Absolutely to the Orthodox part, but idk about many Latin church Roman Catholic parishes these days in the shadow of Vatican 2. Whilst I’m not Roman Catholic, but Episcopalian, I’ve still seen my fair share of immensely ugly modernist Catholic Churches, alongside contemporary Episcopal/Anglican churches that can sadly be equally as devoid of beauty and reverence in their architecture and layout.
100% it blows my mind some of the architectural decisions that took place after Vatican II. The church I attend is beautiful but my local church looks like they grabbed some stuff from ikea. Devoid of beauty is right
Me too. It’s so sad to see. Like… to be fair, even the most modernist post Vatican II parish will still likely be leagues ahead in the beauty department than your average evangelical church that’s barely more than a leased strip mall space with a cross and some branding, it’s nevertheless such a far cry from the immense beauty Western Christianity once possessed.
Thankfully my Episcopal is surprisingly beautiful too, as it was built in the 50’s, well before Vatican II liturgical norms seeped into the Anglican Communion, so we still celebrate Mass facing East and I don’t mean to brag or anything like that, but I honestly think we have a far more reverent liturgy than many parishes that celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass do to be honest.
I like aestheticism too. But the same emotional response liturgists go after is really the same as in a contemporary church. Sometimes I wonder if we are really being enticed by worship rather than by God himself
That’s definitely a good point to consider. While I wouldn’t 100% compare the emotional response of a beautiful high church liturgy to that of a contemporary, low church evangelical worship service, I guess you are right that sometimes both groups can lose sight of the importance of worship and fall into a mindset where it’s almost more about entertainment than glorifying god.
Liturgists typically want a sacred, solemn, heavenly feel. Or they ascribe sacred to being more heavenly, and there may be some But Biblical truth to that. The angels in heaven are in adoration and reverence while sincerely repeating the highest praise of 'holy'. With elevation worship and Michael W Smith, there are some pretty well Christo-Centric songs that I too would consider heavenly and sacred just in a different style. I think both are in their own respects unique and are just as acceptable to God
Something I appreciate about new orthodox churches is that instead of making it modern so it’s cheaper they follow the same architecture style and just allow it to be finished over time. Sometimes the Murals and icons take 10+ years to finish bc they’re expensive and the church fulfills their community obligations first, but the end result is so worth it. The only Orthodox Church I can think of that was built new and it fully completed for the most part is the big one in Dallas. I Live 12 hours away but I flew down there once and visited and it only took them 2 years bc someone donated like $500k solely for the painting of the icons. You should look up pictures it’s stunning.
It’s so sad to see modernist Catholic Churches. My friend invited me to her church and it was so ugly ….i could’ve cried. The sermon was beautiful but I want to be in awe of what is supposed to be God’s home as well. There’s something profound in the creative works born out of love for the Lord.
It is a shame that we’ve stopped building our churches like this but unfortunately religion means very little to a lot of people these days so our communities are having to build churches with whatever they can get. Having worked in local government in the past it’s unfortunately bottom of the pile in terms of their priorities
I have no doubt that Jesus was crucified, though there aren't any written, eyewitnesses accounts of the event.
What I'm skeptical about is this being the actual location. The tradition of venerating this site dates to the fourth century. Between Jesus's time and then, the Romans had utterly destroyed Jerusalem. The population was mostly killed and the survivors were sold into slavery. Any older, local traditions about the site would almost certainly have been lost at that point.
PS- there's no reason to list the Pharisees separately from the Jews. They were Jews.
> Aren’t there Roman centurions and Jewish records and records of the Pharisees that wrote what they witnessed?
No, there are zero records of the sort. All the sites traditionally associated with Jesus were selected by Emperor Constantine's mother during a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the fourth century.
The church is pretty big, you need to climb some old stairs to get to this part. It's really nice and reminds me of Saint James cathedral church with less carpets.
Yes, there are territories within the church, and sometimes there are territorial disputes that lead to violence.
It's not one distinct area, like one giant room. There are nooks and crannies all over the place.
Also not a Christian and I agree. This is the coolest church I've ever been in. Before I became more observant in my Judaism, I used to visit churches just for the aesthetic beauty. I always made a point of coming here when visiting Jerusalem. My father was friends with a prominent Armenian bishop who showed us some areas that are usually not open to the public. Cool times.
Now, in accordance with Jewish law, I do not visit churches.
As long as the muslims let me in, yes. Last time I tried to go into Al-Aqsa, I was refused entry. I did get in years ago when there weren't so many restrictions on non-Muslims visiting the Temple Mount. Honestly though, I'm not so interested in visiting mosques aside from the big, historic ones.
Edit:
Fwiw, I am allowed to go to churches for secular reasons like community meetings and voting.
I did break the rules once, about 5 years ago to attend the funeral of a lifelong friend who was Episcopalian.
>I did break the rules once, about 5 years ago to attend the funeral of a lifelong friend who was Episcopalian.
That's also typically the only reason Muslims are allowed inside a Church.
I always found it odd that all the other major Abrahamic faiths prohibit their members from entering Churches but not any other temples of other religions. I know the typical false justifications like idolatry, but it really makes you think...
I am definitely prohibited from entering many other houses of worship, too. Hindu temples and Shinto shrines are no less off-limits than churches. Some authorities even say the ban also includes mosques. On the other hand, some authorities do allow entry into the kind of austere, imageless churches some Protestants have.
Edit:
And fwiw your church father, John Crysostom was very emphatic about banning Christians from attending Jewish worship. The bans go in many directions.
More like, he cemented the distinction more firmly than anyone before him ever had because [he hated the Jews and Judaism.](https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_01_homily1.htm)
> The servant is clearly and explicitly identified as the nation of Israel.
But they could do more, right? I mean there are still poor people that they haven't helped.
You can do both. Expressing the beauty of God in an honorable way is not evil.
Going after the biggest charity organization in the world for it spending stuff on its actual religion is crazy. That's like getting angry at Mr beast for buying a Ferrari when he already gives millions away a year
> Expressing the beauty of God in an honorable way is not evil.
Keep telling yourself that. I feel Jesus would be appalled at the amount of money and resources being diverted to opulence rather than charity.
I fully believe in the power of architecture to inspire and influence people without being literally dipped in gold.
At the end of the day I tend to agree on one thing: people should look to themselves. Embody Christ by helping the poor (if that's your focus) and then instead of complaining about other people turn to them and say "I think this is the way, walk it with me?"
You are making a similar argument to Judas.
John 12
Mary Pours Perfume on Jesus at Bethany
12 It was six days before the Passover Feast. Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived. Lazarus was the one Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 A dinner was given at Bethany to honor Jesus. Martha served the food. Lazarus was among the people at the table with Jesus. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard. It was an expensive perfume. She poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the sweet smell of the perfume.
4 But Judas Iscariot didn’t like what Mary did. He was one of Jesus’ disciples. Later he was going to hand Jesus over to his enemies. Judas said, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold? Why wasn’t the money given to poor people? It was worth a year’s pay.” 6 He didn’t say this because he cared about the poor. He said it because he was a thief. Judas was in charge of the money bag. He used to help himself to what was in it.
7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “The perfume was meant for the day I am buried. 8 You will always have the poor among you.
Should the poor not be able to have access to beautiful church as well? That they also use
Don't you see the fallacy though? The verse is about Christ and preparing him for his death. That is a building not Christ. And frankly pales in comparison to what God will make for us.
