I am traveling all day and may not have web access for a while. So be patient with moderation. Thanks.
Last Saturday, I had the opportunity to tour the Vatican Splendors collection at Cleveland’s Western Reserve Historical Society. The traveling exhibit contains selections from the Vatican’s collection of art and artifacts. Much of the exhibit concentrates on the papacy itself, with items associated with significant popes of the past and present. Other artifacts are more archaeological in nature, including items from the purported burial site of the apostle Peter.
The exhibit is excellent and I recommend it anyone interested in cultural and religious history. Do not be surprised that aspects of the exhibit are, as anyone would expect, presented in such a way as to support the various claims of the Roman Catholic church to antiquity and, therefore, authority. But aside from a few excesses of description- such as the apostles wearing mitres and Jesus elevating the cup to say “This is my blood”- the exhibit had little that any non-Roman Catholic Christian would disagree with on purely historical grounds.
Our tour was generously populated with older Roman Catholics who were clearly moved by much of what they were seeing, particularly the more impressive and lavish accouterments of the Pre-Vatican II Papacy. It was quite obvious to me, even from the little evidence that was present, that the post-Vatican II popes have more consciousness of how certain historical symbols and actions appear to the world. Such are the benefits of mass media.
But the exhibit provided this free-range Christian believer with several abiding images and accompanying thoughts.
Much of the exhibit concentrated on the historical evolution of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and especially on historical artifacts associated with the construction of the current basilica. As a significant piece of culture that connects up the traditional burial place of the apostle Peter with arguably the most magnificent church in all the world, it is a fascinating and revealing story, told well in the exhibit.
Certainly, there is much pride and reverence for Catholic Christians in what is to be seen in the greatest church in “Christendom.” For a “new covenant” believing Christian, there was considerable irony in much of what I saw. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles would have built such an edifice. While it’s artistic achievements are magnificent, this is a church built in the name of the one who said…
1 Peter 2: 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”1 Peter 2:7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”*
1 Peter 2:8 and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Jesus has definitively and permanently replaced the earthly, old covenant shaped temple, and the beauty of gold, silver and precious stones is now associated with the beauty of Jesus himself in the lives of those who are living stones in the house of God Jesus himself is building- the church, the ecclesia of God.
“Lord’ look what we have built to honor you. The work of our hands points the world to you.”
These unspoken sentiments bring me into mind the lessons and meaning of Jesus, and I remember his words to his apostles when a woman honored him with a lavish gift. He understands that love for God can bring forth these kinds of gifts, and it is important to see that love in what others have done with their ability to build and create. To not see the value that motivates the building of great churches and the creation of art and music is to be too narrow.
But elsewhere in the same exhibit were the reminders of what happens when spirituality becomes one dimensionally motivated to do things FOR Jesus and not live LIKE Jesus.
Throughout the exhibits were massive and priceless gold crosses and gold chalices, etc, for papal masses and ceremonies. Several Papal tiaras (three leveled crowns) were on display, reminding us that for a significant period of time, the papacy became deeply entangled in the power of empire, taking the name of Jesus and using it to establish temporal authority. All these sorts of “splendors” speak deeply to the historical and ongoing difficulty for all Christians to admit we are frequently far away from Jesus, making our own way and simply unwilling to humble ourselves and admit our errors.
So it was good to read of Pope Paul VI purposefully taking the tiara from his “coronation” and selling it to give the proceeds to the poor. I could not help but think of St. Francis and his mad apprehension of Jesus shaped spirituality. He would have said it was a good beginning that we all should emulate.
Today, many evangelicals are parading their wealth and preaching a prosperity Gospel that Rome itself would find obnoxious. Multi-million dollar worship centers have brought the spirituality of the mall into the church and blessed the consumeristic, technologically addicted masses that church shop in North America. There is no museum exhibit that could tastefully catalog the history of the Protestant demise from the catholic reformation hopes of Luther to the embarrassing apostasy of the contemporary evangelical media pantheon. Any evangelical that feels superior because we aren’t selling indulgences needs to do a bit of research into what we are selling and what we do announce must be financially supported.
It seems rather silly for any of us to point at another Christian tradition and accuse them of missing the point anymore because we’ve all become clowns in the circus. We can only all look at ourselves and realize that our footprints, sometimes in the past and sometimes in the present, have wandered away from from the Christ we associate ourselves with.
The most abiding image of the exhibit was, without doubt, the simplest. It was a small piece of red plaster, taken from the ancient gravesite of the apostle Peter, far beneath the present basilica. On that small piece of plaster were scratched almost imperceptibly two words “Peteros eni.”
“Peter is here.”
Vatican archaeologists may have claimed more for the tomb and bones that were found at this site than can strictly be affirmed, but I think the evidence of Peter’s burial here is considerable. (The entire book describing the excavation is online.)
If it is Peter’s gravesite and if the story of his martyrdom is true, then we have a reminder that at the core of all this history, all this excess and all this wandering from a Jesus shaped use of our gifts and abilities, there remains something real and true.
