Oh sure, put conditions on it, will you?
Peace in Christ,
Reader Alexis
Let's try another tactic. If the fathers of Notre Dame have piles of plate they are not using, would it not be better to suggest that they donate it (in love and charity) to a poor parish who would use and appreciate them.
My problem is not with a discussion of the uses and abuses of tat.
My problem is with taking an aesthetic or theological position ("I don't like tat") and cloaking it in a moral imperative ("let's feed the poor").
Because we're not really talking about feeding the poor, are we? Surely we all know that melting down used or disused monstrances is not an effective means to feed the hungry or end world poverty.
What we're really talking about is the very existence of gold and jeweled objects intended for Christian worship. The grandeur and luxury of these objects offends the protestant sensibilities of some, and delights the catholic sensibilities of others.
So - let's be honest. I think monstrances are ridiculous and I take issues with the theological reasons behind their use. However, I also understand that if I take that theology seriously, golden and jeweled housings for the Body of Our Lord makes a lot of sense. However, it all comes down to one simple dictum: I don't like monstances, so I don't go to a parish that uses them.
And I don't get my tassels in a twist over people who do.
Also, let's not become so self-important that we forget another simple truth. We are all subjective creatures, with subjective tastes. I like altar rails. I could tell you several very sound theological, ecclesiological, and rubrical reasons why I am convinced that the sanctuary should be railed off and the people should come forward and kneel at the rail to make their communion. However, in part it all comes down to what I like, and who's going to sit in judgment on me for that?
quote:
Let's try another tactic. If the fathers of Notre Dame have piles of plate they are not using, would it not be better to suggest that they donate it (in love and charity) to a poor parish who would use and appreciate them.
AIUI they actually hold onto plate for some of the poorer parishes to keep it safe, and visible.
Another comment on notre dame - they use things from their treasury when the pope comes to visit, and they have masses for tens of thousands.
Love
Angel
I hope I can get the URL right:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/02/arts/design/02NOBE.html
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Accepted and reciprocated. Thank you for your apology. I also apologize for my sharp tone and any comments which came across as uncharitable.
Also accepted.
I should be having my dinner now. I was already late home from work answering you last time, Reader Alexis, so I'll be brief.
quote:
Okay, now I have some bearing on this. The problem is that I don't see priests or holy objects as mediators. I see them as gifts from God for the edification of the church. [/qb
Now we're getting somewhere. I think this is where the Protestant view differs with yours (which, I would hazard, is orthodox as well as Orthodox ). A basic difference in interpretation.
quote:
[qb]You've missed the major point in fixing on the minor: when the holy/profane distinction is discarded, everything becomes profane, not holy.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: what I meant to say was that the healthy view of the world is that the world is God's gift to us and therefore holy; we are not in opposition to the world.
However, there's a scary trend in some quarters of the evangelical church to place us in oppostion, not so much 'in the world and not of the world' as 'not really in the world and in diametric opposition to it'.
This is bad, but it isn't traditional protestantism.
I don't seen that the lack of a distinction necessarily has to make everything profane (or even mundane). Why can't it raise the level of the material world rather than lower it?
quote:
If you lose the idea that God is mysterious, you descend into the chummy "me and my bud Jesus" kind of thinking.
quote:
And where is this awe? What, in the neo-puritan tradition you appear to be espousing, displays awe? Where does it reside? In what way are your actions different than they would be if you had no "awe"?
I suspect that now we're having a civilised discussion, Hell is not the place for this kind of exchange. And the thread's already gone off-topic. Besides, I have completely run out of time.
It's worth continuing this, and I want to answer you properly. Besides, it would be unfair to dictate having the last word. PM me or (even better) start something in Purgatory about 'Awe'. Promise I'll join in. But... gotta go now. (ack! how much have I posted today?)
(oh, by the way... the brothels, it was said, closed from lack of business )
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
If an individual chooses to buy fancy altar frontals for his church, and people who attend enjoy looking at them and are brought closer to God, mightn't they be more likely to act in a Christian way and help the downtrodden? Might there not be a tat -> food for the poor cycle that is being missed here?
I admit I hadn't thought of it from this perspective - although it still only arises if the tat is in use. Having said that, in some of the books I've read, the implication is that many people gave monstrances etc to the church as a way of showing off there wealth. This doesn't strike me as a good way of inspiring others to give to the poor.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The end result is that all distinctions get thrown out, and we end up with bare churches and Christians living lives that are indistinguishable from well-intentioned atheists except for the fact that they go to church one day a week.
Mousethief -
I have the utmost respect for most of what you have said on this thread. I have been following your discussion with Wood on the whether things can be holy with enormous interest, and though I don't have a lot to add at the moment, I am thinking hard about what you have said.
Hence, I am going to do my utmost not to take offense at the quote above. However, please can I ask you:
Are you implying that a life lived according to the model advocated by most evangelical protestant churches is indistinguishable from a life lived by a well-intentioned atheist?
Ok - if I were a genuinely GOOD little evangelical, here's what I would do each day/week:
Daily:
Reading he Bible - both old and new testament, either with a study guide, or in my own fashion. Meditating on the passages read.
Praying: Praising God, confessing sin, thanking God, praying for others needs and also my own
Worship: Singing or speaking out praises to God, by oneself.
Weekly:
Attending church on Sunday - once if I am not involved in leading a service, twice if I am.
Attending mid-week communion - usually at 8am.
Mid-week meeting - with Bible study, and/or prayer and/or worship.
Now are you telling me that despite all this my life would be indistinguishable from that of a well-intentioned atheist? That I could independently and corporately spend time with God on a daily and weekly basis and not be noticeably Christian?
You could be right - but only if I were just going through the motions. If I do it with an open and a contrite heart, and God uses it to change me - and I know I need changing - then there really must be some difference. After all, didn't someone once say "They'll know we are Christians by our love" - I assumed this meant love of God and our neighbour, not love of a particular ceremony or object.
Sorry, about that - bit of a rant. But I hope you see what I mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Let's try another tactic. If the fathers of Notre Dame have piles of plate they are not using, would it not be better to suggest that they donate it (in love and charity) to a poor parish who would use and appreciate them......
Because we're not really talking about feeding the poor, are we? Surely we all know that melting down used or disused monstrances is not an effective means to feed the hungry or end world poverty.
HT -
To your first point, I have to say: "Great idea". If these objects were used, loved and appreciated they wouldn't make me anywhere near as angry. I still wouldn't understand them, but I am quite willing to have it all explained.
To the second point - I'm afraid I feel this is a fallacy which is pedalled by a lot of churches in a different context. Of course I don't think that selling off every bit of tat in the world (which isn't what I'm advocating anyway) would end world poverty - but it would end some poverty. However, the attitude which says "This is just a drop in the ocean, and therefore not really worth doing" is - to me - a moral cop out. In my eyes, becuase these objects are not in frequent use, they are little more than money. As such, I honestly believe that they could be put to better use. If they are to be used to glorify God in an active way in church - fine. If not then they are money and I can't see a significantly better use for money than alleviating poverty, even if only a little bit. So yes - personally I really am talking about feeding the poor.
quote:
Originally posted by Angel of the North:
AIUI they actually hold onto plate for some of the poorer parishes to keep it safe, and visible.
Angel - I didn't understand this idea. Pleas explain. Thanks.
OK. I know I haven't even attempted to cover everything that's been said, but if I do this post will reach several miles in length. Sorry about that.
All the best,
Rachel.
Ok - for certain one parish, because a friend of mine worships there, and showed me the piece.
Angel
Rachel - how do you decide what goes then? What do you sell first?
And by what do you determine "frequent" use, if the appropriate usage of an item is only once or twice a year, if that. Or what of items that are delicate (ciboria??? - things used for displaying the bread that look like circles of gold flames).
And how would you feel about borrowing against the value of these items, rather than selling them.
Angel
And if the rare artefacts were put up for auction who could afford to buy them, and what would be done with them? I doubt Bill Gates would be interested. If we had true equality, presumably the millionaires would give all their money to the church for the poor anyway, and would have no money left to buy church plate.
The answer would have to be: use it if you can, and if you can't then put it on public display in a secure place so that as many people as possible can see it and marvel at how it was once used.
So sorry, Rachael, I don't think your argument holds water. This is not a personal attack, just a hell-like reply to a hell-like question.
quote:
Originally posted by Angel of the North:Rachel - how do you decide what goes then? What do you sell first?
And by what do you determine "frequent" use, if the appropriate usage of an item is only once or twice a year, if that. Or what of items that are delicate (ciboria??? - things used for displaying the bread that look like circles of gold flames).
If things are being used in a way which is appropriate for the purpose for which they are made - ie once or twice a year if that is all they were intended for - then that is different to empty reliquaries, or chalices which could be used regularly for communion, but aren't.
To be honest, I don't know how I'd decide - and obviously I never will have to decide. I was, when I started this thread, more interested in expressing my frustration that the church seemed to have so much when there are so many who have so little.
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If Rachael's suggestion is to be taken seriously, and we leave the religious aspect out of it for the moment, what would art lovers and historians think? It would be as great a crime to melt down priceless, rare plate as it was to knock down listed buildings and replace them with 60s thin-walled boxes. Or to recycle Rembrandts by giving the canvas for the local art club to practise their technique all over.And if the rare artefacts were put up for auction who could afford to buy them, and what would be done with them? I doubt Bill Gates would be interested. If we had true equality, presumably the millionaires would give all their money to the church for the poor anyway, and would have no money left to buy church plate.
