The Vatican A Truly Amazing place

Onesimus

Of Art, architecture, astronomy and so on. I heard in the vatican official paper that they are changing its architecture to reflect that of the 1500's so they are going backwards in time. I think that should look great. Always important to remain as counter-cultural as possible.

Should they revert to this architecture of the 1500's?

And I have never been graced with the gift of visiting. Whats it like for those of you have been?

gigino

Mary McAleese should do a piece on it on RTE's travel programme. I believe she ( and her hangers on ) were there 8 times or so since she became President, all at great taxpayers expense. Ask her.;)

alex73

Errr.. Ok its the tomb of St. Peter. But it also has Alexanders VI's Palace behind it, Not that the Pope uses it. Yes its nice. But its historic and its not central to our Faith.

Its not even the Popes Cathedra.. So if he speaks Ex-Cathedra is from St. John the latern and not the vatican :-).

However enough said. It afford protection for a Hostile Italian State in the past and today can be used to defend Christian Rights.

Onesimus

alex73 wrote: »

Errr.. Ok its the tomb of St. Peter. But it also has Alexanders VI's Palace behind it, Not that the Pope uses it. Yes its nice. But its historic and its not central to our Faith.

Its not even the Popes Cathedra.. So if he speaks Ex-Cathedra is from St. John the latern and not the vatican :-).

However enough said. It afford protection for a Hostile Italian State in the past and today can be used to defend Christian Rights.

Yeah I suppose your right. In that case so is the Holy Land and the shrine of Jesus Birth. Both of which are historic and not central to our faith, and sure whats the point of giving it the honor some say its due right? :rolleyes:

alex73

Onesimus wrote: »

Yeah I suppose your right. In that case so is the Holy Land and the shrine of Jesus Birth. Both of which are historic and not central to our faith, and sure whats the point of giving it the honor some say its due right? :rolleyes:

Yes without a doubt.

lmaopml

Yes, it is amazing, and very beautiful - the whole of Vatican city is one tiny place on the globe that centuries worth of history is preserved for providence for Christians - or even simply for anybody to meander through...and like any piece of artwork or beauty it tells a tale to everybody..the good, the bad, the ugly, etc. they have left their footprints somewhere about...

There are strange tales and tales of woe, renaissance, reformation etc. and love etc. etc. behind every brick...

..and no other is as unique and lovely imo, and represents in it's very nature humankind reaching for God..

The Catacombs ( perhaps a morbid fascination? ) are the highlight for me. In particular St. Peter the Apostle himself. The 'history' - so rich, so sad too, and so hopeful...along with the literature left behind that many grapple with, but yet here it is - The Vatican.

Onesimus

alex73 wrote: »

Yes without a doubt.

So...The whole point of a pilgrimage being a visit to Jerusalem to honor the birth place of Christ or honoring the saints by visiting the Vatican who by the dozen walked it's halls, lived, breathed and were martyred there.....you dont believe in pilgrimages and giving these saints and Christ himself the honor he is due by visiting such shrines? Seems a little strange.

alex73

Onesimus wrote: »

So...The whole point of a pilgrimage being a visit to Jerusalem to honor the birth place of Christ or honoring the saints by visiting the Vatican who by the dozen walked it's halls, lived, breathed and were martyred there.....you dont believe in pilgrimages and giving these saints and Christ himself the honor he is due by visiting such shrines? Seems a little strange.

Sorry if I give the wrong impression. I do believe we should honer the tomb of St. Peter he was head of the Apostles. I do like the Vatican a lot. But if you go to the Vatican museums you will see a palace similar to other kings Palaces in Europe. It was styled for a King because Alexander styled himself as a King, not really a good example for a Pope.

But as far as the tomb of St. Peter. yes its an amazing place. We should respect it.

Onesimus

And so what if it's in that style? King Solomon, King David who spoke directly to God and had a palace ring any bells?