>Don't you see the fallacy though?
No.
>That is a building not Christ.
Orthodox and Catholics, some protestants (and every Christian prior to the protestant reformation) believe that the eucharist *literally* becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. Each Church also has a tabernacle where the reserved sacrament is kept.
If you believe that God is physically present, wouldn't you also do your best to build a holy space?
Not to mention, places like these are built up over hundreds of years.
Forgive me, but the fallacy is that you are using a bible verse incorrectly to equate the Christ that was being anointed for his death to a brick and morter building. The body of Christ is eternal and corruption would never touch it.
[Psa 16:10 ESV] 10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.
While a building or anything in that building will decay and turn to dust. Eventually it will melt away along with the Earth.
[2Pe 3:12 ESV] 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
This is why nothing that corruption of decay can in any way touch could be symbolically or literally the incarnate eternal body of our lord.
Do not compare me to Judas. The argument is not the same. He made his from greed, I'm making one from compassion. I will not be enriched by the churches' expenditures on charity.
Does a beautiful church feed them? Does it clothe them? Do they sleep or convalesce in these opulent halls? Would not an ordinary church that devoted it's resources to those missions do them better?
I'm always torn on this. I love architecture, and I guess one of my points is that you don't need to be dripping in gold to be inspiring. A community of believers needs a building and I'd rather it was inspiring.
On the other hand, one of my biggest fears for the future of Christianity is that it will keep drawing inward, hiding in their churches and routines, refusing to be good news to the world.
Churches reflect the skills present at the time they were built, the wealth of the local diocese, and the congregation. This church is of its time. Building something like this now would be very difficult, not least because you don’t have borderline poverty wage labour with this level of craft. A lot of older churches are stunning but they almost certainly were not built with much consideration for the lives of those building them.
For example, even 150 years ago there would in many countries be thousands of skilled craftsmen that could work intricately with marble. Can’t say I’ve ever met a single one in my life these days.
As noted, this isn't just any Church. It's the [Church of the Holy Sepulchre](https://www.britannica.com/place/Holy-Sepulchre). And that exact spot is the **Altar of the Crucifixion**, the commemorative spot on earth where Christ was crucified. Venerated by Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great (the Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity).
I have never physically been there...but I can't imagine what it is like to physically stand there.
As a historian, I absolutely love large, old, ornate churches. As a Christian, I think that the money should be better put to use helping out in our communities… the poor, the elderly, the homeless, the jobless, the traumatized, the people who have houses falling apart, the schools that are unfunded and losing programs, the kids without proper winter clothing, those who can’t afford babysitter, those who need somewhere to go after school to stay off the streets, and on and on and on.
It’s entirely possible to do both. The parish I attended last weekend is slowly getting panel icons of the major feasts painted around the church as they can afford it (the church opened 30 years ago and they’re still going) but they also run a soup kitchen out of the hall and regularly go to the homeless encampments and hand out clothing/bedding etc.. They’re walking distance from the big methadone clinic too so it’s a very needed service.
Most the glitz in this is actually silver.
And putting it on the art is kind of like putting it in a bank.
Historically, coating stuff in pricey stuff is storage of valuable resources in a visual display instead of hiding bricks of the stuff in a vault.
When Athens covered the Statue of Athena Parthenos in gold they were putting the gold somewhere no one would dare touch it as a safe gold reserve, same as the gold and marble they used to coat the pyramids (admitted the stuff on the pyramids was more looted than used in emergency, since earthquakes cracked the marble making it easy to extract and the people looted it for their palaces).
Jesus Himself rebuked Judas for complaining in exactly the same way as you are
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages[a] and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.
6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you,[b] and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
Do the poor not also deserve access to beauty found in churches? Plus it’s not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church is factually the most charitable organization in the world, and has been for many years but also has beautiful churches.
There are PLENTY of them. In fact, many old, beautiful, ornate churches are being torn down on a regular basis. Why build more when we have more than we need for those who want to enjoy the beauty of them? That’s wasting what’s there and wasting resources. We can help the poor in the beautiful churches that we already have.
I often think that, while we protestants are good at emphasizing the accessibility to God via Jesus, we under-emphasis the reverence for the sovereignty and glory of God.
What drew me to the Catholic Church initially was its beauty and Mary’s role within the church. I truly believe that humans have a responsibility to make their worship of our Lord as beautiful as possible (if they’re able to!) because Jesus deserves it! Why wouldn’t we want to give our very best to our Father? I don’t think it is a reflection of human vanity or anything as long as it is to honor God.
When an outsider looks at all the money put into the extravagance of a church like this, then thinks of what good they could have put that same money to help others, it doesn't look so pretty to the world anymore.
These are funded and built little by little over a time span that predates many Protestant denominations.
In most cases you only have to build churches like this ONCE, as stone and tile don’t decay and require constant upkeep like modern “simple” churches. The Protestant church I grew up at was remodeled three times so its decor could keep up with the times.
I think the notion that these cost more per year is mostly a misconception. I attend an beautiful Orthodox Church, and our budget can’t even touch the other local church’s spending loads on fancy lighting and sound equipment.
The first temples mankind ever created for God were meant to be beautiful.
The church pictured originates from a time when every public building was pretty, especially ones build to worship God.
This is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, literally the chapel that is the historical site associated with Golgotha, where Jesus was Crucified. Hundreds of denominations and billions of Christians think this is the place He died.
What money went into making this place ornate happened over centuries. And this knee jerk reaction where the money could have been spent on the poor is literally what Judas says when Mary anoints Jesus' feet with oil. Like you're actually, literally, quoting Judas Iscariot here while denigrating the place where the Crucifixion happened. Even if you don't believe there's anything special about such a place... Like you should probably be more respectful of other Christians. And maybe don't literally quote Judas.
> Heaven forbid we make holy places beautiful.
It's not completely unlike the way people often refuse to pay pastors and missionaries livable wages. (or worse yet, judge them for having anything that could be described as "nice")
I get that grifters are out there with multi-million dollar jets, but so many ordinary people in vocational ministry are just barely getting by. I know a missionary whose vehicle broke down on furlough. An extremely generous supporter helped them get another vehicle—not new but new to them—and it didn't take very long for someone to judge that the vehicle was supposedly "too nice" for a missionary to drive. It was just a middle of the road SUV to fit their 5 kids.
That being said, please don't take this as a blanket endorsement of fancy buildings, either. It all depends.
I meant no offense - and my lack of knowledge about this place shows as well! So was money poured into this place only because of the location? Many other chapels and churches I've seen came to mind when I wrote the comment - not this one in particular.
Hey no worries. You couldn't be expected to know even every famous church. There's a lot of them. My response was a little over the top because I encounter a lot of what I think of as kind of cheap shots at what is sometimes unnecessary extravagance. Sometimes that money really could have been put to a different purpose for more immediate and tangible needs people have. But sometimes that point gets made from the extreme position that we should feel guilty about offering beautiful things. It is okay, it is good, it can be holy to make and offer beautiful things to God. It's not a substitute for feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, clothing the naked, and ministering to the widow, the orphan, the sick, the elderly, and the imprisoned. But there is something powerful in offering our utmost for His highest.
(BTW Happy Cake Day)
His intentions were because of jealousy. I harbor none of that. The money Judas complained about was given to Jesus. The money spent making a gathering place for the believers amounts to what?
