Cathedral <3

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 February 2010 - 12:56 PM' timestamp='1265046961' post='2048959']
Do you think this is less beautiful or less lavish or worthy in the eyes of God? A creator that sees the beauty in our souls, I wonder what other beauty or excess we may in our vanity suppose to be even approaching the perfection of a pure soul? I also wonder if God sees these constructs as anything more than a collection of bricks and mortar, is it any more beautiful in His eyes than a flower or a baby. I think we can honor his presence more perfectly in silent adoration, no matter where or how it is presented. Let me add I see nothing wrong with showering God with lavish excess, I wonder if He does.

ed
[/quote]

I give up, after several tries to insert a picture of the Blessed Kateri Tekawitha shrine church and the altar, which for some raeson has stymied me, I will just say insert mental image of some place where you have felt serenity, peace, and the presence of God even if it is not spectacular and grandiose, and then ask yourself what could be more beautiful to God.

ed

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 February 2010 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1265043813' post='2048918']
arguably those monies used to erect these magnificent structures could have been spent to alleviate the suffering of the poor, something that Jesus and his many saints ascribed to. I am certain they have served their purpose, maybe even inspired some to convert. I also can say they are excessive in their construction. The construction of a church hospital or orphanage seems much more worthy a way to give God our best in all situations. I
[/quote]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 February 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1265046961' post='2048959']

Let me add I see nothing wrong with showering God with lavish excess, I wonder if He does.
[/quote]

Ed, I will post the text of John 12:1-8 that I cited earlier as I don't think you took the time to read it. It addresses both of these statements to show that Christ neither sees anything wrong with showering Him with excess nor from diverting resources that could be potentially used for the ubiquitous problem of poverty into even opulent expressions of honor to Jesus:

"Jesus therefore, six days before the pasch, came to Bethania, where Lazarus had been dead, whom Jesus raised to life. And they made him a supper there: and Martha served. But Lazarus was one of them that were at table with him. Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: [u]Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor[/u]? Now he said this not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief and, having the purse, carried the things that were put therein. Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. [u]For the poor you have always with you[/u]: but me you have not always."

In my reading of this we see that Jesus does not detest our monetary excesses even when such excesses could have been spent to help the poor. Helping the poor is of course a primary objective of Christianity, but Christ made sure we knew that directing our resources toward glorifying his True Presence could even take precedence of the poor.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 February 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1265046961' post='2048959']
Do you think this is less beautiful or less lavish or worthy in the eyes of God? A creator that sees the beauty in our souls, I wonder what other beauty or excess we may in our vanity suppose to be even approaching the perfection of a pure soul? I also wonder if God sees these constructs as anything more than a collection of bricks and mortar, is it any more beautiful in His eyes than a flower or a baby. I think we can honor his presence more perfectly in silent adoration, no matter where or how it is presented. Let me add I see nothing wrong with showering God with lavish excess, I wonder if He does.

ed
[/quote]
A large part of it is the effort that we devote to the construction. Sure, you could in theory say Mass in a concrete bunker with a wooden table as an altar, but why? Is it because you don't want to put the money and effort towards constructing something beautiful? We should give to God everything that we are able. Besides that, sacred architecture is designed to lift up our souls in worship in adoration.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 February 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1265047564' post='2048968']
I give up, after several tries to insert a picture of the Blessed Kateri Tekawitha shrine church and the altar, which for some raeson has stymied me, I will just say insert mental image of some place where you have felt serenity, peace, and the presence of God even if it is not spectacular and grandiose, and then ask yourself what could be more beautiful to God.
[/quote]

I get your point. God can see beauty in the poverty and simple offerings. Like the widow who gave her last pence to the Temple. I agree with you in this regard; however I disagree in the extension of this logic that conversely God must find huge cathedrals decadent. The architectural and monetary excesses we lavish upon a beautiful church are no less important than feeding and clothing the poor. There is a balance to be sure, but it is not an 'either or' phenomenon.

[Ed Normile]

Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always."

This could,be taken to mean that they only had Jesus in his human form for a short time and that was an appropriate offering for his human condition, we also know we do have Jesus with us always. Jesus surely knew this too, so he most likely meant that in the context of, my physical body will be gone, and that Martha was properly honouring his human form.