I presume you are talking about His Holiness Alexander II? who lived from 1061-73. The Vatican was well palaced out before then. Regardless of whoever built it. It's our Palace to house the Greatest of Kings, Jesus Christ himself. Most Churches look like Kings Palaces and why shouldnt they? they house Our Lord.

The Vatican housed many saints and it wasnt built for Alexander II it was built for Christ. Your just another example of a Catholic who likes to win the admiration of secularists perusing this forum.

Onesimus

Doc Farrell

Calm down dear, he might be a Franciscan too!

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

And I have never been graced with the gift of visiting. Whats it like for those of you have been?

Much the same as the grand designs you see in any other imperial city with the same kind of motivation behind them in all likelyhood. They are striking (if the equivilent of an architectural basball bat) until you realise that the money to build them came at someones cost.

Kind of knocks the sheen off things...

Keaton

The Pope is Christ's Vicar, the prime minister of His Kingdom. Why shouldn't he have a palace? Any Pope is only 'passing through' and so, for all the weight of office they bear, Popes deserve the solitude and peace that a palace offers.

The great sites of Christian history have been cherished from the start, with churches built on the sites. We ought to treasure and conserve them. It is a very Catholic thing to do!

psychward

Onesimus wrote: »

Of Art, architecture, astronomy and so on.

I can't dispute it's architectural beauty but why astronomy ? Once I saw Astronomy being mentioned I seemed to remember some chap who said the Earth revolved around the Sun and we know what happened to him

alex73

Keaton wrote: »

Popes deserve the solitude and peace that a palace offers.

Hmmm. No, The Pope needs no Palace. The Whole vatican complex is inherited from another era. Reality is Christ had no Palaces and his message does not need a Palace, neither does the Catholic church.

That said, The Vatican and its Palace has been inherited and houses some of the most important works of ART, like the Sixtine Chapel, If it had not been patroned we would not have it. Ironic really because in part it was the construction and the wealth of the day that partly Caused the reformation.

So as Catholics lets not kid ourselves, no money, wealth, palaces are needed to really Follow Christ. He had none of these things. The Status Quo of the Vatican is a result of 2000 years. Popes did not even live in the Vatican until recently, The true papal palace is now the Italian Government building.

I do know that the current and past Pope only really use their Papal apartment, They don't live in a Palace.




FYI by Vatican I mean everything except St. Peters Basilica.

Onesimus

psychward wrote: »

I can't dispute it's architectural beauty but why astronomy ? Once I saw Astronomy being mentioned I seemed to remember some chap who said the Earth revolved around the Sun and we know what happened to him

Yup. I beleive in the Geocentric model. Both Helio and Geo are unproven theories scientifically. Until Science proves Heliocentric model It forces me to remain with the literal sense of scripture that the Earth is the centre of the universe and everything else revolves around it. The Church however allows people to choose either helio or Geo.

Debate Debate Imminent!!! but it's not what this topic is about so one is not welcome or will be responded to should you decide to retort.

Newsite

Onesimus wrote: »

Regardless of whoever built it. It's our Palace to house the Greatest of Kings, Jesus Christ himself. Most Churches look like Kings Palaces and why shouldnt they? they house Our Lord.

The Vatican housed many saints and it wasnt built for Alexander II it was built for Christ. Your just another example of a Catholic who likes to win the admiration of secularists perusing this forum.

Onesimus

Keaton wrote: »

The Pope is Christ's Vicar, the prime minister of His Kingdom. Why shouldn't he have a palace? Any Pope is only 'passing through' and so, for all the weight of office they bear, Popes deserve the solitude and peace that a palace offers.

The great sites of Christian history have been cherished from the start, with churches built on the sites. We ought to treasure and conserve them. It is a very Catholic thing to do!

Here's a question for you both - if Jesus returned tomorrow, do you really think He would live in a magnificent palace full of riches and priceless artwork, or do you think you'd find Him outside on the gritty streets of Rome preaching and talking with the people?

So why then does the Pope need a palace?

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.