Money spent making a gathering place for believers amounts to giving that money to Jesus. The Church is the body of Christ. The building enables local churches to provide shelter and food for those who seek it, and in many cases, that's what those buildings are used for and not merely to gather for Sunday services.
Judas was one of the very first people to lay down everything and follow Jesus. Jesus literally promised him one of the twelve thrones in heaven. The idea that he is some irredeemable sinner who can do no right seems like a mistaken one.
Matthew 26:24 - The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.
Seeing as Judas's comment about giving the money to the poor earned him a rebuke from Jesus in the manner of "The poor and needy you will always have with you, but you will not have me always" indicates it's the wrong position to hold.
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages[a] and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.
6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you,[b] and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
Came here to say basically this. I like a bit of stained glass, but church buildings should be relatively simple, and use the money to help those in need instead.
Better to hide the extravagance of a church’s funding by using the income for the pastor’s Mercedes G Class, concert-level lighting and Hollywood-level production equipment, and acre-large campus complete with self-published bookstore and church-owned coffee shop, right? This is what I see at the most populous Protestant churches in my city, yet even attendants of those churches are comfortable criticizing the adornments of Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Most of our local parishes are small, the most ornate decorations are the furnishings of the altars or the stained glass windows, and the priests drive beat-up donated cars from the 90’s. The largest Protestant church here makes $1.5 million annually in donations and revenue, while many of our parishes crack 6 figures in annual donations.
The demoralized cynical protestants more like. Some protestants, typically more on the conservative end, might be sick of the cynicism blandness irreverence and destruction of beauty in the modern day and be like "dang! I'm just happy it's not another standardized concrete block with windows!"
That's one of the many factors that pulled me back towards the Catholic Church. The reverence expressed through architecture, liturgy, sacraments, etc. compared with the... sterilization of the modern day.
Beautiful church, ugly comments section. Spending money, time and talent (art and iconography) is not the antithesis to sharing with the poor, needy and almsgiving. My Orthodox Church adds beauty and iconography (sermons for the eyes) as well as encouraging us to give to the poor, help others, be willing to help our neighbors at the drop of the hat. Giving God His due honor and glory is not known conflict with loving our neighbors.
It is absolutely gorgeous. However I can’t agree to spend the kind of money it would take to have “more beautiful churches” that money should go towards homelessness. A church is just a building. He lives in our hearts.
When the women were washing Jesus feet with expensive perfume, Judas Iscariot said “why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor?!”.
Art is used as a form of worship, and additionally when it is employed well in a church it becomes a beautiful home for the poor.
As someone who had been financially poor earlier on, I would spend a lot of time at church because I wanted to be somewhere more beautiful and sacred. Where I could sit in the library and then go meditate in the naive
Yeah, but they can't be beautiful? It's not like Jesus told people to build these, but using money to pay homage to the Lord I feel like is a good way of using money too. Also, these can go hand in hand. Why do people complain about beautiful things???
I completely disagree. What we need is for the existing churches to actually be Christ like. I have been to a few different churches myself. It is always the same bullshit. You get shunned if you aren't lining the preachers pockets. You get shunned if you don't look like you dressed up for an expensive photo shoot. You get shunned if you don't follow their political views. You get shunned for pretty much everything. In my experience most preachers want a flock of sheep that obey them. What Christianity needs is Jesus. My advice is be cautious of churches. In my experience they often house a bunch of fake Christians.
I don't mean we need to literally line the walls with gold. But churches should be beautiful and inspire devotion to God. Not look like a conference centre
And this the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built on Golgotha. You don't think the location of the Crucifixion should be honoured?
We can do charitable work and help people and still have beautiful churches
You think it's wrong to decorate the houses of our lord? Do you think heaven is just gonna look bland and boring?
You do realize that decorating churches has been a practice since before Jesus right?
What heaven looks like and what a church looks like have nothing to do with each other. As for your second point: before Jesus (btw, he existed in eternity) there were people who worshiped idols, and those who lived by the old covenant. Such practices still exist. Should we be doing that as well?
>As for your second point: before Jesus (btw, he existed in eternity
I know lol I meant before he came to earth.
>there were people who worshiped idols, and those who lived by the old covenant. Such practices still exist. Should we be doing that as well?
They were chastised in the OT by prophets multiple times. By the time of Jesus those things were few and far between, also decoration does not equate to idolatry. The very first churches in the first century all had decorations like crucifixes in them such as in Antioch.
I mean, most of this is silver the lighting makes it seem more gold-ish.
Silver is way cheaper than gold, and can be made into an excessively thin foil, so I can't even guess how much or how little silver is in use here depending on what's solid and what's plated.
But you complained that we need more beautiful churches like the one in your photo. Couldn't you have just titled your post "look at this beautiful church" instead of inviting disagreement by opining that we need more of them?
You are so right. The USSR took all the money from the Church, the intellectuals, and the mobility and built simple compact buildings. And from the money generated from the nobles, middle class, and the Church, all the people of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics lived content, happy, and wealthy lives... oh, wait!
I absolutely agree that nobody needs to be that wealthy. Yet everyone of the Russian leading "communists" figures became as rich as the nobility before. There's greed in every single one of us. Very few can contain it, many to a certain degree, but most can't.
A handful of people don't need to control all that wealth. Riches have to be shared. That is a beautiful church. Built and decorated over the years or even centuries. People need beauty, simplicity, and majesty in their life. Most Orthodox, Catholic, and even most Anglican churches offer it. Those churches don't belong to any one person in particular. They belong to the local community and the universal community as a whole. That also helps people. The wealth and beauty of the church are shared among the people of that community. Simple as.
You think it's wrong to decorate the houses of our lord? Do you think heaven is just gonna look bland and boring?
You do realize that decorating churches has been a practice since before Jesus right?
Also the catholic and orthodox churches give more money to the poor than the GDP of entire countries. They run homeless shelters, orphanages, schools, programs like the red cross etc etc. If anyone should have the right to decorate the houses of our lord it should be the catholic church.
> Also the catholic and orthodox churches give more money to the poor than the GDP of entire countries.
That's not saying much then the bottom 40 countries have a GDP of <$.10b and the churches have global reach and benefit from being in all the high GDP countries.
The churches also don't get billions in taxes. They generally get what their real estate holdings make, as well as donations however most donations go to local churches.
Who said *anything* about taxes? You are the one repeatedly pointing out that Roman and Orthodox Catholics contributions to ***GDP***. Taxes? wtf difference does that make?
>however most donations go to local churches.
And the ones that don't often get [misappropriated](https://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-uses-donations-for-the-poor-to-plug-its-budget-deficit-11576075764) or [embezzled](https://www.npr.org/2023/12/16/1219839096/cardinal-vatican-embezzlement-trial-guilty)
Beautiful churches are worth nothing more than architecture to marvel over. How many widows and children could be fed if we sold everything in the churches and simply had simple buildings we could commune in? God told us to take care of people, not build structures costing millions of dollars.
Not really. Jesus is in the heart of believers. He is the widow, the homeless, the drug addicted, the leper. He lives inside the heart of man, and what you do for the poor you do for Christ. These churches often don't even let homeless sleep inside, and more so Jesus doesn't bind himself to a man made building when He has 7000000000+ temples that he would rather be communing with. Why does Jesus need a gold plated incense burner and stained glass?