The answer would have to be: use it if you can, and if you can't then put it on public display in a secure place so that as many people as possible can see it and marvel at how it was once used.So sorry, Rachael, I don't think your argument holds water. This is not a personal attack, just a hell-like reply to a hell-like question.
OK - I take back what I said about melting them down - I do buy the conservation/preservation argument - but I'm still considering the possibility of selling them off.
Given that we live in an imperfect world, the millionaires are never going to give all their money to the church or the poor. I don't see why it's any more crass to sell these objects to someone who will appreciate them - and there are plenty of collectors out there - than to charge tourists to come and see them displayed out of context and with no explanation, to gawp t the fact that they are shiny and bejewelled. If you're going to make money out of them, you might as well do it effectively.
Of course, if they were displayed effectively and in a way that did glorify God, I might well think differently - but that's the whole problem.
Don't apologise for giving hellish responses - I started this thread in Hell, because it didn't deserve any better, and I don't consider disagreeing with me a personal attack.
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
Some one might be interested to hear that Deogratias, a fifth century bishop of Carthage, did pretty much what Rachel suggests, selling off the entire ornamentation of his church to buy the freedom of several hundred Christian slaves.
Aha - so I'm not as out on a limb with this one as it might at first appear!
All the best,
Rachel.
quote:
If things are being used in a way which is appropriate for the purpose for which they are made - ie once or twice a year if that is all they were intended for - then that is different to empty reliquaries, or chalices which could be used regularly for communion, but aren't.
Like Erin pointed out, there are occasions when churches need about 10 chalices, though only a few may be needed most of the time.
Empty reliquaries - these are as much about the artwork done for the glory of God, as about what's been in them. Part of the problem of them falling in secular hands is that they risk being used for superstitious pseudo-christian belief.
And yes, I think you do need to address the issue of how you decide what goes, seeing as this is hell, and you wanted rid of it, you must have had some idea of how to sort it.
Angel
why is it right for a millionaire to own church plate and wrong for the church to own church plate? I don't understand that line of the argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Angel of the North:
And yes, I think you do need to address the issue of how you decide what goes, seeing as this is hell, and you wanted rid of it, you must have had some idea of how to sort it.
OK, OK - shall I give up, and just admit it was a badly thought out idea? Fair enough. I was only raising an issue that actually really bothers me, but I should have calmed down first and phrased it in a more sensible, logical and defensible way. But this is hell - "the refuge of the irascible, the contentious and the just plain pissed off" and since I was feeling all of the above, I decided to say how I felt. Apologies to everyone I have offended. I really didn't mean that RC and AC worship should be ditched as a concept, and I certainly don't have a grand plan for saving the world using tat.
I still think that there are issues raised though:
1) What is the right way for the church to spend its resources - particulalry if it has any apparent excess? What proportion should be used to improve/beautify the church, and what should be used to feed the hungry or to preach the good news. This also goes for evo churches etc etc.
2) What makes something holy? And is an object sill holy, if no longer used for its original purpose?
OK. Now, do you all want to tell me I'm wrong some more, or shall I go and start a thread in purgatory?
All the best,
Rachel.
PS... rereading the above, I realise that it's not the world's most gracious apology. I am, genuinely, sorry to have offended people. I am not terribly sorry for having contentious opinions, however.
If you think I'm suffering from a "moral cop out" then I hope you won't be offended if I think you're being naive.
I still think this has more to do with the symbolism of selling of the decadent lucre of a corrupted instution than it does any meaningful aid to the hungry.
And I still don't really understand why it's the plate that should fund this European-wide offensive against poverty. Surely the plot of land Notre Dame sits upon is far more valuable than all the shiny vessels. Should the Roman Catholic church not sell the cathedral to be turned into tony loft-style flats, and use the proceeds to build homeless shelters?
Many historical churches (including the one in which I worship) are located in highly desirable locations that could be put to fantastically profitable commercial use.
On the one hand I'm making a "thin end of the wedge" argument. On the other I'm making an argument about symbols. I for one am glad to find a church in a prominent location -- even if the majority of passers-by never enter into it. As I'm glad to find the plate still in a church, even if it is rarely used.
One more thing. I think Christian religious objects in museums are inexpressibly sad. There is a house-museum here in Washington called Hillwood, which was lavishly furnished by Marjorie Merriwhether Post with plunder from Imperial Russia. Included is a room devoted to vestments, icons, and sacred vessels from the Russian Orthodox church. Placing them in a secular museum (or private house) transforms them from religious objects into secular curiosities.
And any Christian ought to feel a pang at the desecration of anything devoted to the Glory of our God.
Point 1 that Rachel makes in her last post (Note I have spelt your name correctly at last!)is interesting, as it implies there is a difference between objects the church already owns and were probably given as gifts to the church, and things the church decides it needs in the future and will have to buy. Obviously there is not so much wealth around now, and churches are likely to think a lot more carefully before splashing out on solid gold for example (unless you are building a Russian Cathedral, which is another story.....)
But I do see a discrepancy when members of a congregation are up in arms about how the church should not replace special items because the money should go to the poor .....and then those same people think nothing of splashing out on a brand new expensive car, or house extension or several other unneccessary items for themselves. By all means preach philanthropy as long as you practise it in your own life as well.
(By the way, Rachel, I don't think you have offended any of us, we're just expressing our opinions the same as you are.)
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
But I do see a discrepancy when members of a congregation are up in arms about how the church should not replace special items because the money should go to the poor .....and then those same people think nothing of splashing out on a brand new expensive car, or house extension or several other unneccessary items for themselves. By all means preach philanthropy as long as you practise it in your own life as well.
Actually, in a way, this kind of thing is one of the reasons why I was so wound up on this point. The church which I have just left, recently reordered itself. To do so, it raised about 1.6 million pounds, mostly off the congregation. At the time, I was still an undergrad, and so I raised what little I could afford to give, by giving up things I enjoyed - e.g. ice-cream, chocolate - and giving the church the extra money.
And they reordered, and the church is much the same as it once was - but pinker, and without pews. My honest reaction was that if this congreagation can afford to give £1.6m, then it should start doing something more useful with it than this. But I somehow don't think that they could have raised this much money for a homeless shelter or whatever.
And this makes me cross - because giving for the reordering of the church is giving to God on one level - but giving to yourself on another. After all, who's going to enjoy the new, improved, (pink) enviroment if not the congregation - who so "selflessly paid for it.
All the best,
Rachel.
PS... I'm glad I haven't offended you Chorister. I've certainly made some other people very angry.
quote:
Originally posted by Rachel_O:
Now are you telling me that despite all this my life would be indistinguishable from that of a well-intentioned atheist? That I could independently and corporately spend time with God on a daily and weekly basis and not be noticeably Christian?
Not at all. I'm saying that the whole milieu created in a tradition which downplays the mystical and the holy and the role of priests makes all of these things very hard to do, and thus less likely to be done.
When the whole church has a rhythm of fasting and almsgiving and prayer, created and sustained by and in and through "special" holy people, things, and times, then all of the things you mention (all of them very good things) become easier to sustain and grow in. Nothing in my Protestant past helped my prayer life as much as fasting and the sacrament of confession before a priest.
I know Wood is going to zorch me for overgeneralizing, but I have found in conversations with adult converts to Orthodoxy that without exception they find themselves more nurtured and sustained in their daily personal devotion and piety in Orthodoxy than they ever were in Protestantism. I will admit that my circle of acquaintances is far short of a scientific poll. But there it is.
Reader Alexis
And as you can see they run programmes for young people, people with drug and alcohol problems, people with disabilities,homeless people, families with difficulties, as well as lots and lots of worship services.
Probably they were too busy doing that to pay some curator-person like me to go write up cards for their reliquaries.
cheers,
Louise
quote:
...And don't try to back-burner me because the question is awkward. Why is catholic gold more useful to the poor than buddhist gold or ancient egyptian gold?
HT[/QB]
Catholic stuff is no more intrinsically valuable than Hindu stuff or Native American animist stuff.
Culture is cummulative and accummulative. Our artifacts tell us our past far more vividly than all the words in books. That's why museums are so popular.
Can you really imagine a decision to melt Tut's mask? How did we (the world) react to the decision of the Taliban to destroy the great Buddha statues in Afghanistan?
Some of the stuff in museums is of marginal artistic value, but even that is historically informative. I've visited all of the old California missions, and seen the three hundred year old fiddleback vestments, candlesticks and vellum choir books. You cannot comprehend the religious life of that time without them. OTOH, these objects don't tell the whole story. But they are a significant part of the story.
So enough about burning art (even hideous art)! Culture counts for something... and there are all kinds of poverty, including poverty of spirit!
I agree that churches have an obligation to use money wisely to carry out their mission. When a church obviously misuses funds people are outraged.
There is, however, a big difference between how assets can be used and how income can be used. Income is supposed to cover the expenses of the church, including outreach. The assets may actually cost money--e.g. the building needs a new roof. If the assets are sold and the money used to feed the poor, the feeding program will have to stop after a few years because the money will be gone.
