Would You Be Alarmed If Someone Ordered A Hundred Dollar Bible?

[Justin86]

Um, yeah. I think everyone has faults and it is wrong for us to point them out if the other person is humble enough to recongize it has a fault (something which I think Altari kinda did).

In either case, why does the Pope have all these jewels? Well, sometimes especially with the current Pope, those fancy robes are worn when the Holy Father says Mass, in which we are trying to spend as much as we can reasonable afford to please God. As for the Popes personal living conditions, if you think he lives in wealth and leisure think again. It's actually quite a simple room he lives in I've heard.

[Aching]

0.o A hundred bucks for a Bible? I think my Bible cost me less than ten dollars...and it works just as well as the fancy-schmancy one...just throwing that out there...>.>

[Altari]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1517950' date='May 4 2008, 01:25 AM']In either case, why does the Pope have all these jewels? Well, sometimes especially with the current Pope, those fancy robes are worn when the Holy Father says Mass, in which we are trying to spend as much as we can reasonable afford to please God. As for the Popes personal living conditions, if you think he lives in wealth and leisure think again. It's actually quite a simple room he lives in I've heard.[/quote]
OK, I can buy that. My issue with the Pope (not the current Pope, but the station itself) is that, as a Protestant, I would not accept a religious leader that was adorned in such a way. While the intention may be good, it can create a stumbling block to Christians. Greed is a base human emotion, one that we should distance ourselves from, but to have a religious leader show such wealth can foster it in some. As I said, I'm a minimalistic Christian.

My experience (when I was a "practicing Catholic" [tongue in cheek]) was with the Rockford Diocese. Our Bishop (Archbishop?) was living quite "high on the hog" to the point of creating problems with the Priests. They lived in wretched little apartments, while he lived in opulence. The wealth was not equally distributed among the servants, and created stumbling blocks for some of the priests.

I do not feel that Christians should display beautiful possessions to glorify God, as he has no need for them. In the OT, the Tabernacle was part of the redemption package. It was another form of perpetual sacrifice made to God. Christ's sacrifice removed the need for such things.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://icatholicism.net/apologetics/radio-replies/rr3-i.html"]Radio Replies Volume Three[/url]: Glamor of Ritual

[b]1275. We Protestants reject the Catholic religion because it depends merely on the observance of impressive forms and ceremonies.[/b]

The Catholic religion does not depend merely on impressive forms and ceremonies. So nothing is gained by making such an allusion. At the same time, whilst mere form and ceremony do not constitute the Christian religion, we do know that the Christian religion includes within itself certain very wise and beautiful rites. Jesus Himself instituted the rite of Baptism. He employed ceremonial rites again and again during His life when healing the deaf and the blind. Your suggestion that the forms and ceremonies were really a continuance of old ideas of human sacrifice is without a trace of foundation, and quite opposed to facts. Professor Harnack, a great German scholar who died in 1931, and whose authoritative research in early Christian periods the whole world of scholars has to admit, writes as follows: "The oldest Christianity strictly refrained from everything polytheistic and heathen. The unreasonable method of collecting from mythology parallels for original Church traditions is valueless. There is no occasion to suppose that the Gentile congregations in the time up to the middle of the second century adopted, despite their fixed principle, popular mythical representations."

[b]1276. It was stated that, during the Eucharistic Congress Procession in Dublin, jewels and vestments were worn which were valued at half a million dollars.[/b]

I had not heard of such an estimate. But, in any case, the exact value is immaterial. Personally, I am glad to think it was not less, and would be happy to think that it might possibly have been more.