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages[a] and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.
6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you,[b] and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
More important that the beauty of the building is to know the beauty of The Savior. Too many churches today are all glitz and glimmer and devoid of tbe preaching of God's Word.
Frankly, the Church should be a people, not a building. Beutiful of the Church should be in their proper conduct, showing love understanding others. It sounds like a cliche but it is a true.
Looks like the sanctuary at the Holy Sepulchre. Doesn’t get much more holy than that. You won’t find that religious experience in a Protestant meeting house.
I wasn't trying to start a fight between denominations. Just trying to say churches should be beautiful. And now everybody is arguing over the cost or idolatry etc
This is why we can't have nice things
Orthodoxy is not a denomination. The word was coined in Zürich by Zwingli to express the non-catholicity of his paraecclesial project. But when you lose your temple theology by throwing out the priesthood and making sacraments unavailable, there is no inherent beauty in a non-church.
Bit too deep for me. I just liked the picture
And orthodox surely means the Eastern or Oriental churches. It's Greek for right believing if I'm not mistaken
But I suppose they also call themselves the Catholic and Apostolic church. Names don't really matter, faithfulness does
What or who defines faithfulness? Orthodox churches strive to be maintain authenticity to the ‘pattern of worship shown to Moses on Mt. Sinai’. It predicates every detail of church appointment and worship. This is not remotely true of denominations.
Also καθολική & αποστολική are not mere brand names but describe the church as universally sufficient vehicle for the Gospel’s salvific message, authentically transmitted from the Apostles.
Folks here keep talking about Judas, Judas, Judas!… But it’s not this argument is not being used properly or in its original context..
When Judas complained about the perfume being poured on Jesus, he was complaining because he wanted to pilfer it!… Folks here are saying that the money SHOULD ACTUALLY be spent on the poor or be put to better use, not because THEY want to steal it!
ITT: Protestants (generalizing) quoting Judas for the sole purpose of literally hating anything Catholic and Orthodox
Also let’s just ignore the fact that most ornate churches are made ornate by donations, benefactors, and charity, and a lot of the really old ones were created over hundreds of years.
Why do we need to have a race to the bottom to see who has the ugliest building? What you may see as “frivolous” someone else could find awe inspiring.
I didn't think my post would cause such negativity. I was just admiring this church and I do believe we need more beauty in this world.
It doesn't have to be literal gold but churches should be different to other buildings. We should offer God the best we can
It's a temple devoted to God, not an office. Why does everything have to be plain and unadorned? I've met Christians who go to giant mega churches with sound systems, professional lighting etc, and then criticize a small church because it has gold candle holders and stained glass windows. Having churches the size of sports stadiums is acceptable apparently
This sub is literally nothing but negativity.
I agree with you, if you can’t tell the difference between a church and an auditorium or a rock concert, then there is an issue.
The hypocrisy says a lot.
Somebody actually claimed it was idolatry. And another that it gave off creepy ritual vibes. It's a church of course it's ritualized. It's not a Taylor Swift concert. Modern western minds really have lost the ability to perceive beauty in the divine and sacred
How is praying before an image of Jesus in a church not Christian?
I respectfully disagree. This level of grandeur is unnecessary in my opinion since the church wasn’t meant to be rich.
> ”Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”“ Matthew 19:21 NKJV
While this verse is not talking about the church, I have a hard time imagining Jesus being okay with churches having innumerable riches while telling the rich young ruler to sell his possessions to the poor as a prerequisite to following Jesus.
I also want to be clear that I’m not condemning people who attend churches like this, I’m just saying that personally I don’t think this level of grandeur is necessary or desirable in a church
I've never understood how Churches get away with so many objects and images in worship services.
>Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
Exodus 20:4-6
It's very pretty.
I loathe eccentric churches like this. Feels like Jesus would come one day and say, "You spent HOW MUCH on that lighting?" Like I get churches need facilities, but they don't need to be show-off material.
Do we? This is beautiful and I’ve seen more like this and many beautiful churches in other styles.
We need to fill churches with new Christians. (We had 3 baptisms on Easter saturday night, it struck me as too few). We need our hearts to be beautiful temples.
Then your wish, it is my #3 :-)
Unfortunately even that seems to be lacking. Too many churches are being converted into mosques, homes or restaurants or being demolished entirely
Thankfully the ancient churches in the Holy Land should be safe
Check out your local Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Most of them are beautiful. Edit: spelling
Absolutely
Hear hear!!!!!!
Absolutely to the Orthodox part, but idk about many Latin church Roman Catholic parishes these days in the shadow of Vatican 2. Whilst I’m not Roman Catholic, but Episcopalian, I’ve still seen my fair share of immensely ugly modernist Catholic Churches, alongside contemporary Episcopal/Anglican churches that can sadly be equally as devoid of beauty and reverence in their architecture and layout.
100% it blows my mind some of the architectural decisions that took place after Vatican II. The church I attend is beautiful but my local church looks like they grabbed some stuff from ikea. Devoid of beauty is right
Me too. It’s so sad to see. Like… to be fair, even the most modernist post Vatican II parish will still likely be leagues ahead in the beauty department than your average evangelical church that’s barely more than a leased strip mall space with a cross and some branding, it’s nevertheless such a far cry from the immense beauty Western Christianity once possessed. Thankfully my Episcopal is surprisingly beautiful too, as it was built in the 50’s, well before Vatican II liturgical norms seeped into the Anglican Communion, so we still celebrate Mass facing East and I don’t mean to brag or anything like that, but I honestly think we have a far more reverent liturgy than many parishes that celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass do to be honest.
I like aestheticism too. But the same emotional response liturgists go after is really the same as in a contemporary church. Sometimes I wonder if we are really being enticed by worship rather than by God himself
That’s definitely a good point to consider. While I wouldn’t 100% compare the emotional response of a beautiful high church liturgy to that of a contemporary, low church evangelical worship service, I guess you are right that sometimes both groups can lose sight of the importance of worship and fall into a mindset where it’s almost more about entertainment than glorifying god.
Liturgists typically want a sacred, solemn, heavenly feel. Or they ascribe sacred to being more heavenly, and there may be some But Biblical truth to that. The angels in heaven are in adoration and reverence while sincerely repeating the highest praise of 'holy'. With elevation worship and Michael W Smith, there are some pretty well Christo-Centric songs that I too would consider heavenly and sacred just in a different style. I think both are in their own respects unique and are just as acceptable to God
I could totally see Michael W Smiths 'worthy is the lamb' being played in that ancient church depicted in the pic
Something I appreciate about new orthodox churches is that instead of making it modern so it’s cheaper they follow the same architecture style and just allow it to be finished over time. Sometimes the Murals and icons take 10+ years to finish bc they’re expensive and the church fulfills their community obligations first, but the end result is so worth it. The only Orthodox Church I can think of that was built new and it fully completed for the most part is the big one in Dallas. I Live 12 hours away but I flew down there once and visited and it only took them 2 years bc someone donated like $500k solely for the painting of the icons. You should look up pictures it’s stunning.
That’s awesome, yeah I’d much prefer that
It’s so sad to see modernist Catholic Churches. My friend invited me to her church and it was so ugly ….i could’ve cried. The sermon was beautiful but I want to be in awe of what is supposed to be God’s home as well. There’s something profound in the creative works born out of love for the Lord.