There remains a rough and loud fisherman who heard the voice of Jesus. A man compelled to leave his nets. An unschooled, emotional, broken man who took to the road behind the Messiah. There remains his foibles, his sincerity, his daring and stubbornness, and of course, Jesus’ continual love for him.
At the root of all that history is one fisherman from Galilee who found himself chosen to go across the world and bear a bloody, cross-shaped witness in the midst of the Roman circus; Jesus shaped in the one way Jesus predicted was ultimately true for all his true disciples.
“When Jesus calls a man, he bids him come and die.” -Dietrich Bonhoeffer
That is the shape of following Jesus. That is the gift. That is the offering. That is, according to Jesus, the living stone that gives forth the praise he truly desires to hear.
In Revelation 6, the martyrs are under the true altar. Not on Vatican Hill, or st. Peter’s, but in heaven. They are praying:
“O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants* and their brothers* should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.
Rather than continue the Protestant-Catholic-Evangelical accusation and derision debate, why don’t we all pursue another way; a way that may not bring us any notice by the world at all, but a way that is surely the right way.
It is the way that led to those two words on that red piece of plaster.
“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? 37 For what can a man give in return for his life?
[...] I’ve written my thoughts on the Vatican Splendors Exhibit over at Jesus Shaped Spirituality. Posted by: TommyMertonHead @ 1:01 pm | Trackback | Permalink [...]
Yeah, I was hoping for a piece that would make me feel smugly superior, but once again you make me look in the mirror and trace out where my feet have strayed….
Great words on the Apostle Peter.
I watched Pope John Paul II officiate Mass at St. Peter’s one Christmas season years ago. When he held up the elements and the bell rang, I was awed that the bread and wine, which could not have been more than a few cents’ worth held in his hands, was worth more in Catholic theology than all of the art, architecture, and apparel present around the Mass.
Very compelling post. Thank you so much for your thoughtfulness. Also, on the “prosperity” preachers, see: http://www.justinpeters.org and watch “demo.” he spoke at my church on this different gospel and comes highly recommended by my pastor, Dr. John MacArthur.
God bless you!!
[...] Two Words on a Piece of Plaster. This is a meditation on my visit to the “Vatican Splendors” exhibit. [...]
It is interesting reading your thoughts on the exhibit, and I appreciate your even-handed approach to the subject. I agree with you on several points, but before I get to that, I have some objections to raise.
First of all, are you so sure that the Apostles would not build magnificent buildings for Christ if it was in their power? They did, after all, continue to worship in the Jerusalem Temple until the Romans tore it down, and the Second Temple was surely as opulent a religious building as any the Medieval Church built. Though free of Idols, the temple as outlined by the Law was hardly Iconoclastic. It was covered in elaborate carvings of men and angels, the Holy Ones of God, as was the Ark of the Covenant itself.
It is true that God in the Old Testament said that he desired a pure heart rather than sacrifice, and Jesus repeated this call in his time on Earth. However, God still required sacrifices from the children of Israel, and very rigorously outlined the ceremonies involved in the Law. Christ himself was the fulfillment of the Law, but he himself says that he does not come to abolish it:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” [Matthew 5:17-19]
The ceremonial vestments and trappings of the Catholic Church stem from those laid out in the Old Testament, not something the supremely Jewish Apostles would have found strange or foreign to the Gospel. While they probably didn’t wear mitres stylistically identical to those used by Medieval Bishops, there is valid historical reason to believe that they used regalia similar to that of the Jerusalem priesthood, as we have evidence their direct disciples and followers used throughout the Empire within a generation, which would have included a form of what became the Roman mitre. I would not dismiss at the idea of the Apostles themselves did, in fact, wear what we would call mitres when presiding over the Mass.
Apology for ceremonial trappings aside, you are absolutely correct to in your call to living like Jesus, rather than merely in Jesus name. I especially like the passage from 1 Peter you quote.
I also enjoyed your thoughts about the importance of the human building blocks of the Church, and agree with you wholeheartedly. I’d like to point out that one of the practices which Catholics tend to get most criticized for is venerating (NOT worshiping) those who lived Christ-like (or Jesus Shaped?) lives, the Saints and Martyrs. You yourself point to St. Francis as an example of what you are talking about, which I find interesting in and of itself.
pax vobiscum,
Sam
Sam,
Thanks for your gracious post.
I don’t plan to have a debate on the source of various Catholic or Protestant worship trapping on this blog. It is a subject that has been extensively studied and documented. I’m quite sure we’d disagree, as I see almost all of these rituals coming from jewish or pagan sources, with no endorsement from Jesus.
The point of my post is that we need to get past that discussion and go back to what was so moving about those two words on plaster.
So let’s leave it there.
[To future posters: I will moderate vigorously posts dealing with this subject.]
Michael you have a gift of seeing things that we don’t and describing them in accessible ways.
Concerning “sacred space” from an evangelical perspective, Ben Witherington has a thoughtful, evenhanded post here:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/06/pagan-christianty-by-george-barna-and.html.
It’s a review of Barna’s “Pagan Christianity,” which sings the “church buildings are bad” song. Witherington finds that song rather out of tune and dissents with a fair amount of intellectual muscle.