[b]1277. Don't you think, since you claim to be followers of Christ, that this was only vulgar display?[/b]

If we thought that, do you imagine that we would do it? To your mind it might seem "vulgar display." But you must make allowance for the fact that our outlook differs from your own, and try to interpret our conduct in the light of our principles. Of course I am more than willing to believe that that is just what you desire. So let us try to get at the heart of things. "Vulgar display" is personal ostentation opposed to good taste. It is the foolish effort to secure empty honor for oneself. And no one who claims to be a follower of Christ should be guilty of such worldly vanity. But when one seeks, not one's own honor, but to render due respect to another, and to render that honor in the degree the other deserves, we have not "vulgar display," but a just tribute of reverence and respect. Now we Catholics, as followers of Christ, believe Christ to be God. And we believe Him to be truly present in the Eucharist. When, therefore, we arrange a Congress in His honor, we feel that our tribute of praise, and gratitude, and worship, cannot be too splendid and glorious. At least you can see that we intended the honor for Him, and not for ourselves; and that, since He is God, there could be no possibility of excess in such honor as we could render. Nothing is too good for God.

[b]1278. It seems quite out of keeping with the humility displayed by Jesus Himself.[/b]

The Eternal Son of God came into this world in human form to teach us true virtue. And, as a good teacher, He exemplified the virtues He taught, amongst them being humility. We, therefore, must learn humility, to entertain a modest estimate of ourselves, and to keep ourselves in the background where conduct is concerned. But whilst humility teaches us to have a lowly opinion of self, it does not teach us to have a lowly opinion of Christ. He might humble Himself, and we love Him for doing so. But it is not for us to humble Him. Scripture tells us that Jesus "empties Himself, taking the form of a slave; wherefore God hath exalted Him, giving Him a name above all other names." Will you blame us Catholics for exalting Him also? Of course your mistake arose from your belief that by the magnificence of the Congress we intended to exalt ourselves. But that is quite erroneous. We intended to exalt Christ as our Lord and Savior and God. Have you any objections to our doing so? Remember that the more humble a man is the more he will depreciate self, but the more also will he magnify and glorify God.

[b]1279. Jesus Himself displayed a lack of ostentation.[/b]

As a teacher of humility to men, He regularly exemplified humility in His own conduct, but He allowed the ostentation of others who wished to honor His true dignity. When His followers cast their very garments on the road to make a festive way for Him, and praised Him with joy, crying out, "Blessed is He who cometh in the name of the Lord," the Pharisees were scandalized, and told Jesus to rebuke His disciples. But He refused to do so, saying, "If these hold their peace, the very stones will cry out." Jesus Himself, at fitting and proper times, manifested His authority and glory. When he said publicly to the Jews, "You know that Moses has said this, but now I say unto you," His suggestion that He was superior to Moses was not an ostentation to be reprehended, for He is God. So, too, in the Transfiguration He manifested His glory to His Apostles, but for a definite and legitimate purpose. But I have said enough to show that the personal humility exhibited by Christ in no way conflicts with Catholic generosity in the worship of Christ.

[b]1280. Whilst not condemning your Church alone, I think you are the greatest offenders in this respect.[/b]

I do not wish to speak unkindly, but does it really matter what you think? Would you suggest that our ways are certainly wrong unless they fit in with your ideas as to what should or should not be done? By condemning us, you set yourself up as the competent judge of Christian conduct. But are you sufficiently well-informed to pass judgment at all? You say that we are the worst "offenders." But against what principles have we offended? And wherein lies our offense? You invoke the principle of humility, but forget that, whilst humility demands self-depreciation, it does not forbid us to magnify and glorify to the best of our ability the God who made and redeemed us. And the offense with which you charge us is based upon a completely wrong interpretation of our motives and intentions. Where we intend to honor Christ, you insist that we desire only to glorify ourselves. But I think it is for us to say what we intend by our own actions.

[b]1281. I would like to know if there is any reason for departing from Christ's teachings.[/b]

