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.

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!

---

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?!

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

---

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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?)

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,

Ok - for certain one parish, because a friend of mine worships there, and showed me the piece.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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."