Matt. 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Onesimus

The premise of this thread is not to have a RC Vs. protestenism theological dispute.

It is to discuss the Vatican as a truly amazing place and whether or not one thinks if they should decide to go back to the architecture of the 1500's.

Again this thread is not a theological dispute. If you wanna have one of those then go to the mega thread that is designed for that.

Newsite

Onesimus wrote: »

The premise of this thread is not to have a RC Vs. protestenism theological dispute.

It is to discuss the Vatican as a truly amazing place and whether or not one thinks if they should decide to go back to the architecture of the 1500's.

Again this thread is not a theological dispute. If you wanna have one of those then go to the mega thread that is designed for that.

Fair enough. I was still interested in the answers to these questions though.

I've been myself, back in 2008. It was early in the year so wasn't too scorching in Rome. I was pretty impressed. The basilica itself is pretty cool, a lot of ornate sculpture and architecture, as you'd expect. Found it all very grandiose...the square itself is pretty cool too. The Sistine chapel is pretty amazing too. Am surprised you've never been Onesimus!

Onesimus

Fair enough. I was still interested in the answers to these questions though.

Then take them somewhere someone has the energy and time to entertain them.

I've been myself, back in 2008. It was early in the year so wasn't too scorching in Rome. I was pretty impressed. The basilica itself is pretty cool, a lot of ornate sculpture and architecture, as you'd expect. Found it all very grandiose...the square itself is pretty cool too. The Sistine chapel is pretty amazing too.

Did you find many pilgrims and tourists there?

Newsite

Onesimus wrote: »

Then take them somewhere someone has the energy and time to entertain them.



Did you find many pilgrims and tourists there?

Well we there in February so prob not as many tourists and the like around as say in May or September (best times to visit Rome I reckon). But there were still a good few people around - lots of them on tours of the Basilica.

psychward

Onesimus wrote: »

Yup. I beleive in the Geocentric model. Both Helio and Geo are unproven theories scientifically. Until Science proves Heliocentric model It forces me to remain with the literal sense of scripture that the Earth is the centre of the universe and everything else revolves around it. The Church however allows people to choose either helio or Geo.

Debate Debate Imminent!!! but it's not what this topic is about so one is not welcome or will be responded to should you decide to retort.

I'm not looking for an off topic debate as such. I'm just interested in finding out where the reference to astronomy came from since it appeared in the opening post ? There were obvious advances in architecture in the Vatican but (despite years of religious instruction in school) I never heard of it being a hothouse for the advancement of astronomy.

georgieporgy

psychward wrote: »

I'm not looking for an off topic debate as such. I'm just interested in finding out where the reference to astronomy came from since it appeared in the opening post ? There were obvious advances in architecture in the Vatican but (despite years of religious instruction in school) I never heard of it being a hothouse for the advancement of astronomy.

http://vaticanobservatory.org/index.php

The Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It has its headquarters at the papal summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, Italy, outside Rome. Its dependent research center, the Vatican Observatory Research Group, is hosted by Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
The Vatican Observatory Research Group operates the 1.8m Alice P. Lennon Telescope with its Thomas J. Bannan Astrophysics Facility, known together as the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT). This is located at the Mount Graham International Observatory (MGIO) in southeastern Arizon

hinault

As a practicing RC, I've visited the Vatican twice.

For the person interested in history and art, it is a superb place to visit. The Vatican museum is literally stuffed with painting and artefacts and it took what felt like hours to do the tour of the museum.

As a pilgrim, the place left me cold I have to say. Too much wealth. Too much pomp and circumstance and far too much wealth for my liking.

yutta

Onesimus wrote: »

Yup. I beleive in the Geocentric model. Both Helio and Geo are unproven theories scientifically. Until Science proves Heliocentric model It forces me to remain with the literal sense of scripture that the Earth is the centre of the universe and everything else revolves around it. The Church however allows people to choose either helio or Geo.

