Don't worry dude, I don't think the comment was really aimed at you. :wink:
why is the Vatican so ornamented
- Thread starter mitchymo
- Start date
Don't worry dude, I don't think the comment was really aimed at you. :wink:
eurotop40
Admired Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Posts
- 4,430
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 983
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Zurich (Switzerland)
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Also, as far as the Monarchy goes - I think they generate an invaluable amount of tourism for Britain each year.They've also given us great continuity and a sense of grandeur we wouldn't otherwise have.
This is also an interesting aspect.
During or after WW I many European monarchs were overthrown. The "blessed" last Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary Karl I (see my avatar, which is the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venice under Austrian rule - and who is still buried in Madeira - a scandal), the Emperor of Germany with all federal monarchs (e.g. the King of Saxony etc.), the Csar of Russia who was brutally murdered with his whole family and so on. The same happened after WW II, partially due to mistakes or involvement with fascist/nazi regimes, to the Soviet occupation or to the fact that the monarchs had left the country to be safe (which basically was the case for all of them). Thus the last King of Italy was exiled due to a falsified referendum etc.
My point is though that if you go to Lisbon, Vienna, Dresden, Budapest, Bucharest, Moscow NOW, and visit the cities and talk to the tourist guides etc. you still have the impression that the King or the Emperor is still living there and going to show up at any time (go and see the Spanish Horse-Riding School in Vienna, the Churches of the Kremlin, etc.). Thus, the monarchy as a source of tourist revenue is a nice story, but the physical presence of the Monarch is actually not necessarily required.
eurotop40
Admired Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Posts
- 4,430
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 983
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Zurich (Switzerland)
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
As far as I know there is a strong Catholic presence and influence in Scotland even if the Church of Scotland is presbyterian. It is not unusual that in certain countries you have mixed religious influences. Another case is Saxony (I have visited Dresden lately :wink
where the Royal House was catholic but the majority of the population lutheran.
^^*Correction.* The obelisk was brought to Rome during Caligula's reign, but it was actually moved to its current location in 1586 at the behest of Pope Sixtus V who wished it to be used as a decoration for the Vatican.
Vatican Obelisk
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,642
- Media
- 62
- Likes
- 5,043
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The Duke of Westminster is certainly a wealthy individual. His ownership of much of Westminster has to be understood within English property law. Yes he owns the freehold. For this he receives a (miniscule and falling) ground rent, and in return he has a whole bunch of obligations as freeholder - basically he has to ensure that there is a proper management company or similar to deal with communal costs and expenses. Until recently the system was that leases on the freehold reverted to the Duke of Westminster every 99 years. However a change in the law means it is now normal to extend a lease to (usually) 999 years. This is a routine process, and while it certainly keeps solicitors in business and has costs attached it is something that just about every leaseholder has done or will do. So yes the Duke of Westminster as freeholder owns the land, but the leaseholders have the use of that land until 3008. This applies everywhere in England where there is leasehold property - ie just about all flats. Wales and Northern Ireland broadly follow England; Scotland has a completely different system.
Many individuals who inherit wealth do of course make major charity donations, or get involved in community projects. The Duke of Westminster does.
But of course they are individuals, not a church.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,642
- Media
- 62
- Likes
- 5,043
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
As far as I know there is a strong Catholic presence and influence in Scotland even if the Church of Scotland is presbyterian. It is not unusual that in certain countries you have mixed religious influences. Another case is Saxony (I have visited Dresden lately :wink
Information was collected in the 2001 census. Of those who said they were Christian, 65% belonged to the Church of Scotland (a presbyterian church), 10% other protestant and 25% Roman Catholic. Scotland today has three protestants for every catholic. There are some areas of Scotland where the Roman Catholic church is strong, basically some suburbs of Glasgow and some parts of the Highlands and Islands.