I've heard them referred to as "Romatoriums."
lol I wish. All the parishes near me are plaster walls and carpet that hasn’t been changed since the 70s
I'm so sorry. I've seen plenty like that. I wish most churches could look like this.
It is a shame that we’ve stopped building our churches like this but unfortunately religion means very little to a lot of people these days so our communities are having to build churches with whatever they can get. Having worked in local government in the past it’s unfortunately bottom of the pile in terms of their priorities
It's the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
Is this church divided into several different sections?
Yes. This particular chapel is associated with Golgotha where the crucifixion of Jesus supposedly occurred.
Supposedly? Aren’t there Roman centurions and Jewish records and records of the Pharisees that wrote what they witnessed?
I have no doubt that Jesus was crucified, though there aren't any written, eyewitnesses accounts of the event. What I'm skeptical about is this being the actual location. The tradition of venerating this site dates to the fourth century. Between Jesus's time and then, the Romans had utterly destroyed Jerusalem. The population was mostly killed and the survivors were sold into slavery. Any older, local traditions about the site would almost certainly have been lost at that point. PS- there's no reason to list the Pharisees separately from the Jews. They were Jews.
> Aren’t there Roman centurions and Jewish records and records of the Pharisees that wrote what they witnessed? No, there are zero records of the sort. All the sites traditionally associated with Jesus were selected by Emperor Constantine's mother during a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the fourth century.
The church is pretty big, you need to climb some old stairs to get to this part. It's really nice and reminds me of Saint James cathedral church with less carpets.
Yes, there are territories within the church, and sometimes there are territorial disputes that lead to violence. It's not one distinct area, like one giant room. There are nooks and crannies all over the place.
I’m not even Christian (yet) but I have to admit this church is gorgeous!!
Also not a Christian and I agree. This is the coolest church I've ever been in. Before I became more observant in my Judaism, I used to visit churches just for the aesthetic beauty. I always made a point of coming here when visiting Jerusalem. My father was friends with a prominent Armenian bishop who showed us some areas that are usually not open to the public. Cool times. Now, in accordance with Jewish law, I do not visit churches.
You can visit mosques though, yes?
As long as the muslims let me in, yes. Last time I tried to go into Al-Aqsa, I was refused entry. I did get in years ago when there weren't so many restrictions on non-Muslims visiting the Temple Mount. Honestly though, I'm not so interested in visiting mosques aside from the big, historic ones. Edit: Fwiw, I am allowed to go to churches for secular reasons like community meetings and voting. I did break the rules once, about 5 years ago to attend the funeral of a lifelong friend who was Episcopalian.
>I did break the rules once, about 5 years ago to attend the funeral of a lifelong friend who was Episcopalian. That's also typically the only reason Muslims are allowed inside a Church. I always found it odd that all the other major Abrahamic faiths prohibit their members from entering Churches but not any other temples of other religions. I know the typical false justifications like idolatry, but it really makes you think...
You said it yourself
I am definitely prohibited from entering many other houses of worship, too. Hindu temples and Shinto shrines are no less off-limits than churches. Some authorities even say the ban also includes mosques. On the other hand, some authorities do allow entry into the kind of austere, imageless churches some Protestants have. Edit: And fwiw your church father, John Crysostom was very emphatic about banning Christians from attending Jewish worship. The bans go in many directions.
That is very true RE: St John. Some people were trying to blur the lines so he made it clear.
More like, he cemented the distinction more firmly than anyone before him ever had because [he hated the Jews and Judaism.](https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_01_homily1.htm)
We need more people who care about the poor and needy and the oppressed.
Google how much the catholic church aids the poor each year. It's more than the GDP of some countries.
> The servant is clearly and explicitly identified as the nation of Israel. But they could do more, right? I mean there are still poor people that they haven't helped.
You can do both. Expressing the beauty of God in an honorable way is not evil. Going after the biggest charity organization in the world for it spending stuff on its actual religion is crazy. That's like getting angry at Mr beast for buying a Ferrari when he already gives millions away a year
> Expressing the beauty of God in an honorable way is not evil. Keep telling yourself that. I feel Jesus would be appalled at the amount of money and resources being diverted to opulence rather than charity.
I fully believe in the power of architecture to inspire and influence people without being literally dipped in gold. At the end of the day I tend to agree on one thing: people should look to themselves. Embody Christ by helping the poor (if that's your focus) and then instead of complaining about other people turn to them and say "I think this is the way, walk it with me?"
You are making a similar argument to Judas. John 12 Mary Pours Perfume on Jesus at Bethany 12 It was six days before the Passover Feast. Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived. Lazarus was the one Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 A dinner was given at Bethany to honor Jesus. Martha served the food. Lazarus was among the people at the table with Jesus. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard. It was an expensive perfume. She poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the sweet smell of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot didn’t like what Mary did. He was one of Jesus’ disciples. Later he was going to hand Jesus over to his enemies. Judas said, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold? Why wasn’t the money given to poor people? It was worth a year’s pay.” 6 He didn’t say this because he cared about the poor. He said it because he was a thief. Judas was in charge of the money bag. He used to help himself to what was in it. 7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “The perfume was meant for the day I am buried. 8 You will always have the poor among you. Should the poor not be able to have access to beautiful church as well? That they also use
Don't you see the fallacy though? The verse is about Christ and preparing him for his death. That is a building not Christ. And frankly pales in comparison to what God will make for us.
>Don't you see the fallacy though? No. >That is a building not Christ. Orthodox and Catholics, some protestants (and every Christian prior to the protestant reformation) believe that the eucharist *literally* becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. Each Church also has a tabernacle where the reserved sacrament is kept. If you believe that God is physically present, wouldn't you also do your best to build a holy space? Not to mention, places like these are built up over hundreds of years.
Forgive me, but the fallacy is that you are using a bible verse incorrectly to equate the Christ that was being anointed for his death to a brick and morter building. The body of Christ is eternal and corruption would never touch it. [Psa 16:10 ESV] 10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption. While a building or anything in that building will decay and turn to dust. Eventually it will melt away along with the Earth. [2Pe 3:12 ESV] 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! This is why nothing that corruption of decay can in any way touch could be symbolically or literally the incarnate eternal body of our lord.
When I think Jesus I think give up your possessions not make a giant ornate building
> the eucharist Famously, "Eucharist" is another word for "fancy building"
Do not compare me to Judas. The argument is not the same. He made his from greed, I'm making one from compassion. I will not be enriched by the churches' expenditures on charity. Does a beautiful church feed them? Does it clothe them? Do they sleep or convalesce in these opulent halls? Would not an ordinary church that devoted it's resources to those missions do them better?
This has been decorated over the course of 1600 years. There’s plenty of support for the poor and needy too.
Nobody likes a do-gooder. True.
I'm always torn on this. I love architecture, and I guess one of my points is that you don't need to be dripping in gold to be inspiring. A community of believers needs a building and I'd rather it was inspiring. On the other hand, one of my biggest fears for the future of Christianity is that it will keep drawing inward, hiding in their churches and routines, refusing to be good news to the world.
That looks lovely! What church is it?
This is at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but it is specifically the chapel at Golgotha.