There is not. But do you understand Christ's teachings? Have you any reason for believing that you have clearly grasped them? You object to vestments and jewels valued at half a million being worn at a splendid and glorious procession in honor of Christ in the midst of a gathering of over a million people. Will you object to the lavish display and the beautiful ceremonial which took place at the coronation of King George VI.? Yet is Christ, the King of Kings, worthy of less honor than an earthly sovereign? You may say that Christ neither wishes nor accepts such external demonstrations of honor. I have already answered that by showing that He did so when His disciples cast their garments in the way, and accompanied Him into Jerusalem midst shouts of joy and waving palms, all with His consent. He sanctioned exactly the same principle when Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed Him with very costly ointment in the presence of all there assembled. And Judas complained of the lavish expense in His honor. "Why was not the ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" cried Judas. He thought it a dreadful waste that 10 or 12 dollars in our present day money should be used in such an ostentatious display of reverence for Christ. And Jesus rebuked, not Mary, but Judas. In the past, as a Protestant, I shared your views on these matters, and had much the same outlook. I understand your attitude, therefore, and do not intend any reproach in all that I have said. But it is certain that you have not fully understood the spirit of the Gospels, nor the spirit of Catholic ceremonial. And for that reason, your comparison of the two is bound to be faulty.

[b]1282. Is Roman pageantry a scheme to work up the masses to fever heat so that they can be molded to the will of their religious rulers?[/b]

If that were the reason, it would be a dismal failure. But it is not the reason. And you are taking two wrong things for granted. Firstly, that fever heat is enkindled amongst our Catholic people; and secondly, that the purpose of the Church is to mold them to the will of their religious rulers. Amongst an ordinary congregation of Catholic people at Mass, fever heat is conspicuous by its absence. There is a great spirit of reverence, if you wish. But for calm and common-sensed tranquility, and lack of outbursts of emotionalism, I can commend to you our Catholic people in their religious duties. Again, the object of the Catholic religion is not to mold Catholics to the will of their religious rulers, but to mold all, Pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, and the laity, whether men, women or children, to the Holy Will of God.

And now that your two suppositions have broken down, why that dignified and reverent ceremonial in the Catholic Religion which you call pageantry? It is because we are visible and sense-endowed human beings engaged at such moments in the worship of God. God's very majesty demands the highest and most reverent worship, and man's sensitive nature demands the expression of that worship in an external and symbolic way. You may not agree with that principle, though you really use it every time you give an external and symbolic expression of your respect for a lady by raising your hat. Yet even though you don't agree with the principle, I must ask you to remember that our motives are that we may render what we believe to be fitting worship to God. And now that I have told you that, I'm sure you won't repeat your idea that our motive is to enkindle fever heat, or to mold Catholics to the will of their ecclesiastical rulers. I think we have the right to say what our interior motives really are.

[b]1283. Romanism relies largely on superstition and ceremony to hold its people.[/b]

The Catholic Church condemns superstition as sinful and warns her members that they themselves will no longer hold to her standards if they are guilty of it. That she relies on her ceremonies to hold her people is absurd. Her ceremonies are but an expression of the Catholic faith; and the Church relies upon the divine gift of faith, together with the grace of God and their good will to hold her people. Speaking of ceremonies, surely you will agree with me that the Coronation ceremonies are but the expression, and not the cause of British loyalty to the throne. Is it unreasonable to ask you to apply the same principle to the Catholic religion?

[b]1284. At what period did the Roman Catholic ritual originate?[/b]

It originated with Christ, Who gave us the Mass and the Sacraments, and sanctioned the principles which have found their perfect expression in the liturgical worship of the Catholic Church. I admit, of course, that whilst Christ originated Catholic ritual, that ritual has developed immensely through the ages in comparison with the primitive simplicity of the rites given and used by Christ Himself. Such development is to be expected. Our Lord Himself said that He was planting a seed which would develop into a vast tree. And a grown oak tree certainly differs in its complexity from a simple acorn. We cannot, therefore, object to development whether in doctrinal expression or form of worship. But such development as does occur must be true development, clinging to the right type and keeping within original principles. A kitten develops into a cat, not into a dog. The acorn evolves into an oak tree, not into a cabbage. And the ritual of the Catholic Church is a quite legitimate evolution of the teachings and principles of Christ.