There is another problem with selling the tat. In every church I have belonged to, all the tat was given by individuals, usually as a memorial to someone. When people give something as a memorial, they want to be sure that the church will keep it (unless it wears out, as altar hangings do).
In my present church I have heard the story of a major controversy which happened years before I came. There was a proposal to replace the stained glass windows over the altar, which were given as a memorial to someone more than a century ago. The old windows were obviously cheap and not at all attractive.
When word got around that they might be replaced, all hell broke loose. Several people left the church for good, not because the old windows were replaced (they're still there), but because it was suggested that they be replaced.
There is another aspect of this question which others have touched on. In my experience a richly adorned church is as likely to give large sums to the poor as an unadorned one.
When the disciples expressed their admiration for the beautifully adorned Temple, Jesus didn't say that the money should not have been spent that way. He prophesied its destruction, but he didn't seem to think it should never have been built that way.
If tat helps people worship they should have it. They should also give up other things to help the poor.
Moo
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
And since Jesus came to a humble place on earth, and is now glorified in heaven, wouldn't it be appropriate, even when believing in His presence in the sacraments, to provide 10 pottery chalices and pattens, maybe, when 10 are necessary?
My church has a couple of pottery chalices and patens that we got a couple of years ago from the Holy Land. They are already cracked. The silver we've had for years and years is in as good a shape now as it was the day it was given.
Now you tell me which is the better use of funds.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I know Wood is going to zorch me for overgeneralizing, but I have found in conversations with adult converts to Orthodoxy that without exception they find themselves more nurtured and sustained in their daily personal devotion and piety in Orthodoxy than they ever were in Protestantism. I will admit that my circle of acquaintances is far short of a scientific poll. But there it is.
Well, they wouldn't have converted if they hadn't figured on being more nurtured and sustained, would they?
I feel more nurtured and sustained in my personal piety in the Anglican tradition than I did in the Baptist tradition I was brought up in, and one of the active members of my parish has found the same sustenance in Anglicanism after having left the Orthodox Church. And my mother has told me all about a fellow churchmember of hers who left the Roman Catholic Church and feels much closer to God worshipping in a Baptist church.
So much for anecdotal evidence. Alexis, I'm you and others find in Orthodoxy what you need. But you've already recognized that you're overgeneralizing.
Not that I'm planning to put them to the sword or anything. I'm pretty cynical I guess - but I'm wondering if your church is full of converts on fire for the Lord and the faith? My anecdotal evidence of a Orthodox church with real live greek people in it, was that only a handful of people would go up to receive - even at Pascha - because people did not keep the fast. Hm. Yer. I know it's off the topic. But your post about Orthodox piety in lent and advent compared to cute Anglicans disturbed me. Who eats nero-vrasta nowdays, ay? Or maybe Australian greeks are backsliders.
quote:
But your post about Orthodox piety in lent and advent compared to cute Anglicans disturbed me.
Yes I wasn't going to mention that as it was on another board, but I know many Anglicans and Protestants who use confession, silence, retreats and abstention as part of their rule of life. I understood you to be saying that the whole church uses them collectively in Orthodoxy which is what you find helpful, and I take the point without necessarily agreeing that it is the only helpful way to use these disciplines, but I could do without my spirituality being called 'cute' in future Alexis 
Jesus may have been born in unadorned surroundings but it is not recorded what the family did with the gold, frankincense and myrrh.
"I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and I will not look upon the peace offerings of your fatted beasts. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."
(Amos 5:21-24)
It took me a while to rescue them - I ended up buying cheap (and elegant) metal candle holders from the pound shop and retrieving my own stuff.
I know this is a bit Purgatorial but I actually get quite annoyed about 'proof texting' so if I put some cross faces at the end I hope that makes it Hellish enough!
But it's a cool passage and one well worth remembering
i was thinking about it, more to do with rachel's post about her previous congregation making their building 'all nice for God.' i guess more on the misuse of funds argument.
and, yeah... i know throwing random quotes in isn't the best way to form an argument... but i wanted the quote to stand for itself without too much explanation... i guess that's my post-modernistic influences creeping through!
quote:
but i wanted the quote to stand for itself without too much explanation...
I think you'll find that isn't the way Jesus used scripture, young Stooberry 
I just want to chime in to agree w/ Rachel's (reformed) point about unused tat. Rather than melt it down to feed the poor, why not send it to poor parishes around the world so that they too can worship God in the beauty of holiness?
Regarding ND de Paris: I went to a wonderful mass there last September (packed to the gills and the congregation happily singing along with the gregorian chant) and while I'm sure they weren't using all their stuff (that's the American word for "tat"), they were certainly using some of it.
But the stuff in museums is another matter. I appreciate being able to go to, say, the Cluny Museum and seeing beautiful vestments and chalices that are now to fragile for use, but there is also a part of me that is saddened by seeing ritual objects being reduced (and I do mean reduced) to mere art. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't reverently dispose of ritual objects when they can no longer be used in the corporate worship of God.
I recently was in Ghent and saw the magnificent van Eyck altarpiece at St. Baafs cathedral. It was incredibly beautiful. But I couldn't help regretting that it can no longer be seen for what it was meant to be by van Eyck: the backdrop to the even more incredibly beautiful celebration of the mass.
FCB
quote:
There is an argument for using unbreakable stuff, Erin, and I did say earlier that I hoped some money went to the crafts-people; in the same way, constantly replacing things is OK, I think, as it contimues to give out income to the makers.
But it's not feeding the poor!!
So clearly it is an abomination before the Lord.
As Rachel_O has demonstrated it's not just the High Church traditions which spend money on worship - I know plenty of churches which started in simplicity, maybe in a hired hall or front room, and end up spending lots of money on a church building.
I can't see what we are arguing about really.
I do still believe we should not be either demonstrating worldly wealth to those outside, (nor to those within - it gets into the prosperity gospel too easily.)
So, the church could destroy some of the 'art' in its possession in order to realise the value of the raw materials. Tricky. Scrap value not always that high against effort - will scraping the gold off the Lindisfarne Gospels really be worth the candle?
Ok, so safer to realise the value of its assets by becoming a player in the art market. The objects pass out of the realm where ordinary people might have touched them, drunk from them, prayed before them and they pass instead into a place where they are isolated, secularized, deracinated.
Well, never mind. The church is coming away from Sootheby's with all this dosh. A certain amount has to go to replace the objects that actually had function - but, obviously not with ones which are valuable, either in materials or artistic merit. Oh, and there's staff and estate and administrative overheads - but nevertheless money is turned into food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless.
So, the church as a sort of voluntary Social Services department, the power of beauty and creativity moved out into the benevolent custodianship of either Very Rich People or Institutions where it may be visited during stated hours.
So that's all right then.
quote:Yes, this is the whole "perfume should have been sold to give to the poor" question. Clearly this tension has been around since the very start, and clearly it has always been necessary to hold in balance social action and the bneauty of holiness.
the power of beauty and creativity moved out into the benevolent custodianship of either Very Rich People or Institutions where it may be visited during stated hours.
And another thing. I was at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London recently. There is a fine collection of religious vestments and objects. Amongst them is a chalice which some clutz has labelled as follows " ...It WAS believed that the wine became the blood of Christ ... " ... WAS .... WAS !!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Old Fashioned Crab:
I was at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London recently. There is a fine collection of religious vestments and objects. Amongst them is a chalice which some clutz has labelled as follows " ...It WAS believed that the wine became the blood of Christ ... " ... WAS .... WAS !!!!
I think this is what Rachel was getting at. This is SO not the way to treat a consecrated object - and even if you don't believe in consecration, which I don't particularly - it's not a mark of respect to one's beliefs to perform an act of minor desecration like that.
[fixed ubb]
[ 05 December 2001: Message edited by: tomb ]
The kid is getting there however methinks.....
(The fact that priceless chalices have to be locked away in museums or crypts, I mean, not about Rachel's fame......)
This is also true of other Christian traditions. Although in my defense I put a lot into being a good Protestant (as these things go) and found it just didn't work for me. As I also said earlier, your mileage may vary. If anyone finds that they are steadily growing in godliness in their current Christian church, then more power to them, and may the good Lord have mercy upon us all.
Meanwhile I think Rachel has realized the problems with making sweeping statements about other people's traditions (something I could use a lesson or two in, as I'm sure you're all thinking :rolleyes and so this thread has served a good purpose. There are people for whom beautiful sacred objects are not mere "tat" but an important aid to worship.
Finally (a sigh of collective relief goes up from the crowd), one last question: why is keeping potters employed more important than keeping silversmiths employed?
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
... But the stuff in museums is another matter.... there is also a part of me that is saddened by seeing ritual objects being reduced (and I do mean reduced) to mere art. ...
At the risk of derailing this thread and sending the hounds baying after the red herring of aesthetics, I would like to say categorically that there is no such thing as "mere" art.
There is, arguably, "good" art and "bad" art, but it's all art.
Now, art used in the service and worship of Almighty God may be employed for a higher purpose than, say, an Etruscan chamber pot, but both objects probably disclose more about the maker of the vessel and the millieu in which the vessel was made than they do about their intended purpose.
And I suspect that, in the case of the sacred objects at least, a certain transparency is valuable so that the object, as part of its artistic nature, points, not to its beauty, but to the beauty of God.
Recently, I had the privilege of praying in the Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament in St. Peter's. It's one of the Papal properties in Rome where perpetual adoration occurs.