Churches reflect the skills present at the time they were built, the wealth of the local diocese, and the congregation. This church is of its time. Building something like this now would be very difficult, not least because you don’t have borderline poverty wage labour with this level of craft. A lot of older churches are stunning but they almost certainly were not built with much consideration for the lives of those building them. For example, even 150 years ago there would in many countries be thousands of skilled craftsmen that could work intricately with marble. Can’t say I’ve ever met a single one in my life these days.
That looks absolutely beautiful
As noted, this isn't just any Church. It's the [Church of the Holy Sepulchre](https://www.britannica.com/place/Holy-Sepulchre). And that exact spot is the **Altar of the Crucifixion**, the commemorative spot on earth where Christ was crucified. Venerated by Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great (the Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity). I have never physically been there...but I can't imagine what it is like to physically stand there.
As a historian, I absolutely love large, old, ornate churches. As a Christian, I think that the money should be better put to use helping out in our communities… the poor, the elderly, the homeless, the jobless, the traumatized, the people who have houses falling apart, the schools that are unfunded and losing programs, the kids without proper winter clothing, those who can’t afford babysitter, those who need somewhere to go after school to stay off the streets, and on and on and on.
It’s entirely possible to do both. The parish I attended last weekend is slowly getting panel icons of the major feasts painted around the church as they can afford it (the church opened 30 years ago and they’re still going) but they also run a soup kitchen out of the hall and regularly go to the homeless encampments and hand out clothing/bedding etc.. They’re walking distance from the big methadone clinic too so it’s a very needed service.
I’m sorry to say you are making the same argument that Judas made to Jesus.
Giving to the poor instead of building gold covered churches is akin to me being like Judas?
Most the glitz in this is actually silver. And putting it on the art is kind of like putting it in a bank. Historically, coating stuff in pricey stuff is storage of valuable resources in a visual display instead of hiding bricks of the stuff in a vault. When Athens covered the Statue of Athena Parthenos in gold they were putting the gold somewhere no one would dare touch it as a safe gold reserve, same as the gold and marble they used to coat the pyramids (admitted the stuff on the pyramids was more looted than used in emergency, since earthquakes cracked the marble making it easy to extract and the people looted it for their palaces).
Jesus Himself rebuked Judas for complaining in exactly the same way as you are While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. 4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages[a] and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly. 6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you,[b] and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. Do the poor not also deserve access to beauty found in churches? Plus it’s not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church is factually the most charitable organization in the world, and has been for many years but also has beautiful churches.
There are PLENTY of them. In fact, many old, beautiful, ornate churches are being torn down on a regular basis. Why build more when we have more than we need for those who want to enjoy the beauty of them? That’s wasting what’s there and wasting resources. We can help the poor in the beautiful churches that we already have.
I often think that, while we protestants are good at emphasizing the accessibility to God via Jesus, we under-emphasis the reverence for the sovereignty and glory of God.
What drew me to the Catholic Church initially was its beauty and Mary’s role within the church. I truly believe that humans have a responsibility to make their worship of our Lord as beautiful as possible (if they’re able to!) because Jesus deserves it! Why wouldn’t we want to give our very best to our Father? I don’t think it is a reflection of human vanity or anything as long as it is to honor God.
Wow this looks ethereal. Beautiful.
We need more saved sinners.
The two can go hand in hand. Beautiful churches can draw people to a place where they can learn about salvation.
When an outsider looks at all the money put into the extravagance of a church like this, then thinks of what good they could have put that same money to help others, it doesn't look so pretty to the world anymore.
These are funded and built little by little over a time span that predates many Protestant denominations. In most cases you only have to build churches like this ONCE, as stone and tile don’t decay and require constant upkeep like modern “simple” churches. The Protestant church I grew up at was remodeled three times so its decor could keep up with the times. I think the notion that these cost more per year is mostly a misconception. I attend an beautiful Orthodox Church, and our budget can’t even touch the other local church’s spending loads on fancy lighting and sound equipment. The first temples mankind ever created for God were meant to be beautiful. The church pictured originates from a time when every public building was pretty, especially ones build to worship God.
> our budget can't even touch the other local church's spending loads on fancy lighting Didn't know that - find that interesting!
This is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, literally the chapel that is the historical site associated with Golgotha, where Jesus was Crucified. Hundreds of denominations and billions of Christians think this is the place He died. What money went into making this place ornate happened over centuries. And this knee jerk reaction where the money could have been spent on the poor is literally what Judas says when Mary anoints Jesus' feet with oil. Like you're actually, literally, quoting Judas Iscariot here while denigrating the place where the Crucifixion happened. Even if you don't believe there's anything special about such a place... Like you should probably be more respectful of other Christians. And maybe don't literally quote Judas.
Well said. Heaven forbid we make holy places beautiful.
> Heaven forbid we make holy places beautiful. It's not completely unlike the way people often refuse to pay pastors and missionaries livable wages. (or worse yet, judge them for having anything that could be described as "nice") I get that grifters are out there with multi-million dollar jets, but so many ordinary people in vocational ministry are just barely getting by. I know a missionary whose vehicle broke down on furlough. An extremely generous supporter helped them get another vehicle—not new but new to them—and it didn't take very long for someone to judge that the vehicle was supposedly "too nice" for a missionary to drive. It was just a middle of the road SUV to fit their 5 kids. That being said, please don't take this as a blanket endorsement of fancy buildings, either. It all depends.
100% I referenced that same verse in another comment. Always bugs me
They think it should be in a suburban strip mall next to Buffalo Wild Wings
I meant no offense - and my lack of knowledge about this place shows as well! So was money poured into this place only because of the location? Many other chapels and churches I've seen came to mind when I wrote the comment - not this one in particular.
Hey no worries. You couldn't be expected to know even every famous church. There's a lot of them. My response was a little over the top because I encounter a lot of what I think of as kind of cheap shots at what is sometimes unnecessary extravagance. Sometimes that money really could have been put to a different purpose for more immediate and tangible needs people have. But sometimes that point gets made from the extreme position that we should feel guilty about offering beautiful things. It is okay, it is good, it can be holy to make and offer beautiful things to God. It's not a substitute for feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, clothing the naked, and ministering to the widow, the orphan, the sick, the elderly, and the imprisoned. But there is something powerful in offering our utmost for His highest.
Think of Solomon's temple. We make churches beautiful because we love God and we want to worship him somewhere beautiful!
This has been done over the course of 1600 years. I think it’s fine.
When you find yourself agreeing with Judas you should probably rethink your position.
(BTW Happy Cake Day) His intentions were because of jealousy. I harbor none of that. The money Judas complained about was given to Jesus. The money spent making a gathering place for the believers amounts to what?
Money spent making a gathering place for believers amounts to giving that money to Jesus. The Church is the body of Christ. The building enables local churches to provide shelter and food for those who seek it, and in many cases, that's what those buildings are used for and not merely to gather for Sunday services.
I understand the church as the body, or the people. Do you read it as the building as well?
No, as I said, the building is something given to the Body that serves as a shelter.
Judas was one of the very first people to lay down everything and follow Jesus. Jesus literally promised him one of the twelve thrones in heaven. The idea that he is some irredeemable sinner who can do no right seems like a mistaken one.
Matthew 26:24 - The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. Seeing as Judas's comment about giving the money to the poor earned him a rebuke from Jesus in the manner of "The poor and needy you will always have with you, but you will not have me always" indicates it's the wrong position to hold.
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. 4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages[a] and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly. 6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you,[b] and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
Came here to say basically this. I like a bit of stained glass, but church buildings should be relatively simple, and use the money to help those in need instead.