Debate Debate Imminent!!! but it's not what this topic is about so one is not welcome or will be responded to should you decide to retort.

I suggest you read up on some Catholic sources before you type again.

yutta

Newsite wrote: »

Here's a question for you both - if Jesus returned tomorrow, do you really think He would live in a magnificent palace full of riches and priceless artwork, or do you think you'd find Him outside on the gritty streets of Rome preaching and talking with the people?

So why then does the Pope need a palace?

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.

Matt. 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The cost of the artwork was minimal to begin with. The cost of maintaining the artwork comes from the profits of tourism.

Also, the Church are not stuck in the 1500s. Look at the Pope Paul VI hall where the Pope regularly meets and greets the public and the media.

gigino

yutta wrote: »

The cost of the artwork was minimal to begin with.

it still took hundreds of thousands of man hours even centuries ago - the cost of the riches and artwork was astronomical then too. Ordinary people even the professional well to do people did not have similar. Its an interesting point he makes - "if Jesus returned tomorrow, do you really think He would live in a magnificent palace full of riches and priceless artwork, or do you think you'd find Him outside on the gritty streets of Rome preaching and talking with the people? So why then does the Pope need a palace?"
And even if the cost of the artwork was minimal then ....and much higher now - surely now is the time to sell it... if Jesus returned tomorrow, he would order the treasures, shares, riches, and artwork to be sold , so the poor could live instead of die in the third world ?
If Jesus returned tomorrow, would he be "truly amazed" at such wealth in the Vatican, such pomp and splendour, or would be be disappointed and disgusted ? Did not Jesus express disgusta and disapproval at wealth, saying it was harder for a rich man to get in to heaven than a camel to get through the eye of a needle.

Manach

The artwork of the Vatican is impressive and held in trust for the Catholic community's heritage as an example of the artistic excellence when turned to the divine, instead of say sharks immersed in formaldehyde.

Keaton

gigino wrote: »

"if Jesus returned tomorrow, do you really think He would live in a magnificent palace full of riches and priceless artwork, or do you think you'd find Him outside on the gritty streets of Rome preaching and talking with the people? So why then does the Pope need a palace?"

if Jesus returned tomorrow, he would order the treasures, shares, riches, and artwork to be sold , so the poor could live instead of die in the third world ?
If Jesus returned tomorrow, would he be "truly amazed" at such wealth in the Vatican, such pomp and splendour, or would be be disappointed and disgusted ? Did not Jesus express disgusta and disapproval at wealth, saying it was harder for a rich man to get in to heaven than a camel to get through the eye of a needle.

Six days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.

They gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served, while Lazarus was one of those reclining at table with him.

Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.

Then Judas the Iscariot, one [of] his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said,

“Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?”

He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.

So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial.

You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

* * *

It is funny that some claim to know exactly the mind of Christ despite an apparent unfamiliarity with the Holy Scriptures. I reckon if Christ returned visibly for a short time, he'd be gracious enough to accept the care and luxury lavished on Him, be it in the Vatican or in your own home.

Newsite

Keaton wrote: »

Six days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.

They gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served, while Lazarus was one of those reclining at table with him.

Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.

Then Judas the Iscariot, one [of] his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said,

“Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?”

He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.

So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial.

You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

* * *

It is funny that some claim to know exactly the mind of Christ despite an apparent unfamiliarity with the Holy Scriptures. I reckon if Christ returned visibly for a short time, he'd be gracious enough to accept the care and luxury lavished on Him, be it in the Vatican or in your own home.

Em. Not seeing any connection here...

gigino

Manach wrote: »

The artwork of the Vatican is impressive and held in trust for the Catholic community's heritage as an example of the artistic excellence when turned to the divine

so hoard the billions worth of art, pomp and splendour.
discourage contraception so populations snowball to unsustainable levels, putting huge strain on the planets resources.
and do not sell the art in the vatican so millions may live.

its a truly amazing place all right.