Like the rest of the basilica, the Blessed Sacrament chapel is a baroque wonder. I must have spent perhaps 30 minutes to 3/4 of an hour there. Part of the time, I had my eyes closed, but a great deal of the time, I spent gazing at the Host, which was about the size of a large American pizza.
About a week after returning home, we were talking about our experiences, and I mentioned the time I had spent in prayer in the chapel. "Oh yes," said my friend, "the monstrance is by Bernini."
"It is?" I replied. "Welll, shit, I missed seeing it!"
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is also true of other Christian traditions. Although in my defense I put a lot into being a good Protestant (as these things go) and found it just didn't work for me. As I also said earlier, your mileage may vary. If anyone finds that they are steadily growing in godliness in their current Christian church, then more power to them, and may the good Lord have mercy upon us all.
Amen to that, Mousethief.
(Wood slumps back into his chair, emotionally exhausted but ultimately vindicated. )
quote:
Meanwhile I think Rachel has realized the problems with making sweeping statements about other people's traditions (something I could use a lesson or two in, as I'm sure you're all thinking
What? You, Reader Alexis? Really?
quote:
and so this thread has served a good purpose. There are people for whom beautiful sacred objects are not mere "tat" but an important aid to worship.
I think this is a good point, and you;re right. With all the talk about tat that goes around, I think that this fact was assumed by those who know and never explained, leaving those us who were unaware of its significance standing back, thinking you were all at best mad, at worst... well.
quote:
Finally (a sigh of collective relief goes up from the crowd), one last question: why is keeping potters employed more important than keeping silversmiths employed?
Funny. I was wondering that myself.
If a church looks carefully at its budget, it may find that a certain proportion of the money should be used on ceremony and bricks-and-mortar and stuff to look at. Certainly paying an organist is a common thing, and buying a chalice is a worthy thing.
But it is a matter of proportion. If most of the money is going into pretty stuff, and very little is going into ministry in the larger community--soup kitchens, Habitat for Humanity, evangelistic outreach--then perhaps we have an imbalance and some divestiture of the pretty stuff is a good idea.
If, however, the congregation is spending next to nothing on making worship a beautiful and uplifting experience, then that is out of balance, too.
Here's a picture of my church on Pentecost. You will see that there is tat: a banner over the altar, pipe organ, stained glass, a processional cross, flowers on the altar, pulpit and lectern hangings, communionware, candles. But there is also a bare concrete floor. Why don't we have carpet? Because we have consciously decided, as a church community, that our benevolence outside of the congregation is much more important than carpet.
Also, if a building gets too fancy to be used for anything but tat-fest worship, then it is probably too fancy. A church building ought to be, IMO, simple enough that during a flood or tornado aftermath, etc., it could be used for emergency housing without all the delicate frou-frou stuff being in danger. St. Alban's Episcopal in Indianapolis was used as a headquarters for the emergency management teams after a tornado hit the neighborhood (and left it unscathed except for FIVE ROOF SHINGLES!), and it served very well. Services continued, and it was none the worse for wear. St. Thomas Lutheran (see link above) has a private school that uses it s classrooms during the week; its organ is used for student recitals for the Indiana University students; other groups such as the spinners and weaver's guild, the community band, barbershop quartet singers, half a dozen others, also use parts of the building. It's not too fancy or too holy for those purposes.
Reader Alexis
This SHOULD be a picture of my church on Pentecost, the first image you see. I hope.
[deleted duplicate post with bad UBB.Inadvertently erased Nancy's comment about her church in the process. Sorry about that, Nancy.]
[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: tomb ]
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Meanwhile I think Rachel has realized the problems with making sweeping statements about other people's traditions (something I could use a lesson or two in, as I'm sure you're all thinking :rolleyes
You are certainly right. I have learned and am learning. Now all I need to do is teach Fr. Cosmo not to make sweeping statements about charismatic evagelicals and the ship will be having an exceptionally good week.
It has to be said that I echo Wood's comment about the way tat is generally talked about on this ship - particularly for those of us who don't venture into MW very often for fear of drowning in the stuff. Quite apart from the fact that the very word - "tat" - for me conjures up images of cheap costume jewellry and other useless junk, the impression that you can easily get from some threads on board ship is that tat turns church into a cross between a South American Carnivale, a jeweller's shop and a fashion show! I now know better.
Erin of course is still blistering me and my like with sarcastic bile - and I'm sure that will add greatly to the learning experience.
I would still plead moderation in all these things - whether it be fancy projection systems, shiny chalices or pink paint. (But you really don't want to get me started on the pink paint).
All the best,
Rachel.
quote:
Erin of course is still blistering me and my like with sarcastic bile - and I'm sure that will add greatly to the learning experience.
Wah-freakin'-wah. In case you haven't figured it out, my last post was directed towards daisymay. And even if it wasn't, according to the guidelines in Hell, when you start a thread here (particularly a vitriolic one), you paint a nice big ol' target on your back.
Get over yourself. You started a thread in the most insulting way possible and it came back and bit you in the ass. Deal with it.
Wood, it is lovely that you and Mousethief continue to disagree then make obsequious apologies to each other. Can you stop using my name in vain? I do not daub all evangelicals with the same "Diocese of Sydney" tar brush - indeed, until you addressed me directly with the "nine out of ten times" thing, I hadn't thought of my own/the Diocese of Sydney's position at all. Now I realise that you may actually have been making room for the possibility that SYdney Diocese evangelicals might be complete loonies (which I am not saying... mutter mutter, but might like to). But I really feel that was uncalled for.
I have followed the debate/conversation between Wood and Mousthief with interest. I have a little idea to inject quietly (for fear of then having Wood branish his BGF sword at me yet again):
I think the differences (or some of them) between catholic/Orthodox understanding of holiness and the protestant/evangelical view of the same is related to what role and how important the Incarnation is in their respective theologies...
Speaking from the cahtolic perspective, the Incarnation has dignified matter; it means that even more than before, matter can be the vehicle of bringing God to us, into our lives, and of having experiences with him/of him. Hence a more sacramental view of the world, wherein things and people can be holy and set apart, whether ceremonially, or by virtue of how they convey grace in our lives - eg a spring or Spring or various people or places we know. This gives more room for the apprehension of Mystery - for although God reveals himself, we cannot fully understand him, and so he is Mystery (just like he is Beauty and Truth, as well as Justice and Mercy). The created world, and our creations in reflection of this thereby serve to foster meditation on these things. This is especially so, as the Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Christ has redeemed us (and all the created order).
If onthe other hand you focus on "Salvation" - ie the central message of Christ's death and resurrection adn salvation from sin and death - then I think you lose the fullness of what I described above (this is not a criticism but an observation), theologically and practically as it is lived out. Mousethief, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Orthodox focus more on living a resurrected life and on the positive things of salvation, than on the negative aspects like "we are all sinners and utterly vile" - though that may be true, and it is recognised in the well known Jesus prayer (Lord Jesus CHrist, SOn of God, have mercy on me, a sinner repeated 3 times or so).
I say these things, because I think it is part of the thought behind whether or not one believes matter can be made holy/consecrated, whether it stays holy, and what one does with it once it has served its purpose. A difference in how we view the world...
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc_Dimittis:
Stooberry, a counter catholics would consider to your Amos quote, would be the final chapter of Malachi, which says stuff like "they will offer me right sacrifices" etc etc...
ok... p'raps i should've put some of my thinkings in to my post instead of leaving the quote to speak for itself! u live and learn!
i wasn't posting it as an anti-apparell post, but instead as a right-priorities post. it was originally rachel's post about her previous congregation that put the passage into my mind.
what i think the malachi bit is getting at, (as well as the amos bit) is that God is much more concerned with our attitudes than our tradition (on either side of the high-low fence) of worship. the passage to which i think you're referring (Malachi 3:3) can also be read as "presenting offerings to the Lord in righteousness".
i think we're basically agreed that God in this passage is saying the people had got something wrong... from my reading of the bible, i believe it is our attitudes rather than our motions (hmmm... suddenly seeing this post transferring to Erin's toilet thread...)
what i've made of this very interesting thread so far, is that all of us (myself espescially) can easily get tied up in what i see as the peripherals of our faith, rather than the bits that Jesus seemed to care about.
Great thread though. So much in the course of three days. I reckon the starter for ten was worth it.
One other thought: there's the same sort of issue around the aristocratic great houses. The extravagence of the wealth attracts redistributive instincts, but equally, part of their attraction as visits is seeing it all in situ, and knowing it's part of a continuing thread of history.
Don't want to push the analogy too far, but just to point out that the fact that selling off the church silver and gold is such a perennial subject is not just to do with protestant anti-tat prejudice (any more than wishing to redistribute aristocratic wealth is due purely to socialist "envy"), but is grounded on a more general human temptation to wonder (as Rachel did) about the use of most extravagent (and we are talking gold/silver, not pottery here, aren't we ?)) goods and the tension between a "utilitarian" disposal, and other Goods (such as those cited here).
I understand that all church buildings and religious property was nationalized by an anticlerical regime in the 19th Century, and that the churches are basically "made available" for religious services. Did this nationalization extend to the tat as well?
This may account for the accumulation of tat and its display/storage. State/public ownership of tat may complicate its disposal.