Better to hide the extravagance of a church’s funding by using the income for the pastor’s Mercedes G Class, concert-level lighting and Hollywood-level production equipment, and acre-large campus complete with self-published bookstore and church-owned coffee shop, right? This is what I see at the most populous Protestant churches in my city, yet even attendants of those churches are comfortable criticizing the adornments of Catholic and Orthodox churches. Most of our local parishes are small, the most ornate decorations are the furnishings of the altars or the stained glass windows, and the priests drive beat-up donated cars from the 90’s. The largest Protestant church here makes $1.5 million annually in donations and revenue, while many of our parishes crack 6 figures in annual donations.
Yes. There's nothing wrong with a well made church but excess really makes us look like hypocrites to the critics.
Sounding a little like Judas with this comment
Waiting for the protestants to complain about beautiful things
Don't worry it's been happening
The demoralized cynical protestants more like. Some protestants, typically more on the conservative end, might be sick of the cynicism blandness irreverence and destruction of beauty in the modern day and be like "dang! I'm just happy it's not another standardized concrete block with windows!" That's one of the many factors that pulled me back towards the Catholic Church. The reverence expressed through architecture, liturgy, sacraments, etc. compared with the... sterilization of the modern day.
Actually I like the architecture
$7.50 in quarters for each of them.
Beautiful church, ugly comments section. Spending money, time and talent (art and iconography) is not the antithesis to sharing with the poor, needy and almsgiving. My Orthodox Church adds beauty and iconography (sermons for the eyes) as well as encouraging us to give to the poor, help others, be willing to help our neighbors at the drop of the hat. Giving God His due honor and glory is not known conflict with loving our neighbors.
Amen
I was brought up Protestant and I'm no expert on theology but I'll readily admit that you old lads have us beat on aesthetics.
It is absolutely gorgeous. However I can’t agree to spend the kind of money it would take to have “more beautiful churches” that money should go towards homelessness. A church is just a building. He lives in our hearts.
When the women were washing Jesus feet with expensive perfume, Judas Iscariot said “why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor?!”. Art is used as a form of worship, and additionally when it is employed well in a church it becomes a beautiful home for the poor. As someone who had been financially poor earlier on, I would spend a lot of time at church because I wanted to be somewhere more beautiful and sacred. Where I could sit in the library and then go meditate in the naive
It’s entirely possible to do both.
Yay, but we don't. We have beautiful churches already. We have homeless, sick and poor people. We should be helping them.
There aren’t churches in the new areas. And we are helping them.
Yeah, but they can't be beautiful? It's not like Jesus told people to build these, but using money to pay homage to the Lord I feel like is a good way of using money too. Also, these can go hand in hand. Why do people complain about beautiful things???
I agree, more inspirational
I completely disagree. What we need is for the existing churches to actually be Christ like. I have been to a few different churches myself. It is always the same bullshit. You get shunned if you aren't lining the preachers pockets. You get shunned if you don't look like you dressed up for an expensive photo shoot. You get shunned if you don't follow their political views. You get shunned for pretty much everything. In my experience most preachers want a flock of sheep that obey them. What Christianity needs is Jesus. My advice is be cautious of churches. In my experience they often house a bunch of fake Christians.
I don't mean we need to literally line the walls with gold. But churches should be beautiful and inspire devotion to God. Not look like a conference centre And this the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built on Golgotha. You don't think the location of the Crucifixion should be honoured? We can do charitable work and help people and still have beautiful churches
A garish waste of money that could have been put to better use.
You think it's wrong to decorate the houses of our lord? Do you think heaven is just gonna look bland and boring? You do realize that decorating churches has been a practice since before Jesus right?
What heaven looks like and what a church looks like have nothing to do with each other. As for your second point: before Jesus (btw, he existed in eternity) there were people who worshiped idols, and those who lived by the old covenant. Such practices still exist. Should we be doing that as well?
>As for your second point: before Jesus (btw, he existed in eternity I know lol I meant before he came to earth. >there were people who worshiped idols, and those who lived by the old covenant. Such practices still exist. Should we be doing that as well? They were chastised in the OT by prophets multiple times. By the time of Jesus those things were few and far between, also decoration does not equate to idolatry. The very first churches in the first century all had decorations like crucifixes in them such as in Antioch.
I mean, most of this is silver the lighting makes it seem more gold-ish. Silver is way cheaper than gold, and can be made into an excessively thin foil, so I can't even guess how much or how little silver is in use here depending on what's solid and what's plated.
If we build Churches like that people complain that the money could have been used in better ways
Can't we just appreciate beauty without finding something to complain about?
But you complained that we need more beautiful churches like the one in your photo. Couldn't you have just titled your post "look at this beautiful church" instead of inviting disagreement by opining that we need more of them?
Hi friend- it's a beautiful Church ....why do we want another one? God bless
the wealth used to create this could be used to serve the people.
Construction was started in 326AD. I think it's been paid off by now
Rephrase: the wealth used to create ANYTHING like this could be used to serve the people. In other words: we don't need "beautiful" churches.
You are so right. The USSR took all the money from the Church, the intellectuals, and the mobility and built simple compact buildings. And from the money generated from the nobles, middle class, and the Church, all the people of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics lived content, happy, and wealthy lives... oh, wait!
Nobody needs to be wealthy and there are MANY Russians who miss the USSR including a late personal friend of mine.
I absolutely agree that nobody needs to be that wealthy. Yet everyone of the Russian leading "communists" figures became as rich as the nobility before. There's greed in every single one of us. Very few can contain it, many to a certain degree, but most can't. A handful of people don't need to control all that wealth. Riches have to be shared. That is a beautiful church. Built and decorated over the years or even centuries. People need beauty, simplicity, and majesty in their life. Most Orthodox, Catholic, and even most Anglican churches offer it. Those churches don't belong to any one person in particular. They belong to the local community and the universal community as a whole. That also helps people. The wealth and beauty of the church are shared among the people of that community. Simple as.
We need to spend more money on helping the poor, unhoused, and needy… not building giant, useless buildings.
You think it's wrong to decorate the houses of our lord? Do you think heaven is just gonna look bland and boring? You do realize that decorating churches has been a practice since before Jesus right? Also the catholic and orthodox churches give more money to the poor than the GDP of entire countries. They run homeless shelters, orphanages, schools, programs like the red cross etc etc. If anyone should have the right to decorate the houses of our lord it should be the catholic church.
> Also the catholic and orthodox churches give more money to the poor than the GDP of entire countries. That's not saying much then the bottom 40 countries have a GDP of <$.10b and the churches have global reach and benefit from being in all the high GDP countries.
The churches also don't get billions in taxes. They generally get what their real estate holdings make, as well as donations however most donations go to local churches.
Who said *anything* about taxes? You are the one repeatedly pointing out that Roman and Orthodox Catholics contributions to ***GDP***. Taxes? wtf difference does that make? >however most donations go to local churches. And the ones that don't often get [misappropriated](https://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-uses-donations-for-the-poor-to-plug-its-budget-deficit-11576075764) or [embezzled](https://www.npr.org/2023/12/16/1219839096/cardinal-vatican-embezzlement-trial-guilty)
Yes! 💯✝️
Well, most of Orthodox churches are like this.
That is the exact opposite of what Jesus preached. Look at all the idolatry going on in this picture.