Thanks for the post and your insightful podcasts. You mentioned, “The entire book describing the excavation is online.” Do you have the link to that book? Thanks!
Michael,
My wife and I went to Rome a few summers ago. We spent quite a bit of our time in St Peter’s and the Vatican museums. ‘Overwhelming’ barely describes it.
Some people will look at the vast collection of art and say ‘vanity’, but what I took away from it was a very tangible sense of Imago Dei.
God created us as fleshly creatures with a hunger for the spiritual. These touchstones (red clay tablet) help us connect in a way that doesn’t demean either.
“We are encrusted with riches and power. You in your poverty put us to shame.”
- Alec Guiness, as Pope Innocent III, in “Brother Son Sister Moon”.
I do agree that much could be learned from Saint Francis (that Zeffirelli’s “Brother Sun Sister Moon” is a must-see for all Christians), and that protestants are far more obsessed with avarice than the Catholilc Church.
But never forget that it is the love of gold that is the root of evil, not gold itself. Protestants have such a problem with the natual, material world, which I think at least the early medieval church did not. Precious stones, wood, rare metals, colors, water, bread, wine, etc. used to be able to convey sacral meaning and could be used symbolically to draw us to God – as they did in the tabernacle, Solomon’s temple, and the book of Revelation. Christians now have adopted a very secular, technological, utilitarian view of nature which strips it of the potential of being used in such a way. Gold is now a symbol of commerce, financial power, and computer chips. Modern worship centers do not use particular materials to help create sacred places; instead, they are used as extravagances to draw attention to the power of the denomination or spiritual leader. Similar abuses occurred in the Catholic church to assert its authority, but I don’t believe that it was the primary purpose.
I think this important, because this low view of nature and the material world among Christians gives rise to athiests and to the re-emergence of the occult and paganism, which have a magical, superstitious rather than sacral view of nature.
Encrusting churches in gold can be a needless extravagance, but stripping churches of anything precious is a path to manichaenism, which cares nothing for the poor.
Somewhere in the St. Peter’s basilica website I have linked in the post.
[...] recently toured through a collection of items from the Vatican treasury and has some insightful reflections on the experience. He hits on a lot of good points, but one of the main ones is a combined appreciation for and [...]
“Neither Jesus nor the Apostles would have built such an edifice.”
This is a significant post Michael. I am tempted to forward it to my Boss who was a sincere practicing Catholic until he went to visit St. Peters. The opulence that he saw there completely turned him off. He is still a believer, but wants nothing to do with organized religion. Instead he spends his spare time assisting groups like the United Way up here in Canada.
On the other hand both the first and second temples built to worship God were impressive edifices in their own rights. God did not seem to be displeased when the first temple was built with all its glory.
“Neither Jesus nor the Apostles would have built such an edifice.”
This is just your assertion, I can easily argue the other way. First the stumbling block and cornerstone quotes are spiritual references to the person of Jesus as a stumbling block to the Jews and have zero to do with the style of edifice Christ or his apostles might prefer. I’m surprised you make something so off point try to carry your argument, especially since you dismiss so readily all the Marian scripture, even that in Revelations. Second remember Christ defended Mary for the expensive perfumed oil she washed him with before His passion. Lavish gifts and edifices have several purposes: they are intended to glorify God , they give external witness to the esteem we hold His place in the world (ie a highly decorated Church is set apart and readily distinguishable from the high school gym or office building), they are a sign to God of our detachment from the material and provide a mechanism for us to demonstrate that we seek to lay up our treasure in heaven, not on earth.
Let me try an analogy. You love a woman and want to show her your love. So you what do you do? You give her the most elaborate and beautiful bouquet of roses you can afford as an outward sign. If this was just a friend on her birthday then a handful of daisies might do, but this woman is special – she has your heart, so she needs the best, thus nothing but roses will do. You know she won’t return your affection just because you gave her some of David Austin’s best, but you don’t care. You want to show your love as vividly as possible. If she’ll consent to marry you then you go out an get a more permanent article to demonstrate both love and commitment in the engagement ring.
Granted that the Catholic “engagement ring” may not be to your taste, but don’t presume to speak for the apostles. Recall the Temple in Jerusalem was very elaborate and that would have been their point of comparison.
Jesus is the cornerstone of the new covenant temple.
Why don’t you settle on an argument?
New Covenant temple is a building or lavish expenditures are what Jesus wants.
The clear teaching of the story is that while Jesus was on earth, such lavish gifts were understandable. That’s what I said in the post. But when he is not here, new covenant teaching prevails. No such edifaces were commanded. The apostles said not one word about it. If we can’t agree on that, what’s the point of discussing the scripture at all? My trradition builds these things and so does yours and the apostles never commanded it. Is that so hard to admit. Of course, I can say we were wrong.
I don’t believe you got to the end of this post, did you? It’s not a harangue on the topic you’re reacting to.
