The Vatican

[rez]

I was recently lucky enough to be in the beautiful city of Rome this summer. Whilst we were there i took the chance to go and visit the spectacularly grandiose Vatican city.

As expected the entire building complex was astoundingly imposing and powerful. The architecture and adornments just on the outside of the building were unbelievably magnificent, once inside the buildings my eyes were assaulted by the amazing craftmanship and artwork inside.

However beautiful and complementary this sounds i was left with an incredibly bad aftertaste in my mouth following the spectacle. The one question that pervaded my mind was so incredibly cutting it left the rest of the visit a cynical and pityful shadow of the awe i experienced at first.

"What would Jesus have said if he stood with me in the Vatican?"

What brought this question on was the sheer scale of the decoration and size of the vatican city. The Gargantuan cost of the gold burnished rooms and massive halls daubed in beautiful art purely blew me away.

And from a religion that teaches charity as one of the first and foremost pillars of righteousness. The same religion revels in the decedance of their grandeur and power, surrounding themselves with wealth and opulent glory whilst preaching frugality and chastising others living the same wonderful lifestyles.

I can understand entirely the need for a strong centralised and thus large base of operations. I get that completely, but the staggeringly enormous amount of wealth on display at the vatican appears to have no use other than to fuel the grandeur of the Catholic church.

As i thought to myself i could picture the rage that Jesus may have flown into, akin to that of the moneychangers in the temple of Jerusalem. I can see an extremely shocked Pope to boot.

The wealth of Christianity is in the spiritual idea, not in its soaring success and power in the material world. As such i see no reason for the vatican to cocoon themselves in gold when concrete is suitable.

Forgive me if i do not respond to your replies for a few hours, i am probably off to bed soon.

[Idwayreth]

I think about the exact same thing whenever i pass by churches that cost more to build than an entire neighborhood. There's a particular church COMPLEX here in Southern California that i went to for a Christmas play maybe 3-4 years ago with my family and relatives that was absolutely stunning. I'm talking about 100ft glass ceilings, expensive tapestries and drapes, amazing furnitures, a gigantic carpet furnished lobby, decadent altar. It was gigantic, I estimate it could seat 4,000 people easy. And that was just the main church, the building complex had 2-3 other equally imposing buildings that looked equally extravagant. I couldn't really enjoy the event they had which was a fundraiser(i could guess where the money would be going) because all night i was just p!ssed at the hypocrisy of it all.

[Confederate Soldier]

If your talking about the Glass Church I’m thinking of then its not as costly as one might think. The man who flipped the bill for it was in his early days 1960's preaching outside, for he had no church to be the preacher of. So he finally decided that he needed an church to call his own. One that his followers could be in so they wouldn’t be outside in the elements. Well from what I remember them showing on the History channel he himself paid for the whole thing. He got allot of the early supplies from junk yards and recycling bens. He went with the glass design because it reminded him of his early days. And thought it better for the people to be able to look out onto what God had created while he preached. The cost of it wasn’t as costly as it would of been if he would of had them make an regular church. However with it expending I would say that yes a decent number of the donations goes to the upkeep of the Glass Church.

[MaximiIian]

Hmmm. I think the same thing whenever I pass by Southeast Christian Church down here in Louisville. It's huge. Hugely unecessary, that is. I mean, the thing is ****ing the size of a damn stadium. Why the hell would they need a church that big?
Which brings me to another question: why do they need churches anyway? If they believe in god, and god is all-knowing, and thus knows they believe in him, why would it be necessary for them to go to a mere building in order to get into heaven?
None of it makes sense, I tells ya. None of it.

[Confederate Soldier]

Why the hell would they need a church that big?
Which brings me to another question: why do they need churches anyway? If they believe in god, and god is all-knowing, and thus knows they believe in him, why would it be necessary for them to go to a mere building in order to get into heaven?
None of it makes sense, I tells ya. None of it.

Well odds are its new, I can tell you that in the isolated areas of the South most churches that are not new are in fact small. For they only needed to seat an small population. However as more and more people came they needed to gain size to hold all the people. After all if you turn someone away because you don’t have enough room then odds are they might not be an Christen much longer now would they? And there is of course the sense of saying that My church is better then yours. After all if you were an believe would you go to the Church made out of wood with no AC or the one made out of fine Stone with AC? Personally I'm found of the small wooden ones but boy o boy in the summer that AC sure would be nice lol. Ok for this I guess one can look at it this way. Ape's are highly afraid of snakes, and make sure to stay far far away from them. According to Evolution Mankind has descended from primates and so we still hold some of the fears. Yet we keep them as pets. In the same sense Christens are the same. In the early days we were persecuted and hunted down. We had no place to go and had to hide. So once the persecutions stopped we were finally able to make places of our own. And so we did, for we now have an place to meet at without the fear of being be headed. So why did I link the snake into this? Because in and sense there the same. We have pet snakes as an way to show that we have conquered our fear and it mocks what we once were. The church mocks the ones that once persecuted us and shows that we conquered our fear. After all an group of Christens meeting in one isolated area preaching the gospels in the old Roman times would end up being killed for it.
I hope this makes sense, if not then another member of F.A.I.T.A. will give it an go, because I do know that even I need sleep.