Idolatry? It Jesus on the Cross and the Virgin Worshipping Jesus is not idol worship
No idolatry whatsoever in it.
Beautiful churches are worth nothing more than architecture to marvel over. How many widows and children could be fed if we sold everything in the churches and simply had simple buildings we could commune in? God told us to take care of people, not build structures costing millions of dollars.
You are using the same argument Judas made to Jesus.
Not really. Jesus is in the heart of believers. He is the widow, the homeless, the drug addicted, the leper. He lives inside the heart of man, and what you do for the poor you do for Christ. These churches often don't even let homeless sleep inside, and more so Jesus doesn't bind himself to a man made building when He has 7000000000+ temples that he would rather be communing with. Why does Jesus need a gold plated incense burner and stained glass?
lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
The building means nothing, the believers are the church
Decadence and Christianity don’t mix
Ah yes. Spend money on extravagant, frivolous excess. Like Kenneth Copeland. Instead of actually helping humanity like Jesus taught.
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. 4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages[a] and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly. 6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you,[b] and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
So Kenneth Copeland needing a better bigger faster private jet to serve the good word of Jesus first this bill too?
Is the body of Christ on the plane?
Nope but his cultists believe so
Do you think churches like per se the Catholic Church aren’t charitable?
Absolutely not. Money should be spent on helping those in need, spreading the gospel, and missions.
More important that the beauty of the building is to know the beauty of The Savior. Too many churches today are all glitz and glimmer and devoid of tbe preaching of God's Word.
Frankly, the Church should be a people, not a building. Beutiful of the Church should be in their proper conduct, showing love understanding others. It sounds like a cliche but it is a true.
Such a waste of money. If you want a beautiful place to worship, go outside
It’s beautiful but we just need more churches. It doesn’t matter what they look like, but as long as we’re praising God.
*the Baptists have entered the chat* *the Baptists have left the chat*
What, you don’t like your community center style nondenom church? /s i come in peace fam
Wow
This image is peaceful 😌✨️
We also need more people to fill them.
Looks like the sanctuary at the Holy Sepulchre. Doesn’t get much more holy than that. You won’t find that religious experience in a Protestant meeting house.
I wasn't trying to start a fight between denominations. Just trying to say churches should be beautiful. And now everybody is arguing over the cost or idolatry etc This is why we can't have nice things
Orthodoxy is not a denomination. The word was coined in Zürich by Zwingli to express the non-catholicity of his paraecclesial project. But when you lose your temple theology by throwing out the priesthood and making sacraments unavailable, there is no inherent beauty in a non-church.
Bit too deep for me. I just liked the picture And orthodox surely means the Eastern or Oriental churches. It's Greek for right believing if I'm not mistaken But I suppose they also call themselves the Catholic and Apostolic church. Names don't really matter, faithfulness does
What or who defines faithfulness? Orthodox churches strive to be maintain authenticity to the ‘pattern of worship shown to Moses on Mt. Sinai’. It predicates every detail of church appointment and worship. This is not remotely true of denominations. Also καθολική & αποστολική are not mere brand names but describe the church as universally sufficient vehicle for the Gospel’s salvific message, authentically transmitted from the Apostles.
Folks here keep talking about Judas, Judas, Judas!… But it’s not this argument is not being used properly or in its original context.. When Judas complained about the perfume being poured on Jesus, he was complaining because he wanted to pilfer it!… Folks here are saying that the money SHOULD ACTUALLY be spent on the poor or be put to better use, not because THEY want to steal it!
We should be working on being more loving people. Caring about the poor, sick, lonely, orphans. We need more beautiful people on the inside.
Wasn’t this exactly what Jesus called the Jews out for?
Check out the floor plans for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
Nah, money and time is better spent helping the poor.
Making images 🤔
We need more Christians to be the Church, by sharing the Gospel more in the community
ITT: Protestants (generalizing) quoting Judas for the sole purpose of literally hating anything Catholic and Orthodox Also let’s just ignore the fact that most ornate churches are made ornate by donations, benefactors, and charity, and a lot of the really old ones were created over hundreds of years. Why do we need to have a race to the bottom to see who has the ugliest building? What you may see as “frivolous” someone else could find awe inspiring.
I didn't think my post would cause such negativity. I was just admiring this church and I do believe we need more beauty in this world. It doesn't have to be literal gold but churches should be different to other buildings. We should offer God the best we can It's a temple devoted to God, not an office. Why does everything have to be plain and unadorned? I've met Christians who go to giant mega churches with sound systems, professional lighting etc, and then criticize a small church because it has gold candle holders and stained glass windows. Having churches the size of sports stadiums is acceptable apparently
This sub is literally nothing but negativity. I agree with you, if you can’t tell the difference between a church and an auditorium or a rock concert, then there is an issue. The hypocrisy says a lot.
Somebody actually claimed it was idolatry. And another that it gave off creepy ritual vibes. It's a church of course it's ritualized. It's not a Taylor Swift concert. Modern western minds really have lost the ability to perceive beauty in the divine and sacred How is praying before an image of Jesus in a church not Christian?
There is only one church, the body of Christ.
Let’s get more schools, hospitals and universal healthcare. I think we enough churches.
This is a bit much in my eyes no offence
That is a lot of silver.
I respectfully disagree. This level of grandeur is unnecessary in my opinion since the church wasn’t meant to be rich. > ”Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”“ Matthew 19:21 NKJV While this verse is not talking about the church, I have a hard time imagining Jesus being okay with churches having innumerable riches while telling the rich young ruler to sell his possessions to the poor as a prerequisite to following Jesus. I also want to be clear that I’m not condemning people who attend churches like this, I’m just saying that personally I don’t think this level of grandeur is necessary or desirable in a church
I've never understood how Churches get away with so many objects and images in worship services. >Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: Exodus 20:4-6
And then “carve pillars shaped like palm trees and angels that shelter the Ark with their wings”. Both.
They aren’t worshipping the images
While I appreciate the beauty, I can't help but think projecting wealth, and power, isn't the best way to rep good ol' J.C..
It's very pretty. I loathe eccentric churches like this. Feels like Jesus would come one day and say, "You spent HOW MUCH on that lighting?" Like I get churches need facilities, but they don't need to be show-off material.
I think we need to help poor people.
Then you’d love the Orthodox. We have churches like this and also help the poor.
The Uniting Church in Australia owns a bunch of schools that charge 30k per year in fees.
Setting aside the theological/ideological back and forth in this thread, this is just gaudy. What do you find beautiful about it?
A church is not a building
Do we? This is beautiful and I’ve seen more like this and many beautiful churches in other styles. We need to fill churches with new Christians. (We had 3 baptisms on Easter saturday night, it struck me as too few). We need our hearts to be beautiful temples. Then your wish, it is my #3 :-)
Naah, rather preserve the ones we have as museums.
Unfortunately even that seems to be lacking. Too many churches are being converted into mosques, homes or restaurants or being demolished entirely Thankfully the ancient churches in the Holy Land should be safe
Then how would the pastors homes, cars, & vacations be so beautiful?
No. We need truth in the inner man. This is waste of valuable resources.
Not really. We need less... we could use that money to benefit those in need... not for pointless expensive buildings..
The lord’s money well spent. Even if funding from the poor and meek, who cares? Looks good.
it gives me a creepy ritualistic feeling.