[b]1285. What was the name of the Pope who authorized this ritual?[/b]

As the ritual of the Catholic Church has grown steadily with that Church through nearly 2,000 years, it has been under the supervision of all the Popes. At every stage of her growth, the Catholic Church has been sanctioning true and legitimate phases of her ritual, and rejecting innovations not in harmony with the principles of genuine Christianity. It would be impossible in so brief a reply to mention every detail of Catholic ritual, and give the name of the Pope of the time who sanctioned it.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Altari' post='1517965' date='May 4 2008, 03:39 PM']OK, I can buy that. My issue with the Pope (not the current Pope, but the station itself) is that, as a Protestant, I would not accept a religious leader that was adorned in such a way. While the intention may be good, it can create a stumbling block to Christians. Greed is a base human emotion, one that we should distance ourselves from, but to have a religious leader show such wealth can foster it in some. As I said, I'm a minimalistic Christian.

My experience (when I was a "practicing Catholic" [tongue in cheek]) was with the Rockford Diocese. Our Bishop (Archbishop?) was living quite "high on the hog" to the point of creating problems with the Priests. They lived in wretched little apartments, while he lived in opulence. The wealth was not equally distributed among the servants, and created stumbling blocks for some of the priests.

I do not feel that Christians should display beautiful possessions to glorify God, as he has no need for them. In the OT, the Tabernacle was part of the redemption package. It was another form of perpetual sacrifice made to God. Christ's sacrifice removed the need for such things.[/quote]
Ok, I think we might just have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Altari]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1517968' date='May 4 2008, 01:40 AM']Ok, I think we might just have to agree to disagree on that one.[/quote]
That's cool. It skips that whole intermediate step of personally attacking one another and having a perfectly good thread descend into a flame war.

[mortify]

[quote name='Odysseus' post='1517942' date='May 4 2008, 12:09 AM']You have every right to respectfully disagree with my friend Altari, but to take personal information from another site and post it here as an "argument" is way out of line.

I totally disagree with her about her criticisms of the Church, but this is an unfair and is a personal attack.

You attacked HER personally and not her ideas.[/quote]

The reason why I felt this was justified was (i) it's public information she revealed via myspace (ii) it was not copyrighted and (iii) since her criticism of adorning objects out of reverence involved several posters and [b]Prelates[/b] of the Catholic Church, I called her out on her own behavior. It was not meant to be a personal criticism of her actions, I frankly don't care how she spends on herself, the issue was her *hypocrisy.* She says it's not her MySpace and calls me an "ignorant fool," that *is* a personal attack. Considering the fact it was linked on her profile and shared her knickname I reasonably presumed it was hers. If it's really not hers then the point obviously fails.

Altari said:
[color="#FF0000"]"I'm not scoffing at a nice church or a beautiful bible. I'm scoffing at [b]your Holy Pope[/b] who walks around dripping with jewels and adornments. I do apologize for spending money on myself for a special occasion. Perhaps if you knew me and how I live you wouldn't make these statements. I, however, do not live the life of luxury I am able to because I spend much of my money on helping those that I can.[b] Perhaps your Pope and your Bishops should do the same.[/b] If my pastors had lived the way I have seen priests live, I would leave the church, as many Chicago protestants are hoping will happen to Reverend Wright."[/color]

Clearly she took my post personally and perhaps that's because there is some truth to it, but that's no reason to take it out on the Pope and other Catholic Prelates (nor on myself, for that matter.) The Catholic Church is the most charitable institution in the world, it's rather arrogant of one person to think their contribution (though valuable) can be compared to the Catholic Church's.

And she attacks the Pope and Bishops for their vestments "dripping with jewels." Has she read how God instructed Moses to make the Priestly vestments? The Old Testament is inspired, it's part of the bible, and it contains a wealth of information that we ought to consider. These are some excerpts concerning Priestly vestments:

[color="#0000FF"]"From the blue, purple and scarlet yarn they made woven garments for ministering in the sanctuary. They also made sacred garments for Aaron, as the LORD commanded Moses.

They made the ephod of [size=3][b]gold, and of blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and of finely twisted linen[/b][/size]. They hammered out thin [b]sheets of gold[/b] and cut strands to be worked into the blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen—the work of skilled hands. They made shoulder pieces for the ephod, which were attached to two of its corners, so it could be fastened. Its skillfully woven waistband was like it—of one piece with the ephod and made with gold, and with blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and with finely twisted linen, [u][b]as the LORD commanded Moses[/b][/u].