To some extent this situation may not be a bad thing, given the iconoclastic tendencies of certain RC clergy over the last forty years.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Meanwhile I think Rachel has realized the problems with making sweeping statements about other people's traditions
quote:I don't think Fr Cosmo should have to be the whipping boy (unless he really wants to be, my dears) as you shift focus away from your provocative (albeit modified along the way) challenge to Tat Queens.
Originally posted by rachel_o:
You are certainly right. I have learned and am learning. Now all I need to do is teach Fr. Cosmo not to make sweeping statements about charismatic evagelicals and the ship will be having an exceptionally good week.
I don't recall him ever actually targetting *charismatic* evangelicals as such.
Funny comments (see pew thread in heaven) by him require payment in kind (see Wood's response). Steve's response is the unfortunate evangelical equivalent of the anglocatholic queeny fit. (In mitigation, I expect there's probably a good 6 months frustration in that post. And everyone's allowed to have a melt down occasionally). I'd hate to see Cosmo's humour purged of its gallows or chivvying aspects - then he would become just another mawkish christian. Perish the thought.
Where he's made generalisations about evangelicals that shipmates have found offensive, he's been called out by the hosts. So. And I'm going to be erudite here. Naff off.
quote:
Originally posted by rachel_o:
It has to be said that I echo Wood's comment about the way tat is generally talked about on this ship - particularly for those of us who don't venture into MW very often for fear of drowning in the stuff. Quite apart from the fact that the very word - "tat" - for me conjures up images of cheap costume jewellry and other useless junk, the impression that you can easily get from some threads on board ship is that tat turns church into a cross between a South American Carnivale, a jeweller's shop and a fashion show!
I think it is useful to make a sweeping generalisation here -- that Anglo-Catholics tend to indulge in a fair amount of self-parody.
This leads to a great many misunderstandings. I can think of several instances where incendiary battles have erupted over a self-depracating remark, or a piss-take posted by an A/C that was taken very very seriously by someone else. This often results in an immoderate reply, which prompts a snide (sic) or vitriolic response, and the next thing you know you have people expressing hatred for each other in Heaven.
May I suggest that one of the fundamental misunderstandings we confront is not spiritual or theological or even aesthetic, but the simple fact that two groups of people, both professing to be Christians, see and react to each other in knee-jerk, negative ways:
Group A: "Group B are a bunch of self-important, narrow-minded, judgmental, intellectually shallow, prudish, holier-than-thou reductionists."
Group B: "Group A are a bunch of prissy, trivial, self-indulgent, hedonistic, narrow-minded, judgmental, spiritually shallow snobs."
Care to fill in the blanks here? And anyone notice any overlap?
See my post above. We are all subjective people. At some point one has to realise that God is incomprehensible, and different people respond to the incomprehensible in different ways. And at some point one has to stop asking "why do you do that" when the implied question is "why do you think it's better?"
People are different. Your way may be better for you, but it doesn't mean it's better full stop.
HT
Coot--I love the idea of "the Evangelical equivalent of an A-C queeny-fit" and will now entertain myself over breakfast by visualizing it.
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc_Dimittis:
Wood, it is lovely that you and Mousethief continue to disagree then make obsequious apologies to each other.
Didn't think they were *obsequious* as such.
For future reference, if you imagine Mousethief as Hardy and me as Laurel, it'll brighten up your day.
quote:
Can you stop using my name in vain? I do not daub all evangelicals with the same "Diocese of Sydney" tar brush - indeed, until you addressed me directly with the "nine out of ten times" thing, I hadn't thought of my own/the Diocese of Sydney's position at all.
Apologies. It's just that - and this may possibly be my own perception here - you have a real mad-on for the diocese of Sydney, and mention them an awful lot...
quote:
Now I realise that you may actually have been making room for the possibility that SYdney Diocese evangelicals might be complete loonies
Yup.
quote:
(which I am not saying... mutter mutter, but might like to).
See? See?
quote:
But I really feel that was uncalled for.
Apologies again. However, you do go on about them a bit.
quote:
Speaking from the cahtolic perspective, the Incarnation has dignified matter; it means that even more than before, matter can be the vehicle of bringing God to us, into our lives, and of having experiences with him/of him.
Rdr Alexis made a point about holy things and holy ground in the OT; and then, later, he talked about these things as being gifts of God to us - which (correct me if I'm wrong) is kind of what you're getting at here in a different way - yet, in the OT, yoou get the impression that these things are there because man and God are separated, and they are there in a mediating rôle. See the Pauline interpretations of the Law, for example.
The whole point - in the protestant's mind - of the Temple Veil being rent, is to show that we don't need this sort of thing anymore. But I repeat myself.
quote:
Hence a more sacramental view of the world, wherein things and people can be holy and set apart, whether ceremonially, or by virtue of how they convey grace in our lives - eg a spring or Spring or various people or places we know.
I still don't see how a lack of distinction drags everything down rather than lifting it up.
quote:
If onthe other hand you focus on "Salvation" - ie the central message of Christ's death and resurrection adn salvation from sin and death - then I think you lose the fullness of what I described above (this is not a criticism but an observation), theologically and practically as it is lived out.
I disagree. If the salvation of the church, corporately and individually is the centre as typified on the cross, you have the fullest representation of life in both its beauty and brutality. That's what I love about Christianity: it's a realistic faith, where (and let's face it) the symbolic reenactment of what is essentially the most dreadful of deaths can be the creation of beauty and healing. Life, too has beauty and horror.
We bring these things together as Christians and draw our truth from them, and I feel that the more austere forms of the faith work for me (and many others - my wife, for example, was brought up in a high Anglican church, but it was only the evangelical expression of the faith that brought her to a closer understanding of God).
quote:
I say these things, because I think it is part of the thought behind whether or not one believes matter can be made holy/consecrated, whether it stays holy, and what one does with it once it has served its purpose. A difference in how we view the world...
It is a difference and I respect that.
Err... very quickly:
Let's leave Cosmo and Steve out of this. That's another discussion, and frakly, dragging their recent altercation into this (along The Cosmo Hate Brigade and the We Love Cosmo Club) isn't going to do anyone any favours.
Oh, and HT: You're a dude. Really. It's why we like you
quote:
Great thread though. So much in the course of three days. I reckon the starter for ten was worth it.
Now see, this is where you and I disagree. I am the one who gets to clean up the messes when the evangelical- and catholic-bashing threads get started. I am the one who fields email complaints about how mean so-and-so (on BOTH sides of the fence) is. I am the one who has to listen to the evangelical camp screech with fury every time Cosmo or Fiddleback even mention the word "evangelical" in any post, regardless of what they actually say.
In light of all that, dear heart, the OP was NOT worth it.
I would also appreciate it very much if I never run across another "yes, I know I am a sinner, but thank you God that I am not as big a sinner as Cosmo!" post ever again. If you want to take someone to task, you do it head on, with cites, or you don't do it at all. Are we clear?
here's my two pennys worth.
Giving your best to God, I feel (personally) is quite a dangerous expression, it has been used in my personal experience to insist that people dress in suits to come to church, cut their hair etc. With folks saying stuff like 'if you would dress smartly for the Quenn why don't you dress smartly for the King of Kings?', (sorry now to people who like Bush Jnr), my reply is 'I would also dress smartly for Mr Bush Jnr if I was ever invited into his company, however I consider him to be a murderer of the mentally handicapped, so why should i treat God the same as such a twisted man.'
However I find God in beautiful church buildings, (the Vineyard chruch I go to meets in an RC School hall). My wife is an english teacher and has taught me to leave behind my previous attitudes with regards to the relative worth of sceince and art. In the past I viewed science as great (its what I do) it saves lives and helps people, while art just looks nice and people ponce about over it and say flouncy things and give it very silly names. However she has persuaded me that the study of art and persuing art (in all forms) for its own sake is necessary for a health nation. Eg. burn all art soon leads to stop all dancing etc etc. More and more I find the rest and peace of beautiful old churches a place where I can rest and meet with God personally.
TANGENT
The names for lots of this stuff is really very silly, just as names for people in chruches can be (I always found Deacon a funny name, oh and rector). Are there any very silly names for Christian stuff, people, days etc.?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:Finally (a sigh of collective relief goes up from the crowd), one last question: why is keeping potters employed more important than keeping silversmiths employed?
Reader Alexis
(why does that smiley move down a line?) the church should not be buying into the 'luxury', 'wealthy' image. Our treasures are supposed to be in heaven, aren't they?
However famous Rachel has raised an important question. Given that a church has a limited amount of money to spend how much should be spent internally to enhance the worship (with a new monstrance or OHP - take your pick), and how much externally, in serving the world? Surely we all struggle with this, and none of us get it right all the time? Should I buy a new CD (or any other little luxury) or should I give that amount to charity?
This seems to me a reasonable question to ask. I thought Rachel raised the issue in a humourous way, appropriate to starting to thread in Hell, and I have been amazed at how much passion has stirred up by this. Despite frequent pleas from Wood to calm things down things have been uncomfortably hellish round here. Is this really such a serious issue that we have to lay into one another just because we have different views here?
(Sorry; that probably sounds nauseatingly pious - in which case roast me, I deserve it - but I can't think of any other way to make the point. Love you all - high, low, spiky and dry!)
quote:
Originally posted by Huw:
However famous Rachel has raised an important question. Given that a church has a limited amount of money to spend how much should be spent internally to enhance the worship (with a new monstrance or OHP - take your pick), and how much externally, in serving the world?