‘
A couple more points, Jesus, in His eternal role in the Trinity did create, out of love for us, an elaborate place, this earth, which like the lilies of the field is more beautiful and elaborate than “Solomon in all his glory”. Why wouldn’t we seek to mirror His gift by building best we can for Him in this world (however inadequate it must be) in appreciation for His generosity?
Also while I can certainly see the Biblical basis for disagreement around Icons, there is no scriptural basis for arguing against ornamentation, except personal ornaments (do not put on two cloaks etc). Recall the Old Testament descriptions of how the Ark must be built and decorated (Leviticus?). There are other examples – as long as the ornamentation is for God and His service, it is proper. I can more readily understand an argument against elaborate priestly vestments, for example, than that against the decorations of the Basilica.
Great. Let’s all get busy spending billions on buildings and lavish jewelry.
All I said was Jesus and the Apostles never commanded it. And you’re going to spend the day telling us what? That doesn’t matter. Do it anyway? Don’t ask what Jesus and the apostles did?
The basilica builders are following Jesus just like the third world pastor in a hut, giving half his salary to the poor. Right? No difference? All done out of love.
This is why a “Jesus shaped” discussion will turn into a defense of tradition and what we’ve done before that our tradition likes.
Lady poverty, where did you go?
Look…..I don’t want to be this snarky on this topic, or this angry sounding.
I really want to get beyond this. I’m not planning too tear down or blow up church buildings.
And I appreciate the artistic and creative offering and motive.
I want to get down to the experience at the end of that post, which belongs to all of us.
I am sure you are not surprised that I don’t buy some of these justifications, but I work at a ministry that takes in millions. While we live and work in comparative poverty to other schools, I have many things I don’t need. I’m typing on one of them.
‘So Lord have mercy on ME a sinner.
Sorry. I appreciate the comments.
The Lord of all Creation, capable of producing all the wealth of the world by His word, paid taxes with coins found in the mouth of a fish. He had not even the place to lay his head that wild animals have. He borrowed the donkey He rode into Jerusalem. His only possessions were the clothes he was wearing.
If you’re looking for something Jesus-shaped, it’s clearly not gilded.
Peter, of course, is the man who said, “Silver and gold have I none,” before commanding a lame man to rise and walk.
Peter-shaped things probably weren’t gilded, either.
Fine Revelation, not Revelations, picky picky. Revelation is in my bible.
Not everything we do must explicitly follow the Apostles in all details, we do not have the same charisms. Today the Church is already widespread, we don’t need to travel. Why must we only do what is “commanded” ? We are commanded to love God. How do you show it? To me the drab dull empty box that many churches are (and there are bad Catholic examples) very clearly says “God doesn’t matter much here”.
OK. One last time.
The new covenant is about a temple not made with hands.
Do I have to run dozens of scriptures that say that?
Do I have to quote the major scholars- including RCs- that state unequivically that one of the foundational themes of the Gospel of John is that Jesus replaces the Old Covenant temple?
I didn’t say it was a Christian duty to hate buildings. Are you saying it’s a Christian duty to build lavish ones?
I’m saying it’s a new covenant FACT that the era of the physical temple is over. And while I may be well motivated to make a diamond gilded crucifix, it’s not what makes Jesus happy or what he commanded. It’s a lavish gift, and an unwise use of money.
Do you think the story of the woman is meant to say take all your money and give it to the church to build buildings?
The objection that it would have been better to give it to the poor wasn’t contradicted by Jesus. It was put in the context of his presence and person on earth.
Now you can go ahead and say that’s the significance of the eucharist, which I just don’t get, and that’s why such structures and decorations are appropriate: God is there in the eucharist.
That makes sense to me. I don’t agree, and you know that, and we can move on.
Like I said: what’s under the church is what we can all agree on.
peace
MS
Look Michael I agree with you that excess and especially excess that comes at the expense of the poor is very far from Christ. No doubt on that basic point.
However you must understand that the Basilica and most Catholic Churches are the product of many little acts of love by the parishioners or their ancestors and are meant as gifts to their descendants as well as little sacrifices meant to show love and thanks to God.
Perhaps some people are moved to charity only if it is visibly directed at God and the Church rather than seeing Christ in the poor – this is a legitimate concern and probably the basis for a good homily. There are also those who focus solely on charity and dismiss or discount the Church and it’s teaching (and I mean with in the Catholic community). The correct route as always is harder, it requires that works/charitable acts are made out of love of God so that charity toward neighbor without reverence for God is as faulty as reverence for God without love of neighbor. We must do both.
Michael I’m not saying it’s a duty to create lavish buildings, but rather that if it is understood as way to glorify God over self that you might at least charitably recognize the motivation. I believe that there is some room for more than one mode of worship, not that it’s required, but rather as a matter of free will within acceptable bounds. I would not criticize the spare caves of Saints and Prophets, but I think when the means exist to publicly display the love of God a Church building should (not must) be a physical witness to it.
As for the teaching about God being present and Christ being the new Temple I think your right. I’m merely using that story as a way of showing that charity is not an absolute. It’s a matter of rightly ordering various good things.
“Like I said: what’s under the church is what we can all agree on.”