(...)

They fashioned the breastpiece—the work of a skilled craftsman. They made it like the ephod: of gold, and of blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and of finely twisted linen. It was square—a span long and a span wide—and folded double. [size=3][b]Then they mounted four rows of precious stones on it[/b][/size]. The first row was carnelian, chrysolite and beryl; the second row was turquoise, lapis lazuli and emerald; the third row was jacinth, agate and amethyst; the fourth row was topaz, onyx and jasper. They were mounted in gold filigree settings.

(...)

They made the plate, [b]the sacred emblem, out of pure gold and engraved on it, like an inscription on a seal: HOLY TO THE LORD. Then they fastened a blue cord to it to attach it to the turban, as the LORD [u]commanded[/u] Moses.[/b][/color]
Exodus 39

I wonder what Altari would do if she was an Israelite at that time. Would she walk away at the sight of Aaron "dripping with jewels"?

God is Holy and all things related to His worship ought to be Holy. And so naturally Priestly vestments, temples, arks, and all things related to worship are of the highest quality. This to me totally justifies a Bishop adorning himself with beautiful vestments. Please note that the Bishop is not always wearing vestments, that's only done during special occasions.

Lastly, anyone who comes on this board making naive and offensive comments that attack the disciplines of the Catholic Church, the Pope, and Bishops ought to expect forthright responses.


Peace in Christ.

Edited May 4, 2008 by mortify

[Altari]

I'm only replying to your blatant Ad Hominem attack because of your clear misunderstanding of copyright law.

[quote name='mortify' post='1518019' date='May 4 2008, 03:14 AM']The reason why I felt this was justified was (i) it's public information she revealed via myspace[/quote]
Wrong. It's not MySpace. My domain, that I pay for, manage and maintain all by my lonesome. There's your first mistake. My property.

[quote](ii) it was not copyrighted[/quote]
Wrong again. Intellectual property is automatically copyrighted under US law.

The mods have been notified that I do not endorse the unauthorized reproduction of my copyrighted works on this website. I fully expect all posts referencing said material, this post included, to be removed as soon as a mod is able to attend to the matter.

[mortify]

If that's the case you're right and I apologize. In retrospect I should have just offered a link to it, or even better emailed you personally about it. Unfortunately the option to edit that post is no longer available, otherwise I would remove the content.

[Alycin]

[quote name='mortify' post='1517914' date='May 3 2008, 11:57 PM']With all due respect, I have yet to see a Protestant adopt a life of poverty as our Lord did, and as many religious monks and nuns do in order to live a life closer to the Gospel.[/quote]


Just wanted to interject to say that if your above statement is true, then you haven't seen it because you're choosing not to, don't know many protestants, or live in a cave.

I know several people off the top of my head. The first two that come to mind are newlyweds without much money at all... they are about to go to Zambia to do ministry work. They'll be living in tents. It's not uncommon at all to find protestants that spend years and years and years doing missionary work... I'm not gonna sit here and say, "well THIS catholic is better because THEY devoted their LIFE to poverty" because... I know it's not my place to judge.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1518036' date='May 4 2008, 07:31 PM']Just wanted to interject to say that if your above statement is true, then you haven't seen it because you're choosing not to, don't know many protestants, or live in a cave.

I know several people off the top of my head. The first two that come to mind are newlyweds without much money at all... they are about to go to Zambia to do ministry work. They'll be living in tents. It's not uncommon at all to find protestants that spend years and years and years doing missionary work... I'm not gonna sit here and say, "well THIS catholic is better because THEY devoted their LIFE to poverty" because... I know it's not my place to judge.[/quote]
That is true. I remember one time someone was talking about a group of a nuns, and he said they were Lutheran. I was like, "what?" at first.