The way I look at this comes from my experience as a parent, remember we are to look at God as our Father. When my children spend their money to buy me some gift, birthday or holiday, I always am grateful for the gift but I would much rather they spent the money on something that they could use or want, because as a parent I want for them. I would prefer a simple note or a hug, I know they love me, they do not have to prove it with tokens. My love for my children assumes this return of love from them. My best gift is hugs from my sons and kisses from my daughter, this would transfer too prayer and obedience to God, I would assume. I said earlier I feel these constructs are great and beautiful, and very inspirational, with that said I also feel they are monuments to men, in the sense of look what I did. I will also add that Jesus left behind no monument to him or his father, except for the simple gift of the sacraments. Again let me add that I am familiar with passage that veridicus posted, and I see no wrong in the gifts we as men see fit to present to God, I just wonder how God sees them.

Mt 5; 14 -16 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill can not be hidden. Men do not light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket. They set it on a stand where it gives light to all the house. In the same way, your light must shine before men so that they may see goodness in your acts and give praise to your heavenly Father.

ed

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='01 February 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1265047890' post='2048972']
I get your point. God can see beauty in the poverty and simple offerings. Like the widow who gave her last pence to the Temple. I agree with you in this regard; however I disagree in the extension of this logic that conversely God must find huge cathedrals decadent. The architectural and monetary excesses we lavish upon a beautiful church are no less important than feeding and clothing the poor. There is a balance to be sure, but it is not an 'either or' phenomenon.
[/quote]

Also where did I post anything to the effect that "God must find huge cathedrals decadent" I simply posted I wonder how he sees them. In my heart of hearts I would think God would be pleased with any cathedral, as long as the needs of his creation, his children which he created in his image, were addressed first.

ed

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 February 2010 - 10:56 AM' timestamp='1265039784' post='2048875']
These are all beautiful examples of the excesses of man. I wonder if God finds these any more pleasing a site for worship than he found the catacombs in which the early christians had to hide in to celebrate the mass for fear of being persecuted?

ed
[/quote]

On a side not I got a red minus one thing for this post, I assume that is no good? Are we not allowed to post questions that are in opposition to the thread we are viewing, and is this the mods here scoring me for being too inquisitive.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 February 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1265055957' post='2049035']
On a side not I got a red minus one thing for this post, I assume that is no good? Are we not allowed to post questions that are in opposition to the thread we are viewing, and is this the mods here scoring me for being too inquisitive.
[/quote]
It probably wasn't given by a mod, and if it was it certainly wasn't given in conjunction with moderating duties.

Apparently someone thought that your question was worded disrespectfully. You'd have to ask them yourself to know.

[Winchester]

I gave it to you. Plenty of people worked hard to produce those cathedrals and your comment pissed me off. I've already wasted my pluses on apparently because his avatar is awesome.

[tinytherese]

Monuments of men? How do you know that? For all you know they could just be using their talents as God wants us to and doing this all for the honor of God. Meaning no disrespect to you Ed, this strikes me as being scrupulous and even puritanical. God doesn't hate exterior beauty, neither does He think that exterior beauty is superior to interior beauty. I don't have the book at the moment, but I do know that in the book Captivating, it discusses the topic of beauty. There's this one part that I'd like to cite as soon as I get it back. Beauty isn't vanity. It only becomes vain when it is done only for oneself. Let us not forget that Our Lady was, is, and always will be the most beautiful woman in all of creation, not just interiorly, but exteriorly as well. As I've heard it put before, Jesus could have designed His mother any way He wanted and since He was given that option, He made her perfect. If you were to design your own mother, wouldn't you want her to be perfect?

Besides, places of worship can be places where people can become inspired and pray.

Edited February 1, 2010 by tinytherese

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='01 February 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1265058836' post='2049071']
Monuments of men? How do you know that? For all you know they could just be using their talents as God wants us to and doing this all for the honor of God. Meaning no disrespect to you Ed, this strikes me as being scrupulous and even puritanical. God doesn't hate exterior beauty, neither does He think that exterior beauty is superior to interior beauty. I don't have the book at the moment, but I do know that in the book Captivating, it discusses the topic of beauty. There's this one part that I'd like to cite as soon as I get it back. Beauty isn't vanity. It only becomes vain when it is done only for oneself. Let us not forget that Our Lady was, is, and always will be the most beautiful woman in all of creation, not just interiorly, but exteriorly as well. As I've heard it put before, Jesus could have designed His mother any way He wanted and since He was given that option, He made her perfect. If you were to design your own mother, wouldn't you want her to be perfect?