Actually I thought this was the main point of contention in that Catholics hold that Peter is the rock that the Church was built on and use that phrase to justify Authority. I’m assuming from the context of the thread that here you are clearly referencing Christ as the cornerstone which was rejected and that we certainly do agree on.
It’s a measure of the distance of our lexicons that even your gracious nod toward unity can be misinterpreted. I imagine many such arguments grow from such disparate uses of language. Like Churchill said about the English and Americans being two peoples “separated by a common language”.
I don’t expect you to accept my argument, just to understand it. What makes this blog so special is that you actually think about the reply and answer seriously and substantively. If you agreed with me about everything this would be deadly dull and I would learn nothing. For example I didn’t even think about the Eucharistic argument, but now that you point it out it has potential, although it’s acceptance is predicated on accepting the real presence.
Sure Christ is the new Temple, but this does not preclude new church buildings or their decoration. It does mean that no new church building can ever have the level of sanctity reserved for the one singular Temple in Jerusalem. Christ replaces and transcends that home of the Ark so that any and all subsequent buildings are of lesser theological import. I think that’s the meaning of the scriptures you refer to.
So why can’t I dress up my church building even though it not as ever going to be as special as the Temple was? Why does Christ’s status preclude a little ornament in my local house of worship? Is it really necessary to have a stripped down featureless hall or ultramodern Ikea church? Sure I pray in my bland office cube but when I go to a place specially built to pray and worship I like some outward signs that God is loved here. Not every difference between us is theological, some are simply cultural.
Wow! Quite the debate. I agree with Memphis Aggie’s comment that “we must do both”. I wonder though, how many people (like my boss), see the opulence and say “The church is so rich, it doesn’t need my money.” As a result, the church ends up being constrained in what it can do for the poor.
I don’t have stats to back this up, so I would be interested in knowing what other Christians’ experience has been in this matter.
I re-read the post and I think I missed your point – perhaps you meant “Peteros eni” in who (it’s the the “what” in your phrase that threw me) is under the church – I thought you meant it figuratively.
the point was the discipleship that brought Peter to that place, not some discussion of whose franchise operation is the “real” church.
These discussions of whose church is the one “really” started by Jesus and where Jesus is “really” present are some of the most discouraging posts I read.
The point of this post was the common experience of Jesus at the root of all these accretions.
Michael,
Since I have been visiting your places more frequently, I have certainly found my intellect and passion for discipleship stimulated and I thank you for that. As I have started posting on my own blog and gotten into a few discussions at the iMonk site, I have noticed that the Protestant/Catholic discussions keep coming back to this theme of authority. Thanks for seeking to communicate and discuss what it means for each of us to be a disciple shaped by Jesus.
Tim, another scholar is punching holes in Ben Witherington’s review of Pagan Christianity. read the first response here http://www.paganchristianity.org/zensresponds1.htm
“The point of this post was the common experience of Jesus at the root of all these accretions.”
OK – that I can happily agree to.
I can also understand how inherantly painful and certainly unproductive is any discussion about who’s church is best. That’s practically guaranteed to pick a fight, and although I sometimes don’t mind picking one, that’s my personal failing and I’m working on it. I did not intend to go down that road here, rather I was pointing out that common phrases and scriptures have distinct meanings or interpretations in the different branches of Christianity and that a lot of misunderstandings can come from it. I wasn’t sure I understood you. Now it’s clear.
As for opulence I can certainly understand the critique that it can go over board and be a cause for scandal. Certainly, Christ was poor and Peter was poor so the wealth we see in the Church seems directly at odds with Christ’s comments to the wealthy man, if you be perfect …
But the wealth of the Church is not personal the property of the Pope (although historically some Popes treated it as such, think Borgias). He is just a caretaker. The Vatican is financed by a single collection once a year (last Sunday actually during the feast of Peter and Paul). It’s just a really big Church with a really long history that has accumulated a lot of stuff over it’s long history.
Of course the Pope is doctrinally considered the Vicar of Christ and all priests are considered representatives of Christ. Thus, as the visible head of the Church, we lavish gifts on Him as a proxy for Christ. Someday we aspire to worship God eternally in Heaven and there we shall lavish Him with praise and whatever else we will be given to work with. The elaborate celebrations here on earth are like practice sessions or earthly mock ups of what we imagine we might be part of in Heaven.
They also serve the purpose to elevate the senses and turn the thoughts of the faithful toward the eternal – the transcendent – that which is larger than ourselves and our lives. Clearly these worldly attempts must fall far short of the glory that is in Heaven, but if they are understood as acts of reverence – which is how they are intended – then you can see how wordly trappings are brought in to assist the worship. The Bride dresses herself in her very best for her groom, and the Church regards itself as the Bride of Christ.
This is how it is explained, and how I understand it. It is the elaborate painting, the delicate icon, the images of Christ’s passion that remind me to thank Him, and that may even bring tears. These visual cues aid me in prayer and assist me to focus my mind on the eternal.
When I see the golden chalice with our Lords blood I am reminded of it’s inestimable value and see the use of such materials as signs of the reverence, just like genuflecting before the Host or or remaining silent during the consecration.