I guess the life of poverty is universal among all Christians.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Altari' post='1518023' date='May 4 2008, 02:36 AM']I'm only replying to your blatant Ad Hominem attack because of your clear misunderstanding of copyright law.
Wrong. It's not MySpace. My domain, that I pay for, manage and maintain all by my lonesome. There's your first mistake. My property.
Wrong again. Intellectual property is automatically copyrighted under US law.

The mods have been notified that I do not endorse the unauthorized reproduction of my copyrighted works on this website. I fully expect all posts referencing said material, this post included, to be removed as soon as a mod is able to attend to the matter.[/quote]

I'm studying for my property exam... thought I'd through in some info here. Copyrights are automatic, but in order to 'protect' your work you would have to register it. They're not over all intellectual property, only certain categories with certain characteristics, though yours would probably fit.


Anyways... just some info for you and a review for me


I did have a question for you though; you said earlier that if the leader of the Church was highly adorned with jewels and the like, if he wasn't living what you would consider a Christian life, you would leave that church. Is that an accurate statement?

So if we were to use this as a general principal, then we should (as a camp director said) 'follow no man further than he follows Christ'. These lavish conditions are signs of materiality, of sin. Now since all sin is sin, and especially in protestant theology, we shouldn't follow any man who sins. Which means we shouldn't have even followed St. Peter and St. Paul; for they were terrible sinners! But this is absurd, so maybe we only 'follow' the generally good ones, while the ones who are outwardly sinning we don't. But now aren't we judging the heart of men? And whose to say really who is sinning? Where is that line?

The point is this: People sin. Period. God knows that, Jesus was very much aware of that. Yet He picked out sinners to lead His Church. I have no doubt in my mind that the apostles probably sinned a few times after the resurrection. If I was a follower of St. Paul and I saw him struggling still with sins of the flesh, whatever he meant with that, would up and 'find a new church'? No, because I know human weakness, and I know the truth of the Gospel. Just because some archbishop is not living the Gospel, does not mean the Gospel isn't being preached. If we decide which Church to go to based on the actions of the people, and not whether that person is preaching the gospel, we have put our faith in men not God.

[Altari]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1518189' date='May 4 2008, 11:28 AM']I'm studying for my property exam... thought I'd through in some info here. Copyrights are automatic, but in order to 'protect' your work you would have to register it. They're not over all intellectual property, only certain categories with certain characteristics, though yours would probably fit.[/quote]
Any work must be registered in order to file a copyright infringement lawsuit. However, the registration can take place any time, even after the infringement has occurred.

[quote]So if we were to use this as a general principal, then we should (as a camp director said) 'follow no man further than he follows Christ'. These lavish conditions are signs of materiality, of sin. Now since all sin is sin, and especially in protestant theology, we shouldn't follow any man who sins. Which means we shouldn't have even followed St. Peter and St. Paul; for they were terrible sinners! But this is absurd, so maybe we only 'follow' the generally good ones, while the ones who are outwardly sinning we don't. But now aren't we judging the heart of men? And whose to say really who is sinning? Where is that line?[/quote]
Oh you got me...

Actually, the problems with the opulence is not just the opulence. It is the misappropriation of funds given by members in good faith. A pastor that is able to live such a lush life is obviously abusing the trust placed in him to be a good and honest steward of the church's finances.

Edit to clarify...

Edited May 4, 2008 by Altari

[StColette]

I don't find it alarming to spend $100 on a Bible. That's probably the only book I would spend that amount on. Unless it's a very good Biblical commentary.

I do find it alarming that I have spent over $100 several times on textbooks for biology, chemistry, etc. Now that I have a problem with lol

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Altari' post='1518201' date='May 4 2008, 12:52 PM']Any work must be registered in order to file a copyright infringement lawsuit. However, the registration can take place any time, even after the infringement has occurred.
Oh you got me...

Actually, the problems with the opulence is not just the opulence. It is the misappropriation of funds given by members in good faith. A pastor that is able to live such a lush life is obviously abusing the trust placed in him to be a good and honest steward of the church's finances.

Edit to clarify...[/quote]
How much is much much or too little?