Besides, places of worship can be places where people can become inspired and pray.
[/quote]

Calm down now, first off no disrespect taken, this afterall is a place of dialogue. Secondly if you feel God wants us to use our talents this way, I wonder where he directed us to do so? I know he said to care for the sick and poor and to worship God, and to work on our salvation among other things. Third point, where did you leap to the judgement that I feel God hates exterior beauty? , I know God hates nothing. The book Captivating by John Eldredge really has no weight in this discussion, he would not comment much on Our Lady as he is a portestant. His only mention of her in his mission is the statement he believes in the virgin birth. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, to borrow a well used quote, I would assume that is why the Blessed Virgin Mary appears in many likenesses to the ethnicity of those she comes to. As far as scrupulous goes I can agree with that as I try to have sruples and do indeed take care in whatever I do to try and do it right. Now with puritanical, you lost me, does this mean I am too strict, I hope you do not think I am a memebr of the puritans. I posted here at least twice I see no wrong in these cathedrals, I also added I wonder how God sees them. My statement "monuments of men" why would I have to qualify this, it is true on many levels, they are constructed by and of men. They are not following some plan set forth by God, they are however a tradition in the church, I can not condemn them and as such I have not, not here , nor at any other time. I was however asking if the monies used this way would be more pleasing to God if they were used first and foremost for the aid of his creation, especially those most unfortunate. Mother Theresa, a saint by any measure, raised not one spectacular monument to God of brick and mortar, the monuments she raised were of flesh, the discarded , those of ill health, the untouchables, much like Jesus did.

ed

[Ephrem Augustine]

I think that the disparity between the rich and poor has never been so great as it is today, that to ask the question today would be a whole different thing.
for many of these Churches, constructed before the industrial revolution, the disparity was not nearly so extreme.

When it came to people taking care of their own, it would not have been a contradiction.

I think it may be a whole different thing entirely when you see ambitious men in the Church who love the lavish decorations and their names to be engraved on these monuments, that is entirely different discussion entirely. (Of course most people that do this nowadays tend to become Gangster Rappers instead of Bishops) God knows the motives of the heart, and I don't even feel qualified to find examples of decadent men throughout the history of the Church who have done such a thing, that might be where the problem does lie. And it is a problem at all when Jesus himself spent very little time decorating Churches, and more time with the broken and despondent sinners... (But even for his context Jesus kept the Jewish Law).

Anyways, if we start debating on some kind of "immorality" of building "grandoise structures" i think we can really instead talk only about people who can worship, but not let the worship of God, and the veneration of the Gospel, and the participation in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, not effect/affect their life when they are sent forth. Some artists might be effected to making great art, some prophets might be effected to challenge injustice. For those who are not affected, that is where the problem is.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Ephrem Augustine

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 February 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1265055957' post='2049035']
On a side not I got a red minus one thing for this post, I assume that is no good? Are we not allowed to post questions that are in opposition to the thread we are viewing, and is this the mods here scoring me for being too inquisitive.
[/quote]

You did not deserve a -1 for that. You posited an opinion which had an appropriate historical correlation to position against the debatable excesses involved in creating cathedrals. I disagree with you in terms of whether such excesses are okay or not, but it is a legitimate position to hold.

[KeenanParkerII]

Must everything turn into a debate on this forum? I agree with your posts most of the time Ed, so I don't mean anything hard by this, but could you please start another thread on the topic if you feel so inclined. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the time and effort and money put into these structures or not, many of us consider them beautiful monuments of the past and a glory to God.

[img]http://blog.hotelclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/las-lajas.jpg[/img]

Here is the Notre Dame of Quebec. C'est beautiful, n'est-ce pas?
[img]http://www.timeidol.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Notre-Dame-1.jpg[/img]

Washington DC, there's something nice and clean about this Cathedral:
[img]http://www.timeidol.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/san-franciso-catedral-1.jpg[/img]

[Veridicus]

I mean we could use disposable wax-paper sippy cups for distribution of the Precious Blood and a cardboard box for a tabernacle. We however use precious metals as the Church instructs because these items are commissioned to demonstrate the sacredness of the contents contained. It is clear in the Old Testament that God specified precious metals, etc. be used for his Ark which would the place of his Presence. Similarly, I never remember Jesus complaining about the size or decorations of the Temple...rather he drove out the riffraff who were ripping people off inside of the Temple.