I guess that’s the best that I can do to explain it.
“The point of this post was the common experience of Jesus at the root of all these accretions.”
And the end that Peter came to, buried in an obscure hole in the ground by clandestine friends. Despite the huge church that has grown up with him as titular leader (whether we’re talking about just the Catholic Church or all of Christendom), it had to do all that growing in his absence. He never lived to see the glorious thing God brought about on the site of his death. (All right, he isn’t really dead. But you know what I mean.)
I see what you are saying about the two words “Peteros eni” and what they represent for all Christians. Here is a testimony to one of the great truths of the Christian faith: Jesus was a real, live human being, who really lived with other real people, in a particular place, at a particular time in the real world. Emmanuel, “God with us”, became a historical fact, a human person.
Peter’s martyrdom and burial in Rome, whether one accepts that as validating the claims of the Papacy or not, speaks to the effect Jesus had on those who followed him. It is inspiring, in a ecumenical way.
I have been thinking about whether I ought to post on this topic or not. I am still not sure if I will post this or not. It seems like Memphis Aggie and Michael may managed to understand each other, and I may have nothing helpful to add.
Michaud I am glad you visited the exhibit, and seem to have found it to be a positive experience overall. I agree with you and encourage you in your desire that all Christians recognize our common history and heed the call the preach Christ crucified to the world.
I find that there is extremely rich symbolism in the tomb of Peter, beneath Nero’s circus where so many were martyred, and where the history of civilization turned on the Roman axis. The foundations of St. Peter’s Basilica stand on the tomb of Peter the humble servant. I can’t help but note that it is also believed that St. Paul’s skull is entombed nearby as well. As you seem to suggest, this is truly the visible foundation of Christianity, regardless of your particular ecclesiology (if not THE, then at least one of the most significant visible).
I would also add St. Peter’s itself, and the Vatican and the whole history of the Saints, sinners, Popes and Paupers of the Catholic Church is also common to our Protestant brothers. The presence of the Church, both physical and spiritual, is the force that shaped civilization – most especially western civilization – for the past 2000 years. The architects, engineers, artists and scholars who built the Church (again both physical and spiritual) were literally the foundation of the reformation, the enlightenment, the age of science and the development of technology.
I like you comments about Peter the poor fisherman and the comments added that Peter would not have possessions gilded in gold. The Church, like Christ had a very humble birth. I think it is important the Church remain rooted in that humility – I believe that overall it does although it may not appear that way superficially. Despite the high honor of his office, his position as the highest authority is Christ’s Church, and his role as a major power broker on the world stage, Pope John Paul II was a man of great humility and poverty. Benedict XVI’s spirituality is not as ascetic, but I believe he also remains rooted in a genuine humility.
I agree with you that Jesus never commanded that we build a temple; the sacrifice of the Mass requires no temple. I even believe that the Catholic Church could exist and live without St. Peter’s, without all the grand churches in Rome and Europe. The first Christians, and probably the majority of Christians for the first 320 years of the Church did without. I don’t know if the Church would be better off without the grandeur and the art and the beauty and the ‘riches’ or ‘treasure’ (I think to call them riches or treasures trivializes them for they are really artifacts of our history). If it be God’s will that the Church be stripped of her temporal glory and splendor then so it shall be and so we shall continue to worship the Lord Jesus Christ. Certainly God in his providence has seen it helpful that the “Holy Roman Empire” should return to dust. The papal states are no more. Is this just the beginning of the spiritual pruning back of Christ’s Church or is what remains growing healthy and strong?
I see no reason to deliberately divest the Church of her possessions in order to return to the poverty of the first 2 or 3 centuries. I will offer only one reason here. The early Christians were expecting the world to end – SOON. They didn’t focus much on institutional structure and grand edifices because they were expecting the second coming and trying to spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth before he arrived. It wasn’t until after the apostles had all (except John) been martyred, and the second and third generation began to pass away that the need for a more permanent Church became apparent. There is an element there that we need to maintain – that we are not here to build buildings. We need to be preparing the kingdom, but we also need to ensure the Church will be here for the next generation – something the first century Christians weren’t as concerned with.
In my own experience I went through a time when I probably would have argued for liquidating the coffers and feeding the poor. My journey into adulthood and spiritual ‘quasi’maturity began with discovering Thomas Merton “Seeds of Contemplation.” After I absorbed Merton for a few months and also the “Cloud of Unknowing,” I moved on to Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker, Peter Marin, Jacques Maritain and then St. Francis, St. John Bosco, and St. John of the Cross. As only a 22 year old can be, I was impresses and impassioned with absolute poverty and pacifism.
At that time, I looked with disdain on the ‘trappings’ of the Church. Spirituality was in ‘less’ not ‘more’. I deliberately skipped on three opportunities to see Pope John Paul II in person because “I don’t need to see the Pope to have Faith.” I was disdainful of people who spent money on pilgrimages, or fancy handmade rosaries, or followed apparitions, or though very much of Church architecture, art or music (clearly this can be vanity or ego – but it doesn’t necessarily have to be). It was all about the experience of the divine through contemplation – in my way of looking at things.