I want to reiterate a point I made in an earlier post. At all the churches I have belonged to, the tat has been given by
individuals, most commonly by the bereaved as a memorial to the one they've lost, or it has been bought with money from special funds which are not part of the regular church budget.
Some churches have memorial funds. When a church member dies, others make contributions to this fund. When the church needs new tat, the money comes from the memorial fund, which is to be used only for this purpose.
I have never belonged to a church where the vestry had to decide whether to help fund a soup kitchen or buy tat. The money for tat is not part of the regular church budget. The money used for tat is not fungible.
Moo
A few of us went to Paris last year – and also went to Notre Dame. My recollection of the labelling of some of the exhibits is slightly different from Rachel’s. There were labels – most of which were typed up on a manual type writer with the smallest typeface ever. This made them extremely difficult to read as the room was fairly crowded. Some of the labels were quite detailed, but mainly in French. The information in other languages contained such informative comments as, “Chalice”. Fortunately one of the group could speak French, so she helped us with some of the translation / additional background information which I thought I’d share:
Many of the objects had been in use previously – often for many hundreds of years – and had been retired as they were not considered too fragile for daily use. If you look closely at some of them, they are fairly battered.
Replicas had been created of some of the more valuable objects to prevent theft or damage – as well as enabling more people to see and enjoy them.
The objects locked in the side chapel would be items used regularly in services. They are stored where they can be moved and made ready for the service discretely and quickly by the priest officiating.
Many of the objects on display were gifts from the various crafts-guilds. Each year they would have a competition amongst themselves to make the best and most beautiful objects for the Church – giving their first and best fruits for the Lord. [A Biblical concept if ever there was one!]
Some of the other suggestions are interesting but not necessarily practical:
Sharing the objects with poorer churches is a nice idea but likely to make them a target for thieves and mean that they end up spending scare resources on security / insurance premiums. Or just not storing them properly which means they’d end up enjoying them for about a week.
Melting them down?! The value of the object is its history, appearance etc – while its scrap metal value is likely to be fairly small. And once all the unused objects have gone, how do you fund your social projects then … Surely exhibiting them and using the money raised for the work of the church [as they do in Notre Dame] is a better idea. Also, the objects I saw there seemed more “in context” than the same objects in a museum. At least in the church you got a sense of the object’s history and its role in the life of the church while the same object in a museum seems “dead”.
One of the things I’ve always wondered is why discussions on tat, worship etc seem to degenerate into Animal Farm rantings along the lines of this is okay but this is better … WHY is God worshipped better in a plain space than in a highly decorated one … [And visa versa]. [One of the main tenants of many alt w*ers is that although the hymn and sermon sandwich is very good on an intellectual level, it doesn’t always touch people who think / feel in different ways. Isn’t the rise of the “multi-media” service an indication that people also need visual stimuli – which tat provides].
Surely the important thing is that an individual meets with God rather than the how and where. WHY is spending money on missionary work always better than spending it on the upkeep of the church building. [Have been to many churches that are falling apart at the seams and then need to spend vast amounts of money on repair in order to keep going – when if they’d spend a little a year on upkeep they may have saved themselves a great deal of fund raising in the long term]
The objects are part of church life and history and melting them down is a denial of what we are / once were. They represent a spirituality which is still living and vibrant for some and part of the history [even if it’s rejected history] of other sections of the faith. To know where you’re going, you need to know where you’ve come from …
And quoting the history of iconolists is slightly one-sided. There were also people who were willing to risk life and limb to hide scared objects / carry on with particular styles of worship as there were who wanted to smash them or put a stop to what they saw as “Popery”.
Posting after a very good lunch and a glass of wine
Tubbs
In answer to the original question, In my opinion, TAT is used by Anglo Cath's to detract from the fact that the rest of the worship is pretty shallow.
After all if Father is wearing a nice chasuble, then what does it matter if the sermon is incomprehensible, and if we create enough smoke, who knows whats going on at the altar.
Liturgical vestment TAT is used because most anglo cath priests rather like the whole cross dressing in public idea.
The physical TAT (bells, monstrances etc) are all props in the play - for thats what Anglo Catholic worship is really about - its simply a play with no real depth to it.
If anglo's were really following what Jesus did, we'd all be outside worshipping in Tesco's car park (witnessing among the masses) with at least one arm up in the air.
I say burn the lot - TAT, buildings, - all of it.
Well you did start it.....
Maestro
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
He's full of it, that's for certain. But what does this phrase mean, "Taking the piss"?
My apologies. British usage, synonymous with, "aving a larf", "taking the mickey", "extracting the michael", to wind a chosen victim up, often using sarcasm.
Hope this helps.
Yes, it hardly helps, Wood, for you to explain a Briticism by substituting other Briticisms.
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ahhhhhhhhh.Yes, it hardly helps, Wood, for you to explain a Briticism by substituting other Briticisms.
Reader Alexis
Perhaps he should have resorted to French (assuming he lacked access to the relevant US phrase book ?)
Returning to the topic dogedly, and my first year undergrad perspective (from when I was a first year undergrad), I remember being told about Bernard Williams (I think?) (a British philosopher resident somewhere New York way at that time) arguing that the utilitarian position would deprive the world of all sorts of Goods, such as friendship etc.
The question is the same here: there is a utilitarian position to melt down the tat/not upgrade the church to the latest charismatic design and instead feed the poor. There is the utilitarian (in Christian terms) position of using the money to buy tat/invest in an upgraded church/run a mission, in order to save souls. There are several non-utilitarian positions that say we should spend money on x (be it tat or mission) simply because we are commanded so to do (pick your verse here), or because that is what we are called (by God, by being "to your own self be true") to do.
I'd hate to think that there is a universal rule. And I haven't seen a poster who doesn't think the church is called to both "feed the poor" and "worship the lord". Which makes the speed of posting to this thread all the more impressive 
.
quote:
Originally posted by Orcadian:
I'd hate to think that there is a universal rule.
Now THERE is a telling sentence. This could almost be used as a definition of something...
Rdr Alexis
(hey - almost at shipmate status )
quote:
Originally posted by Orcadian:
[QB]Tell me what! Tell me what!
I was going to say "Anglican" but even in Hell I know my limits.
Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Now see, this is where you and I disagree. I am the one who gets to clean up the messes when the evangelical- and catholic-bashing threads get started. I am the one who fields email complaints about how mean so-and-so (on BOTH sides of the fence) is. I am the one who has to listen to the evangelical camp screech with fury every time Cosmo or Fiddleback even mention the word "evangelical" in any post, regardless of what they actually say.In light of all that, dear heart, the OP was NOT worth it.
I would also appreciate it very much if I never run across another "yes, I know I am a sinner, but thank you God that I am not as big a sinner as Cosmo!" post ever again. If you want to take someone to task, you do it head on, with cites, or you don't do it at all. Are we clear?
Erin -
I am very sorry about the worry and trouble this thread has caused you. I really hadn't realised how much trouble I was about to stur ip. This is partly because I meant the OP in the spirit in which Huw has take it:
quote:
Originally posted by Huw:
I thought Rachel raised the issue in a humourous way, appropriate to starting to thread in Hell, and I have been amazed at how much passion has stirred up by this.
and partly because I didn't think it through before I jumped in with both feet. Perhaps Huw's attitude relates in some way to the fact that he has met me in the flesh, and knows that I am curious about, rather than disdainful of the High Church form of worship. I should have realised that others, who know me (even) less well, would not realise the semi-humorous spirit of my inquiry. For this I apologise.
With regards to the comment about Fr Cosmo, this was actually meant entirely as a gentle joke, and should have has a smiley after it, which seems to have got lost due to my ineptitude. I apologise for any offence caused. At the time, I assumed that it would be water off a duck's back to the good father. I shall, eventually I am sure, learn not to make foolish assumptions in the same way that I am learning not to make foolish statements. I had not realised that Cosmo was currently engaged in an argument along these lines elsewhere in the Ship, and hence that this was currently a sensitive subject.
Again, my apologies,
All the best,
Rachel.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
He's taking the piss...
Maestro's post is singularly the most offensive that I've read on this whole thread. I don't care if the humour comes from its style of outre provocation -
it deserves a fucking apology.
quote:
Originally posted by Maestro:
Liturgical vestment TAT is used because most anglo cath priests rather like the whole cross dressing in public idea.
What kind of psychological hangup do the
female Anglo-Catholic priests have?
Moo
My reaction is rather similar to the non-churchgoer who, when confronted by extreme anti-CofE views, immediately wanted to rush out and buy some Christmas Cards in aid of the repairs to the 12th century building.
Nothing will aid the preservation of Tat better than a horde of people demanding that it should be removed. Perverse lot aren't we?!
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Actually I thought it was a pretty piss-poor effort at taking the piss. Neither funny nor subtle. Piss-taking in Maestro's vein only works if one is a known Anglocatholic. That is, self-piss-taking. Otherwise, it is just an offensive wind-up.
He certainly managed to confuse me! Thankfully I both looked at his profile, and read Wood's comments before I jumped in and made a total fool of myself.
Please note that had I jumped in, it would have been to defend ACs - even if rather late in the day!
All the best from,
A rather repentant, but still not particulalry famous, Rachel.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
What kind of psychological hangup do the
female Anglo-Catholic priests have?