Scottish law has a protestant and even presbyterian character. Almost all monarchs (from James VI/I onwards) have been protestant (and James VII/II who wasn't was kicked out). UK legislation for centuries discriminated against Roman Catholics (and others who did not conform with the established church). There is a presbyterian streak in the character of much Scottish business dealing. The ancient universities are rooted in presbyterian tradition. The presbyterians are numerically a majority, but they also have influence above that granted by numbers alone.
The recent decision by a Scottish minister to release the Lockerbie bomber was justified by him in language that is familiar from every presbyterian pulpit, and the legal system which permitted the release was effectively a presbyterian sysyem.
And Catholics/early Christians were hell-bent on not looking Jewish - which is partly why it was easy to adopt pagan customs such as Sunday worship and Christmas, etc.
(bit off-topic, sorry!).This is a great thread, btw - I think we should forward it to the Pope! :biggrin1:
And Catholics/early Christians were hell-bent on not looking Jewish - which is partly why it was easy to adopt pagan customs such as Sunday worship and Christmas, etc.
This is a great thread, btw - I think we should forward it to the Pope! :biggrin1:
That's true, too, joll.
The good-loving Buddhist grandmother goes to hell for not being born-again, but the convicted killer gets born-again and he's heaven bound.
Justification through faith, not works.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,642
- Media
- 62
- Likes
- 5,043
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Also, as far as the Monarchy goes - I think they generate an invaluable amount of tourism for Britain each year.
A point we often forget about the monarchy is that it is a very cheap system. The Queen costs far less than sat the President of France (a country of roughly comparable size) and the costs associated with having a royal family are a drop in the ocean compared with say the US presidential system.
Most people, most of the time are tolerably happy with the job the Queen does. This is a sharp contrast with the position of any elected president (look at all the anti-Obama threads on this board). If we created a UK constitution from scratch I doubt we would dream up a monarchy, especially not one where the monarch is also head of the established church, but hey it works, so don't fix it.
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Posts
- 4,131
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 100
- Points
- 133
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Yep, i should do.
No i don't feel attacked in any way by you Eurotop.
There are only two members on lpsg that i think enjoy giving me grief and the evidence of one is clearly in his postings
That's true, too, joll.
The good-loving Buddhist grandmother goes to hell for not being born-again, but the convicted killer gets born-again and he's heaven bound.
Actually that's what the Evangelical Protestants teach.
Roman Catholicism teaches something different: Those who have live a virtuous life in the search of God, who thru no fault of their own, never knew Christ, or rejected Christ because of the bad examples of Christians, are judged by the ardor of their search for divine truth, as framed by the culture they find themselves in. Their salvation, however, still comes from Christ's perfect atonement of death on the cross: their merit is that they acted "Chistlike" without knowing it.
Heaven is not a speakeasy. You don't give the secret knock, whisper "Jesus" thru a peephole, and are let in. So your grandmother, who practiced the virtuous teachings of the Budda is probably safe from the fires of hell. Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, is probably not.
also another Protestant teaching. "Faith without works is dead": you are required to act like Jesus, not just shout his name like a rock star.
Ah! But if Ted Kennedy honestly confessed to his (ahem) "transgression" then he has been forgiven for his sin and so he'll go to heaven.
It isn't sufficient to "honestly" confess. You must be truly story for what you've done, and you must do everything in your power not to do it again.
This isn't a farce like the movie "Dogma". There are no loopholes: you can't fool God. He knows who cares and who doesn't.
I was always taught you need faith and works (Bible certainly seems to indicate that) - but maybe that's what people are saying.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
Jason,
I read your posts with rapt attention and admiration for the depth and breadth of your knowledge. But on this particular point (quoted above), I need to point out that ELCA Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodist all have different ways of acknowledging the "true presence" of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist.
None of them would characterize it as the same as the RCC transubstantiation, but neither would they deny Christ's presence or claim that Holy Communion is simply a memorial excercise.
And to another point you made, Lutherans and Episcopalians would not stress the direct relationship between a person and God over the notion that God is mediated through others (but not necessarily only clergy). Lutherans especially expect to be ministers for and to be ministered by others perhaps more strongly than they expect some direct personal communication from God.