Fortunately for all who must put up with me, I have mellowed. Having found my vocation is to marriage and parenthood, I find contemplation a very rare spiritual opportunity. I now respect how the beauty of the Church and the stained glass can assist in my prayer. I am very pleased that even at 4 to 6 months old my babies seem to sense the holiness of the beautiful Gothic interior of our home parish church. I have yet to make a pilgrimage or see a Pope, but I feel the growing need to do so, the need to devote the time and effort of a journey to God and making a spiritual journey. I actually pray “God, if it be your will, I would like to see Rome or Jerusalem.”
I guess I realize that in my youth I was basically advocating a form of “spiritual utilitarianism.” I wasn’t acknowledging that God created us, and gave us abilities and capacities. The way I see it now, God expects us to use all of our gifts and capacities in worship. He gave us the ability to appreciate beauty, so we can appreciate Him. He gave us the ability to create art, so we can reflect Him through our art. Music, poetry, sculpture, painting, architecture, theatre, dance; they are all ways we can express our wonderment and love for God. No, I don’t think any of them are essential in the sense that “Jesus commanded that we should sing in Church.” However, the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and your whole mind” and I propose that can mean poem, song, sculpture or St. Peter’s Basilica.
The papal crowns, and jewels still bother me a little. The fact that heavy taxes on the northern territories of the Holy Roman Empire were used to fund St. Peter’s construction and contributed to the tinderbox that ignited during the reformation is a scandal. I just pray, ask for mercy, and know that that is the history.
One more thing. The pivotal point in this journey for me was in 1995 when I visited the woman I had just decided I was going to marry in NYC. I had overcome my attitudes enough that I wanted to attend Easter vigil Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. It is not the correct term for the Novos Ordo form of the Mass, but it was my first experience with a “High Pontifical” Mass. It was a splendorific assault on the senses. 5 Bishops, 14 Priest, several seminarians, full professional choir with world class opera singers, trumpets, string, incense, chant, and plenty of grandeur. I cried, in fact, it brings tears to my eyes as I write. That is true Beauty, and Beauty has the Power to move hearts and change minds, although my favorite part was a single seminarian chanting the Magnificat – simple and absolutely Beautiful.
God Bless
Paul
*Michael – post this if you want, I know it is long. I continue to pray for you.
The opulence and wealth of churches is certainly vexing, and it should be.
It should call to mind paradox, and we should remain challenged – remember that it used to be that Franciscans would preced the Pope in procession, with flaxen flames they would extinguish, declaring “sic transit gloria mundi.”
And that the preacher of the papal household is still a Franciscan.
Opulence of buildings is no argument for or against an authentic expression of Christianity.
It is, however, an expression of a variety of Christianity’s view towards the world, the things of this world, and creativity.
Human beings will create. They will. They will try to make beautiful and gorgeous and impressive things.
In Catholicism and Orthodoxy (yes, Orthodoxy – the Hagia Sophia used to be a church, y’know), that impulse to create with abandon and extravegance is given the channel to happen, not for the benefit or glory of a wealthy sliver of society, but for the glory of God.
(And, of course, the motives are usually mixed because that wealthy sliver or society or that town that constructed that cathedral end up being glorified, true. Call in the Franciscans, again.)
But in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, what that means is that all of this creativity and beauty is accessible to all.
Anyone can walk into a church in Rome and come face to face with a Caravaggio, at no charge except the bit of a Euro it takes to light the lights. Same with Bernini, with Michelangelo.
And time was, the poorest of the poor could sit in those churches, surrounded by Caravaggio and Bernini and Rafael and pray as they heard Palestrina. No tickets required, no admission fee, and in that context, their hearts might – just might – be lifted.
I fail to see what is so awful about that.
I never said it was awful that the poor could see great art. Sheesh.
I said Jesus and the Apostles didn’t command it. And as far as I know, we all have in common a view that if the scripture doesn’t teach it, it doesn’t ever have the force of divine command. That’s doesn’t mean there’s not very good cases to be made by smart and knowledgeable persons. But at the end of the discussion, the non-command still sounds louder than the “here’s the case.”
And let me go ahead say it: that’s why you can require me to believe Father/Son/Spirit are all God, but you can’t require me to use the word “Trinity.”
Michael:
My comment was not directed at you. It was at some of the more negative comments on this thread.
But, since we’re chatting.
It’s not about the poor “seeing great art.”
It’s about a total sensibility in which everything, and all our talents are put at the disposal of God, first and foremost.
Artistic endeavors included.
And it’s about everyone – the poor included- being able to be lifted up by that reflection of God’s glory, as paltry as it may be. It’s about being immersed in God’s creation and the human gift of being able to echo that in our own efforts – just a little bit.
Beauty points us to God.
It’s not about aesthetics.
That is a two-edged sword, to be sure.
But there is a Catholic “sensibility” that is excited about being able to bust out with great music and art and be sort of crazy (see Sagra Familia in Barcelona) in response to God’s crazy love.
