Nihil Obstat Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 24 minutes ago, Anomaly said: If you think that, then you kick kittens and hate Canadians. You sad, twisted monster. Nothing unusual there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 One interesting aspect - the article below asserts that even if the Holy See wanted to sell all of it's art - doing so would violate the terms upon which it is recognized as a sovereign nation. I don't know if that would be strictly true, but here is the explanation: http://caritasetveritas.com/2013/03/the-myth-of-vatican-wealth-on-helping-the-poor/ In particular, see Art. 18: http://biblelight.net/treaty.htm Quote Article 18 The artistic and scientific treasures existing within the Vatican City and the Lateran Palace shall remain open to scholars and visitors, although the Holy See shall be free to regulate the admission of the public thereto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 10 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said: We cannot put material treasures and riches as more important than assisting the very least in our eyes without incurring a condemnation from Jesus. We cannot use any rationalization whatsoever. Jesus plainly tells us that what we do - or not do - for even the most undeserving in our eyes, we do - or not do - TO Him. Jesus very plainly tells us what the criteria at Judgement will be. If we need to sell art treasures at a nominal price rather than the true value, we can take that nominal price (since it seems there is no other responsible way) - and distribute that income for the poor. The art treasures then remain as art treasure for the whole of humanity residing in museums where they will be valued and cared for with great attention. If we hang on to our art treasures etc. with the rationalization that it is impossible to sell at their actual value, it is a very poor rationalization indeed and an excuse to hang on to these treasures rather than utilizing them for the reason God has gifted them to humanity. Stewardship. Our art treasures etc are a display of incredible wealth in a world where around 800 million people do not have sufficient for survival. How is it a display of wealth? Art is a hymn to God. You probably deep down wish to sell off the Sistine Chapel with that attitude. "oh no, but it is a a REAL art treasure" is a TRUE rationalization. You are very inconsistent. We are lucky people like you weren't around when Julius "wasted" a bunch of money on hiring Michelangelo to paint it! I can only imagine the scorn you would heap upon the heads of saintly popes and laymen who "wasted" so lavishly, after all researchers say we are living in the most peaceful, least impoverished period in human history so the saints of old were far worse! The arts don't need justification; the talent that produced these treasures is a gift from God and disposing of them is hiding the light under a basket. I hope you go to a church that looks like a warehouse, where the pastor wears 30 year old plastic vestments and you sit on metal folding chairs for pews. If that sounds like an evangelical non- denomimational church, all I can say is Yup! If the Church can not justify protecting the priceless and irreplaceable art heritage of Christians, YOU can certainly not justify attending church where they use vessels of precious metals. Jesus tells us to care for the poor and the least of these, he did NOT SAY that beauty is a waste of money or sinful!!! Or that art and music would get in the way of our judgment!!! You can care for the poor AND have beautiful churches, statuary, paintings, vestments, jewelry. And the Church does just that every single day!!! Shame on you for tying up heavy burdens for others. Get the mote out of your own eye first!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Anomaly said: Selling art for food is prostitution of human dignity. It is selling something beautiful created by humanity for coins when there are plenty of other coins that can feed the needy. This made me think of the state of art in our society. Specifically that it is in rather a bad state. It is tough for artists to make a living exclusively through their art. A first chair at a major philharmonic does ok, but really only ok. They teach to supplement their income, which is fine and even necessary, but they have to work many many hours in some cases to make ends meet. The performing arts are brutal. Most actors and dancers never 'make it' anywhere with their art, and if they do their careers are usually short. Dancers especially. The photography world is supersaturated, and painting is a niche market. I wonder if someday we can return to those days when the wealthy individuals and major organizations are patrons even of individual artists, and those artists can have positions of relative security to work on grander projects with some freedom and encouragement of their creativity. Major cathedrals could have commissioned organists or chant experts, an archdiocesan metropolitan area could even have between the individual dioceses a commissioned painter to create new altarpieces. Those exist to some extent in academia, but again it is such a niche area. Society is better when there is art all around, not just pushed off into the weird artsy corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 10 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said: Nothing unusual there. Well, maybe waitresses and waiters do... 1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said: This made me think of the state of art in our society. Specifically that it is in rather a bad state. It is tough for artists to make a living exclusively through their art. A first chair at a major philharmonic does ok, but really only ok. They teach to supplement their income, which is fine and even necessary, but they have to work many many hours in some cases to make ends meet. The performing arts are brutal. Most actors and dancers never 'make it' anywhere with their art, and if they do their careers are usually short. Dancers especially. The photography world is supersaturated, and painting is a niche market. I wonder if someday we can return to those days when the wealthy individuals and major organizations are patrons even of individual artists, and those artists can have positions of relative security to work on grander projects with some freedom and encouragement of their creativity. Major cathedrals could have commissioned organists or chant experts, an archdiocesan metropolitan area could even have between the individual dioceses a commissioned painter to create new altarpieces. Those exist to some extent in academia, but again it is such a niche area. Society is better when there is art all around, not just pushed off into the weird artsy corner. I think rampant populism has subjected Art to polarized public opinion that prevents substantial support. The Sistine Chapel would NEVER get painted now, with an exposed penis and God depicted as a white European male. Your shower curtain is still gauche, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Good to read agreements with Pope Francis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Good to see Pope Francis agree with his predecessors, as befits his role as vicar of Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 17 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said: Good to see Pope Francis agree with his predecessors, as befits his role as vicar of Christ. ...........if you say so, Nihil ............for me, it is good to read agreements here and there with Pope Francis for a change .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 39 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said: ...........if you say so, Nihil ............for me, it is good to read agreements here and there with Pope Francis for a change .......... If he acts as I describe, then one would expect there to be no substantive disagreements with the Holy Father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: Good to see Pope Francis agree with his predecessors, as befits his role as vicar of Christ. Well to be fair, at first glance Pope Francis does not appear to agree with Ambrose and John Paul II concerning that issue, if you read the article that she posted at the top of this thread. Do you not mean that it is good to see Pope Francis agree with your subjective interpretation of his predecessors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) What I mean to get at with that question is, I still have a bit of trouble understanding why tradition (little T) should be a basis for evaluating truth or correctness, especially when the tradition itself is subject to different interpretations, and when even a correctly discerned tradition could nevertheless be a tradition that is incorrect. I do not particularly see why something should be judged as being more likely to be correct or advisable because it is older. Edited February 9, 2017 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 58 minutes ago, Peace said: Do you not mean that it is good to see Pope Francis agree with your subjective interpretation of his predecessors? I am so sick of this response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Peace said: Do you not mean that it is good to see Pope Francis agree with your subjective interpretation of his predecessors? His predecessors' public statements usually don't need "interpretation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: I am so sick of this response. A little Tylenol should help with that. That is what I take when y'all play the tradition card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Your antipathy towards the Catholic Church's traditional character is your own shortcoming to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now