You will find a Crucifix here and there in a Luthern church, but not very prominently displayed. The Resurrection is raised to a level of much higher importance than Jesus' sacrifice during the Crucifixion. But the Crucifixion is acknowledged and talked about. Lutherans would say, however, that the Bible should be read while "sitting at the foot of the empty cross".
Although I think these are important points, I don't want to discourage anyone from studying Jason's excellent posts.
He may have to spend much time in Purgatory. Penance is not something you can escape unless you get "Divine Mercy"; but for more grave sins, that just isn't going to "float", either.
In Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, you just can't ask Jesus to forgive you for having been a murderer and it's all over. Evangelical Protestantism, though, teaches something very different: even that cold-blooded murderer can have that "blessed assurance" if he just accepts Jesus into his heart.
A lot of people are unaware that Catholics believe that good people from other faiths can end up in heaven, too. Sadly, this is not the view of many conservative Protestant denominations. That's why they work so hard to convert even Catholics.
Last edited:
I think we're arguing the same point to different degrees of finesse. I'm very cautious about saying what the, "true presence," is given that there are some deeply personal beliefs which I do not want to tread upon. I don't deny that communion in Protestant denominations is an important commemoration. Communion is, however, a very different celebration from that within the Catholic church. The difference between transubstantiation and the consumption of bread and wine is simply enormous in their differing theologies. To my knowledge, no Protestant church believes in transubstantiation.
Certainly you know the ELCA better than I do. I'm no expert on Lutheran theology. I will state that even beginning with the 95 Theses, Luther placed limits on the authority of the Pope even when speaking ex cathedra. This idea alone, those simple points of argument, were shattering enough to get Luther excommunicated and made a criminal. Go through the Augsburg Confession and its extreme difference to Catholicism becomes obvious. It clearly states that salvation is only achieved through faith in the gospels, not through the grace of the church, and therefore God (in the Catholic faith), itself. It states that mass is held only so that people may worship together. Mass in Catholicism is a rite used to bring God into the presence of the faithful via the invocation of the priest. When I say there is no requirement for clergy, I mean there is no need for an intercessor to bring salvation to a believer. In Protestantism, sola fide, Article Four, is enough. Lutherans may not realize it, but to Catholicism, that's a huge heresy if it is not followed by acts. I've seen various apologists for both sides try to reconcile the two and I think, at least as most churches seem to preach, that reconciliation is impossible. Catholicism believes that the church itself is necessary as an intercessor to administer sacraments, conduct mass, holy communion, and hear confession. Without these things, salvation is impossible (save perhaps for those who are truly ignorant of Christ), though my old third grade teacher insisted that, "Unbaptized babies, Hottentots, and savages go to limbo through no fault of their own."
Certainly the crucifixion is a major point of any Christian denomination. Without it there would be no resurrection, no sacrifice, and no salvation. Various denominations emphasize it differently, but for the most part, Protestantism focuses on the promise of everlasting life given to the faithful by the resurrection. It does not focus upon the sacrifice of God given to make that promise. The Catholic and Orthodox churches do. Both Protestant and Catholic churches believe in the crucifixion and resurrection, but the emphasis on which of these events is more inspirational to the faithful is different. That is reflected in the difference between faith with acts (like sacrifice, charity, and selfless acts), and faith alone (the miracle of resurrection) as discussed above.
I wasn't speaking of Kennedy as a murderer. I don't think he planned to kill Mary Jo Kopechne. I think he didn't do enough to save her and tried to cover it up, but he didn't plan to go over the bridge. Maybe that's negligent homicide or manslaughter. I'd like to believe that Kennedy was remorseful for his actions though if he was, he never stated it publicly and I find that reprehensible.
If Kennedy (as an example) was granted absolution for his sin in the confessional, then he's absolved of the sin so long as his soul was pure in asking for that forgiveness. Insincere confession absolves no one of anything.
He also had the option to escape all temporal punishment by getting an indulgence. The church still dispenses them.