The reaction against the perversion of that is reflected in Reformation sensibilities, which is natural and expected. And probably deserved.
But the basic sensibility is sound and we are impoverished when we try to push it aside.
Dumb Ox
Encrusting churches in gold can be a needless extravagance, but stripping churches of anything precious is a path to manichaenism, which cares nothing for the poor.
As I repeat this quote for the next 5 or 10 years do yo want me to attribute it to “dumb ox” or do you want to post your name???
I support an organization in India called Gospel for Asia. They worship in simple huts, homes and prefab buidings that cost about $500 to build.
Were I to suggest that Gospel for Asia pause in their church planting, evangelism and mercy ministries in order to build a basilica, I would be rightly judged well out in left field.
If it comforts you to say that there are many great benefits from great structures, that’s fine. Your denomination is selling them off all over America. Why would that be?
I am all for art, architecture, music, etc. These are vocations and expressions of God’s glory and they are important. But everything in evangelicalism can’t be defended as “Look at all the good that came from our 37 million dollar campus.”
There’s a middle ground in this where balance is there, and I am not denouncing those who feel called to build cathedrals unless they sell indulgences to do so.
But as I’ve said several times now, a good case doesn’t replace the absence of a command.
Memphis Aggie,
Thanks for posting, I like your perspective.
Forgive me for engaging in my character defect of quibbling. Feel free to point out the countless errors I make in my own posts.
Just to be clear, the Vatican is not funded by the last Sunday in June – Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul collections. That collection, known as Peter’s Pence is dedicated only for the charity at the personal discretion of the Pope. 98% or 99% of that money goes directly to charities. Although it does count in the total Vatican budget.
I am not sure off the top of my head how the Vatican is funded (I have a vague idea) I could research it if anyone is interested hear (which I doubt). I do know that the Vatican budget is incredibly small given the size and scope of the Catholic Church. In 2006 the total expenses were $306 Million of which $101 million was charitable work of Peter’s Pence so the actual operation of the Vatican was about $205 mililion. The Vatican does of course have its own national bank (the source of several scandals) and many investments which I think accounts for something around a third of revenue.
Paul in the GNW:
The more I think about it, the more I’m concerned that I inadvertently paraphrased a quote from Thomas Howard’s “Evangelical is Not Enough”. I’m on vacation and don’t have access to my copy to know for sure. If you have you own copy, you might check me on that. When I know I’m quoting someone, I do try to give references. I’ve got a lot to learn about blogging.
I’ve stated before when posting to your sites that I’m no scholar. I’m more likely to be able to quote Moe Howard than Augustine.
I find the above discussion extremely interesting.
I’d love to talk to some of the bright lights here in depth just because I am searching.
However, it must drive you crazy that all things seem to lead back to this same discussion if you even whiff at the Catholic Church even in the most innocuous and/or complementary way.
Don’t go completely nuts.
Stay with us.
Nice thread. I have a little more to add, hope that’s OK. If we forgo the idea of opulent excess and dial down to reasonable ornament I think we can find some common ground. In south Texas where my wife’s family comes from there are a scattered about a series of painted churches built by the poor farmers of the area, mostly Polish and Czech immigrants. They are beautifully decorated primarily with paint and decorative carving – all of which is much less expensive and in keeping with the modest means of the community. By contrast I live less than a mile away from a mega church that seats well over 10K. theres no doubt from the scale of three crosses outside the building that this is a church however the inside is nearly devoid of decoration and the structure is clearly designed as a large auditorium or concert hall. there are no kneelers to aid pray, and no altar but rather there is a large stage, flat screen TVs sophisticated cameras and lights. From the inside the place shouts “theater” and the implication is that we are there to passively watch a performance not to participate in a worship service. I went to see a Passion play there and so for that event the place was perfect. It was very well staged, very professional and it even moved me to tears, but not for the reasons you might expect. It was an edited version of a passion play which was extended to add a full immersion Baptism of Christ but shortened to silence the words of Christ on the cross to his beloved John concerning caring for Mary. Frankly that exclusion, and there were others, made me cry because it was clearly done to diminish the role of the Blessed Mother because, and here I’m speculating, that’d be too Catholic. When I see the spartan concert hall church I think the same thing. Was this lack of decoration really done for theological reasons or was it simply done to visibly differentiate the church from Catholicism? You could not argue that a church built on that massive scale couldn’t afford a little paint or that no one among the thousands of parishioners had artistic talent. It was a choice, and presumably a conscious one.
I would not pretend that decorating a Church is the only way or even among the most important ways to demonstrate your love for God. Clearly self sacrifice, loving one’s enemy and Matthew 25 acts of mercy are more important. However I submit that it is one valid way to show reverence, and that failing do so out of a need to be anything but Catholic makes creating a separate identity more important than revering God. That’s not what I would call “Jesus shaped”.
>that failing do so out of a need to be anything but Catholic makes creating a separate identity more important than revering God. That’s not what I would call “Jesus shaped”.
Unacceptable.
I have more to say put I don’t have time. Thread over thanks to that cheap shot.