Or female tat princess servers (hello) who hate loathe and despise wearing skirts or dresses in everyday life?
Alexis
I was looking forward to eviscerating him, but then I checked his profile and sheathed my claws.
So *pace*, Coot.
{sigh} And hell has been so quiet recently. Haven't had a decent meal in ages. Better luck next time, I suppose.
I chalk this one up to the absence of verbal signifiers in a text-based system.
tomb
(hellhost & deconstructionist)
I still think it was poor. Even if I had had looked at the profile. Which I didn't. And that's as close you'll get to a kiss and make up offer.
This is the problem with dwelling in Hell. There are just not enough punters, fit and in their prime, to go around. And I don't fancy having to scavenge tomb's leftovers.
(This should not be construed as a victory for the anti-tat brigade, but I am dispensing with tat this weekend and going to one of my charismatic evangelical haunts for some hand waving. I might have to later go to Evensong to sate my incense addiction. But we'll see)
quote:Tat princesses, ay? That sounds full of English promise and makes me come over all lecherous like. I think you should (to quote Rev Gerald) go forth with a deep sense of condemnation at having caused your sister to stumble. Some mortification of the flesh is in order, preferably going a whole Sunday without swinging a thurible or doing dress ups.
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Or female tat princess servers (hello) who hate loathe and despise wearing skirts or dresses in everyday life?
quote:
Apologies. It's just that - and this may possibly be my own perception here - you have a real mad-on for the diocese of Sydney, and mention them an awful lot...
Yeah I suppose I do. We A-Cs are a very embattled lot in Sydney, and the actual threat of having our beautiful churches stripped of their tat by zealous evangelical reformers (sometimes for precisely the reason Rachel proposed in her OP, but more often in the name of "Biblical Accuracy" - whatever they mean by that) is only as far away as the Archbishop refusing to allow us to get a A-C rector, or sending his emissaries to white ant the congregation... And these things have happened. I can think of at least 3 places in the last 10 years that this has happened to.
And I suppose I use the Ship to vent alot of my frustration; there are a largish number of sympathetic A-Cs here who understand, and with whom I am able to converse and exchange ideas... As well as everyonelse!
So sorry for ranting about Sydney sometimes, I do get worked up about it. *sigh*
quote:
the actual threat of having our beautiful churches stripped of their tat by zealous evangelical reformers (sometimes for precisely the reason Rachel proposed in her OP, but more often in the name of "Biblical Accuracy" - whatever they mean by that) is only as far away as the Archbishop refusing to allow us to get a A-C rector, or sending his emissaries to white ant the congregation
It makes me almost,(almost) appreciate the C of E with its pandering to minority opinion and allowing small rumps of curmudgeonly old gits dominate their churches in the name of 'unity', and its splitting the church into two 'integrities' (re women's ordination) because one 'integrity', having had their chance to win the argument and failed, does not have the 'integrity' to accept synodical decisions that go against it...........
Almost.
Thank you, Miss o!
Would anyone like to swap 32 latin chasubles (all with stole, maniple, burse 'n' veil), a French monstrance, a silver thurible, 4 lace albs and several baroque candlesticks for an OHP and screen, some wall to wall thick pile carpet, 300 comfy plastic chairs and 300 copies of Mission Praise?
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
300 comfy plastic chairs
If there such a thing as a comfy plastic chair?
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
[QB]300 copies of Mission PraiseQB]
Aaargh no. Now I see me real sin. I am not turning people away from Tat* but towards mission praise.
* Not that you should turn away from Tat.
All the best,
Rachel
Coot - It was not my intention to cause the level of offence which you obviously found in what were supposed to be slightly tongue- in- cheek comments.
However,I've spent enough time in the TAT sheds of London, Oxford etc to know the difference between real God centered worship and a 'show'and believe me, - 'shows' do exist, particularly in Anglo Catholicism, although some of my charismatic brethren loose the plot at times as well.
Occasionaly, I find myself having to stop and ask where God is amidst all of the Anglo-Catholic symbolism. (and I'm one myself, remember !).
I just think that sometimes, its good for us all to take a step back and question what we do an why we do it. That's the point I was trying to make in a somewhat sarcastic way (but this is hell after all).
Hope we can shake (extends virtual hand) - or at least agree to differ.
Moo...
Female Anglo-Catholic priests ??? are you sure....
Erin....
I know it may cause a bit of grief, but this is a great thread. After all If we can't stand the heat.......
I'm off to organise the annual orange-throwing ceremony (with as much TAT as possible.. I promise to cense them and spinkle them with Holy Water - only not in that order of course...
Goodwill to all
Maestro
Fiddleback: You're not going to part with the turquoise and the tomato-coloured sets are you?
Hi Rache!
quote:
Female Anglo-Catholic priests ??? are you sure....
Affirming Catholicism is full of them I think.
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Or female tat princess servers (hello) who hate loathe and despise wearing skirts or dresses in everyday life?
quote:
To which the Coot replied:Tat princesses, ay? That sounds full of English promise and makes me come over all lecherous like. I think you should (to quote Rev Gerald) go forth with a deep sense of condemnation at having caused your sister to stumble. Some mortification of the flesh is in order, preferably going a whole Sunday without swinging a thurible or doing dress ups.
Sibling Coot, I apologise unreservedly for so placing this stumbing block. I shall mortify my flesh forthwith. How about Sunday after next? I shall dedicate my tat-free Sunday to the Lord in deep penitance.
It can also be my penance for the deeply impure thoughts I entertained about the very nice young lady at the bank this afternoon...
[Unsnarled the UBB code. The software does not permit one to nest a quotation within a quotation. ]
[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: tomb ]
Here is a link to it. Please check it out and see what you think. Personally, I found it offensive, but I don't know if I have any sound argument against it.
http://www.petersingerlinks.com/solution.htm
Re: the article, I think it's something people have struggled with since Jesus first said "give everything you have and follow me". The problem is wanting to retreat into easy thinking - if I ought to give some away, I ought to give everything away. There's no clear place to draw the boundry, but that doesn't mean we should draw it on the edges.
It reminds me of the 'Schindler's List' film. Near the end, when Schindler has to flee Germany, when saying goodbye to the Jews he saved he is overcome by guilt, asking how many lives he could've bought by selling his personal items - even his party badge could have bought two more peoples' lives. Then he is told by his factor (a Jew) a quote from a Jewish holy book: "He who saves a single life, saves the world entire".
quote:And another thing. I was at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London recently. There is a fine collection of religious vestments and objects. Amongst them is a chalice which some clutz has labelled as follows " ...It WAS believed that the wine became the blood of Christ ... " ... WAS .... WAS !!!!
OUCH!!! That made my teeth ache!
At the Cleveland Museum of Art, they have a really nice reliquary containing several relics in crystal chambers. They were still in there, and there were what appeared to be teensy little scrolls of rolled up paper - about the size of a fortune-cookie fortune - in with them. Like all the museum objects, this one had a label cataloging its physical "ingredients" (You know "Oil on canvas" "Carved oak with polychrome and gilt" etc). This one said "Reliquary, 12th century, German (or whatever it was). Gold, enamel, precious stones, rock crystal, relics."
Um... perhaps you could IDENTIFY the relics? After all, I think an art historian could make a pretty good guess, based on provenance, the images on the thing, AND THE LITTLE SCRAPS OF PAPER!
Nothing even to explain what a relic IS.
I find visiting the Cloisters in NYC to be upsetting. For, though I love to see all the wonderful things there, it makes me so sad to see it all divorced from it's intended setting. There's a "chapel" set up with contemporary scraps of eclesiastical things from France. It makes me soooo sad, because it's not REAL. The altar isn't really consecrated and doesn't really go with the things around it. There are stools in the room to make it feel churchy, but it's just all wrong.
For me, anyway.
[added a bold UBB tag]
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: tomb ]
quote:
Originally posted by katybird:
This debate reminded me of a very upsetting article I read in the New York Times Sunday Magazine a couple of years ago.
Hi Katy,
I read the article with interest. I found it thought-provoking rather than offensive and upsetting. One of the things I have been thinking about since starting this thread has been the challenge that has been put to me (several times ) to sell everything I have and give it to the poor.
Perhaps in order to avoid the personal issues this raises, I have been thinking about what would happen if we all did that. By "all" I mean every Christian, of whatever stripe. I don't know what the curent figures are, but we are talking perhaps 10% or so of the populations of Britain and the US. Now, if we all gave everything we possess to the "true" poor - ie those who can't afford food, clothing or shelter, rather than those who can't afford a car, or a computer - then, this would have a sizeable affect on consumer spending in the west.
I was in the US during and after the 9/11 attacks, and one of the things I remember about the news coverage after things had started to calm down, was that the powers that be were trying to keep people spending money - maintaining consumer confidence I think it's called - as this was one of the things which was most likely to prevent recession. Now, if all of us either sold everything we had and gave it to the poor - or as Singer is suggesting, gave all our "spare" cash, then the downturn in consumer spending would be significant, which might be enough to precipitate global recession and a massive increase in worldwide poverty. Tricky, huh?
So, is my thinking sensible, or is this just the kind of moral cop out of which I accuse other people? . I know I seem to be trying to play both ends against the middle here - for which I apologise. This thread has made me think if nothing else, and this is part of my thought process.