[MaximiIian]

Southeast? New? Oh, ****, no; it was first built in 1962, and expanded to how it is by 1998.
This is the damn thing:
http://www.city-data.com/cpicv/vfiles2262.jpg
It can fit over 24,000 people. Totally unecessary. It's just an eyesore in my opinion.

[King Henry V]

I was recently lucky enough to be in the beautiful city of Rome this summer. Whilst we were there i took the chance to go and visit the spectacularly grandiose Vatican city.

As expected the entire building complex was astoundingly imposing and powerful. The architecture and adornments just on the outside of the building were unbelievably magnificent, once inside the buildings my eyes were assaulted by the amazing craftmanship and artwork inside.

However beautiful and complementary this sounds i was left with an incredibly bad aftertaste in my mouth following the spectacle. The one question that pervaded my mind was so incredibly cutting it left the rest of the visit a cynical and pityful shadow of the awe i experienced at first.

"What would Jesus have said if he stood with me in the Vatican?"

What brought this question on was the sheer scale of the decoration and size of the vatican city. The Gargantuan cost of the gold burnished rooms and massive halls daubed in beautiful art purely blew me away.

And from a religion that teaches charity as one of the first and foremost pillars of righteousness. The same religion revels in the decedance of their grandeur and power, surrounding themselves with wealth and opulent glory whilst preaching frugality and chastising others living the same wonderful lifestyles.

I can understand entirely the need for a strong centralised and thus large base of operations. I get that completely, but the staggeringly enormous amount of wealth on display at the vatican appears to have no use other than to fuel the grandeur of the Catholic church.

As i thought to myself i could picture the rage that Jesus may have flown into, akin to that of the moneychangers in the temple of Jerusalem. I can see an extremely shocked Pope to boot.

The wealth of Christianity is in the spiritual idea, not in its soaring success and power in the material world. As such i see no reason for the vatican to cocoon themselves in gold when concrete is suitable.

Forgive me if i do not respond to your replies for a few hours, i am probably off to bed soon.

Jesus would probably not agree with it, considering how for much of his adult life he was in opposition to the very wealthy Judaic Priests of the Temple in Jerusalem. However, as Christianity began to take on a more temporal aspect and as it acquired power, it wanted to show how powerful and literally awesome it was, as any organisation would do. So in that respect it did depart from the original Christian message.

However, I must say that I am a complete sucker for the beautiful architecture which may not have thrived as much as it did had the Church not undertaken this continual building program. All the great Renaissance artists did works for the Chruch at some point in their career. Without the Church's role as patron of the arts, it is questionable whether art would have progressed as much.

[carl-the-conqueror]

for a religion that says poverty is godly, th catholics sure practice what they preach.

they even have a ******* bank i dont think thats right.

[rez]

Yes KHV i too was over awed by the pure spectacle of Renaissance art i found. It is an undeniably beautiful building.

Again i should stress that it is not the size that bothers me, Christianity has aquired a huge amount of followers and as such having a massive church (which you can fill) is perfectly reasonable. It is the pure indulgence of the ornament that is the problem.

[King Henry V]

Well let's face it, the Popes were hardly the models of Christianity, and who believed more in the temporal importance of the position rather than the spiritual role. Pope Julius II, who commissioned the Sixtine chapel in memory of his uncle Pope Sixtus VI, was a homosexual and was believed to have said "It has served us well, this myth of Christ." Hardly the most faithful of Catholics, don't you think?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Pope Julius II, who commissioned the Sixtine chapel in memory of his uncle Pope Sixtus VI, was a homosexual and was believed to have said "It has served us well, this myth of Christ."

I've never seen anything that indicates that Julius II was a homosexual. There are a lot of other things he definitely was - a politician, a warrior and a contributing cause of the Reformation - but no evidence he was gay.

And that 'quote' is attributed to Leo X, not Julius II. Not that it matters, because neither man ever said anything of the sort. The myth that Leo X actually said this has its origin in a line from an anti-Catholic English play, The Pageant of Popes, by John Bale (1495-1563). That play was a rather crude piece of Protestant rabble-rousing propaganda and it's the sole 'source' of this supposed 'quote'. The real Leo X never said it at all.

[King Henry V]

I've never seen anything that indicates that Julius II was a homosexual. There are a lot of other things he definitely was - a politician, a warrior and a contributing cause of the Reformation - but no evidence he was gay.

And that 'quote' is attributed to Leo X, not Julius II. Not that it matters, because neither man ever said anything of the sort. The myth that Leo X actually said this has its origin in a line from an anti-Catholic English play, The Pageant of Popes, by John Bale (1495-1563). That play was a rather crude piece of Protestant rabble-rousing propaganda and it's the sole 'source' of this supposed 'quote'. The real Leo X never said it at all.