All comments welcome,
All the best,
Rachel.
Ah, but would it? Or would the newly not-so-poor people go out and spend the money on other things? Maybe home theatre sales would go down, but sales of other items might go up...
also, as a child raised in poverty, i'm not sure i can agree that giving to the poor helps in and of itself. i can, unfortunately, point to many people in my family who have been poor, none of whom i would like to see enabled by handouts...my father squandered his paycheck at the pubs, my brother-in-law gambled the house out from under himself, my sister and her 3 toddlers, my cousin drank himself to death leaving 5 children penniless. having almost been on the receiving end of "giving to the poor" i can say that it frequently doesn't make it past the most powerful in the family...usually the user, abuser, self-centered authority...not that we aren't all entitled to food and shelter, mind you...it's just that fixing things isn't quite so simple. i thank God St. Paul's cathedral existed in boston for me to go on my lunch hour...i'd light candles there and sit and think... and at the heart of all the excess of the city, i felt where the center was.
Sacraments are, to quote from the BCP (ECUSA 1979 revision), outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace. So the characterization of tat (sacramental utensils, etc.) as holy objects isn't quite on the mark--the holiness isn't located in the object itself, but the object is a sort of illustration which gives us a tangible way to communicate and celebrate the spiritual grace.
This next thought doesn't flow in a straight line from the last one, but, so forgive the awkward transition.
I don't care for the way much of the talk on this thread speaks of the Church (as a remote institution rather than a community of faith) or of the poor (as outsiders rather than neighbors or even, gasp, members of the church).
).
quote:
Originally posted by truthquest:
I don't care for the way much of the talk on this thread speaks of the Church (as a remote institution rather than a community of faith) or of the poor (as outsiders rather than neighbors or even, gasp, members of the church).
I agree with you about 'the poor'... but I get the impression that while many of us have differing views of 'the Church', none of us see it as remote.
God bless
Scotty
quote:
Originally posted by Scottie:
I can see that evangelical churches have their own version of tat which although seldom displayed in museums has cost probably as much, doesn’t look as good, and benefits only those in the church.
How does any tat benefit those outside the church? Not a swipe... I really want to know.
quote:
Even a moderately sized evangelical church (such as the one I used to belong to) has a concert sized pa system with all the related mics, amps, speakers, compressors, main desk, taping desk etc etc - all this for two Sunday services and the odd event. The church office is equipped with 5 Apple Macs, printer, e-mail, a small print and file sharing network and the pastor has a laptop - all paid for by the church. I'm sure that this church is not unique.
Medium sized? It may not be unique, but it sounds very affluent to me.
quote:
I guess at the end of the day we're all guilty, both individually and corporately as Christ's Church of looking after our own interests before those of the poor - and when the day of judgement comes, we will be judged on what WE did as individuals - how did OUR lives measure up.
Amen to that at least?
Naw, it's not a particularly affluent church - it's just how it chooses to spend its money - but that's another issue...
God bless
Scotty
truthquest, i think it depends on the locale as to how much the poor feel like outsiders. when i was 9 my family moved to a different city, not affluent, but parts were well-heeled. that's when my family stopped going to church because my parents felt so out of place, and their names were posted on a public list of people who did not tithe...whereas in a poor innercity neighborhood (full of tat, thank God for something beautiful!), even the episcopal church had a large contingent of poor, so we fit in.
quote:
Originally posted by Scottie:
Any self respecting "alternative" service seems duty bound to have a pa system worthy of Wembly - Industrial Light & Magic style lighting rig and enough multimedia kit to make a U2 concert look boring. Does all this stuff count as "tat"?
1: Alt.Worship is not my nature Evangelical
2: Alt.Worship does not require lots of Gizmos
3: Yes it is Tat, and yes like most Tat it is worth it.
quote:
Originally posted by Scottie:
But to spread the net a bit wider - what is the benefit of the church as a whole to those outside it... unless we should get rid of all of the tat, old and new, sell all we have and become as Christ - homeless and posessionless - sounds good on paper, but I know I can't do it.
If the tat or the elaborate sound systems enable people to worship God better and draw closer to him, then this should have an effect on their behavior outside the church.
The closer you are to God, the greater awareness and compassion you have for other people. I don't think that outreach necessarily has to be done by the church as an institution. It can also be done by individual Christians using their particular talents to reach out to those they come in contact with.
I have known saintly people working in secular jobs who showed God's goodness to those who would never enter a church.
I think this kind of witness is at least as effective as any program a church could come up with.
Moo
My views are reflected in http://www.csg-i.com/icons/html/overview.htm , to save me typing loads whilst I am at work!!
Icon's, tat or windows on heaven, discuss
quote:I like this idea very much. Are there any particular activities associated with icons in the home?
An icon in the home consecrates the profane; it transforms a neutral dwelling-place into a "domestic church". With prayer, it turns and the life of the faithful into an unceasing liturgy
I have heard that the icons are not like idols or graven images to be worshipped but are to be looked through to the worship beyond. Whether or not this is easy to do, or requires a lifetime of practice, it is certainly true that they are magnificent works of art. I stood drinking in the scene for a long time and found evidence of many biblical scenes come to life.
Does anyone know any good sites on the net which show good pictures of icons?
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I have only been into one home with lots of icons (the widow of a clergyman)
If you're near Seattle on the first of January, you're welcome to our New Year's Day party! And you can see a normal Orthodox family's home with its many icons.
quote:
Together with the wall paintings they are like a giant child's picture bible.
And in the days before universal literacy, this was more important than you might guess. Iconoclasm was, in part, an effort to take the gospel away from the poor (whether by accident or by intent, is left as an exercise to the reader). Icons have a "language" all their own, a symbolism code that, once learned, unlocks the story of the saint or event depicted.
quote:
I suppose our equivalent is stained glass windows.
Only the really good ones, the historical ones with great images. A rose window, although beautiful, does not tell a story.
quote:
I have heard that the icons are not like idols or graven images to be worshipped but are to be looked through to the worship beyond. Whether or not this is easy to do, or requires a lifetime of practice, it is certainly true that they are magnificent works of art.
Some are. Some are butt-ugly. At one time one of the tsars of Russia actually prohibited people from writing icons who couldn't draw, because the icons were getting so ugly and garish.
It does, indeed, take a lifetime to learn how to "use" icons properly. As a former evangelical, there is some hesitation in my response to icons, as well as some measure of going overboard after long years of starvation.
Reader ALexis
.....howls of protest I am not a PCC member, so I take no credit for their decision.
(Here beginneth the red tape.....)
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
1: Alt.Worship is not my nature Evangelical
2: Alt.Worship does not require lots of Gizmos
3: Yes it is Tat, and yes like most Tat it is worth it.
1. Could you elaborate on that - in the part of the UK where I live, any and all alternative worship services have been run by churches who would label themselves Evangelical.
2. I did not say that it did - but it frequently makes use of them.
3. Worth what?
God bless
Scotty
quote:
Originally posted by Scottie:
1. Could you elaborate on that - in the part of the UK where I live, any and all alternative worship services have been run by churches who would label themselves Evangelical.Scotty
quote:
Originally posted by Scottie:
3. Worth what?
Sorry - just re-read that and it sounded very snotty - I just wondered what you meant by "worth it". I can see the worth of both high-tech and traditional "tat" as long as it draws the worshipper closer to Christ and so become more like Him - but as no-one but God knows what goes on in the heart of the individual - one man's tat may be another man's route to the divine.
Peace
Scotty
Verse 17 ; “You blind fools! For which is greater the gold or the sanctuary that made the gold sacred.”
So the big guy seems to not have had a problem with it.
P
Does this verse imply our Lord had no problem with Tat, as long as it was kept in place/proportiuon ? He definatley thinks the "gold" is sacred.
P
P
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Pyx_e - I thought exactly the same when I read that at MP. And thought it was a good reminder not to let tat become an end in itself or something we make holy: its worth comes soley from God who makes it holy.
Works for me!
Reader Alexis
Now I had all this worked out in my head a day or so ago - i bet I can't remember what I wanted to say - it was so eloquent too
i think that this question over whether tat (liturgical or buildings) should be got rid of to pay money to the poor falls into the trap of humanism rather than Christianity. Surely Christians are such because they seek and worship the Ineffible Other that became Man, not to throw a bit of cash around? Our focus is on Paradise where the Beatitudes are realised? Sure social justice in this world is an intimate part of the working out of our faith in the fear of God, but splashing the cash is just not going to do it! The fundamental issue with poverty is not access to money but access to the means of production - ownership of land, control over ones own farming and subsistence requirements (at a basic level). Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, give a man a rod and teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime - give a man a river and he will take away what you gave to him.
In addition, our natural reaction to God is to offer him the best of what we can provide in our own sinful way - of ourselves and our belongings, thus God is due all the wealth (and primarily BEAUTY) that we can muster. Now modern sensibilities err towards a simple beauty rather than the effusive - I as a clergyman prefer simple, yet beautiful Churches and vestments, but that does not mean that we don't use the finest materials we can lay our hands on.
Pant, pant, did that make sense?
Kindest
Timothy
Alexis
quote:Oh dear.... nor can I. I thought it had been deleted.
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
I cannot believe this thread has resurfaced...
*nervously battening down doors and cupboards to stop the demons getting out again and causing chaos*