The quote I did not find from a reliable source, however, regarding Julius II's homosexuality, I have just dug out my copy (after much searching through all my bookshelves and my paper-littered desk) of John Julius Norwich's History of Venice:

"The governor [of Bologna], Cardinal Francesco Alidosi, had already once been summoned to Rome to answer charges of pecualtion, and had been acquitted only after the intervention of the Pope himself - whose continued fondness for a man so patently corrupt could only be explained, it was darkly whispered in Rome, in homosexual terms."

Now, I know you will probably say that these were only rumours and that there is no actual evidence, however, I do not believe that there is any evidence that points to James I of England having a homosexual relationship with Charles de Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. He was, after all, only his "favourite".
However, Pope Julius' reactions later point to a relationship which was more than just close:

"[Following the loss of Bologna, due in no small part to the cowardness of Cardinal Alidosi], Cardinal Alidosi, who in default of other virtues seems to at least to have possessed a reasonable sense of shame, barricaded himself in the castle of Rivo to escape the Papal wrath; but the precaution proved unnecessary. Even now, in the Pope's eyes, his beloved friend could do no wrong, and he unhesitatingly laid the entire blame for the disaster on the Duke of Urbino, whom he summoned at once to his presence. The interview that followed is unlikely to have diminished the Duke's long-standing contempt for Alidosi, for whom he was now being made the scapegoat. When, therefore, emerging into street he found himself face to face with his old enemy, his pent-up anger became to much for hi. Dragging the Cardinal from his mule, he attacked him with his sword; Alidosi's retinue, believing him to be acting under papal orders, hesitated to intervene, and moved forward only when the Duke remounted his horse and rode off to Urino, leaving their master dead in the dust.
The grief of Pope Julius at the murder of his favourite was, we read, terrible to behold. Weeping uncontrollably, waving, aside all sustenance, he refsued to stay any longer in Ravenna and had himself carried off at once to Rimini in a closed litter, through whose drawn curtains his sobs could be plainly heard by all whom he passed on the way."

If that isn't gay, I don't know what is.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

If that isn't gay, I don't know what is.

Sounds like grief to me. I know men who have wept at the death of close friends but that doesn't make them gay. Not that I care either way - Julius II isn't exactly a model of what modern people regard as a good spiritual leader. Which makes perfect sense, since he wasn't a modern Pope.

It always strikes me as weird the way some people criticise the modern Catholic Church for things that the Papacy did 500 years ago. It makes about as much sense as booing Queen Elizabeth II because Henry VIII used to cut people's heads off.

And I was in a Buddhist temple complex a few months ago, looking at vast buildings, rich decorations and massive gold statues of the Buddha and wondering why no-one makes similar complaints about the wealth and richness of those buildings. The Buddha was even more of an ascetic than Jesus, yet no-one considers Buddhism hypocritical and evil for having these rich buildings and temples.

[Tom Paine]

Read up on "The Grand Inquisitor", in the Brothers Karamazov (I think). Interesting read.

[King Henry V]

Read up on "The Grand Inquisitor", in the Brothers Karamazov (I think). Interesting read.

Ah yes, I remember that from reading a book on the Inquisition. Jesus retruns to earth )Spain to be precise), is held by the Inquisition when he tries to preach in the cathedral, and the Inquisitor executes him even when he knows that the person is Jesus.

[MasterAdnin]

When I went to Saudi Arabia this summer, you wouldn't believe how much Gold, Platinum, Marble, Granite, etc was in the Kaaba and the Masjid-e-Nawbi. They're covered in Gold, Platinum and Marble. I'm not really sure if this would be the same, but I did wonder what prophet Muhammad(PBUH) would think if he saw them, and I believe that he'd want it to be a plane area dedicated to prayers and not decoration and would want most of it to go to the poor. I believe that hasarat Isa(PBUH)[Jesus] would like the same too.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Visna]

I think it's a matter of the Catholic church, particularly the Vatican, trying to show how big and mighty they are. And a calculation of how much money all this is worth is inherently flawed. All the artwork in the Vatican for instance is, for lack of a better word, priceless. How do you establish a pricetag on the Sistine Chapel, to name one example.

[MaximiIian]

How do you establish a pricetag on the Sistine Chapel, to name one example.

Compound the cost of paying workers to chop the trees to make the lumber, the cost of paying workers to make and then deliver the construction materials, the cost of the paying workers to build the thing, the cost of paying windowmakers to make and decor the windows, the cost of paying the furnishers to furnish the interior, the cost of artists to paint the wall frescoes, and the cost of paying Michaelangelo to paint the ceiling. Then, adjust for inflation. Should be a pretty hefty sum.

[Tom Paine]

Well, yeah, but its what the Inquisitor talks about the Church doing too... like turning people toward the devil rather than God.

[Tom Paine]

And what about the cost for its absolute uniqueness and pure genius?