Jaden

I went there in 2003 on my Honeymoon. We were staying in Rome for a few days, and the Vatical tour was high on the list. We went early on a Thursday morning to be there for the opening, to avoid the madness that is lunchtime.

There are 4 walks through the museum, all colour coded with a rough time taken to cover each. I think the Green tour is the longest at about 2 1/2 hours. It the one we took. It is bacially several kilometers of wall to wall riches.

I remember sitting in the foyer at the end of it all, (sore feet!). It was the first time I'd thought to myself that there may not be a God. The idea you could concentrate that much wealth in one place gave me a very empty feeling inside.

Newsite

Jaden wrote: »

I went there in 2003 on my Honeymoon. We were staying in Rome for a few days, and the Vatical tour was high on the list. We went early on a Thursday morning to be there for the opening, to avoid the madness that is lunchtime.

There are 4 walks through the museum, all colour coded with a rough time taken to cover each. I think the Green tour is the longest at about 2 1/2 hours. It the one we took. It is bacially several kilometers of wall to wall riches.

I remember sitting in the foyer at the end of it all, (sore feet!). It was the first time I'd thought to myself that there may not be a God. The idea you could concentrate that much wealth in one place gave me a very empty feeling inside.

Don't be discouraged. It's because as much as those who built it and others would like to believe that that is where He bases Himself,God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.

yutta

gigino wrote: »

so hoard the billions worth of art, pomp and splendour.

The Pope lives in an apartment, not a palace.

gigino wrote: »

discourage contraception so populations snowball to unsustainable levels, putting huge strain on the planets resources.

Wow. Do you have any inkling of understanding about the use of contraception from a Catholic perspective?

gigino wrote: »

and do not sell the art in the vatican so millions may live.

If you got all the world's assets and divided them up equally (the ultimate "equality" you might say), it wouldn't be very long before one guy trades in his assets for prostitutes, cocaine, cigarettes and alcohol while the other guy gets richer. It wouldn't be long before someone starts a battle to take someone else's assets. After a short time, 1% will own 99% of the assets yet again.

In conclusion, if the Vatican "sold" all their assets, it might make some dent in African poverty. But long term, it's better that the Vatican inspire the faithful and fund the numerous charitable organisations from the fruits of this wealth. (wealth is not inherently evil).

And what have you done to help the poor in Africa? Or do you just prefer to talk about it on internet forums populated by the lower middle chattering classes?

gigino wrote: »

its a truly amazing place all right.

Ever been there yourself?

yutta

Newsite wrote: »

Don't be discouraged. It's because as much as those who built it and others would like to believe that that is where He bases Himself,God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.

What about the CofI temples? Or is it just Catholic wealth that you think is evil?

Newsite

yutta wrote: »

What about the CofI temples? Or is it just Catholic wealth that you think is evil?

Who said 'evil'? Those are your words only.

I think you do get the gist of what I'm saying.

yutta wrote: »

What about the CofI temples?

Well temples are temples, aren't they?

Manach

Newsite wrote: »

Who said 'evil'? Those are your words only.

I think you do get the gist of what I'm saying.

As you mention scripture, perhaps the parables of the Talents apply. The Vatican has made full use of its resources to create a marvel and also maintain its charity goals. Compare and contrast that with the modern secular metropole of Las Vegas or Wallstreet. Please feel free to join the protests there.

Jaden

Whatever small belief I had left in God in general, and Catholicism specifically, died in this thread.

Mind, you, I've been reading this forum intently for the last fortnight, so it was enevitable.

But here and now is the marker that says "No more".

yutta

Jaden wrote: »

Whatever small belief I had left in God in general, and Catholicism specifically, died in this thread.

Mind, you, I've been reading this forum intently for the last fortnight, so it was enevitable.

But here and now is the marker that says "No more".

Anti-Catholics antagonising Catholics is becoming more and more common in modern Ireland. So don't be surprised when the spikes come out.

psychward

yutta wrote: »

Anti-Catholics antagonising Catholics is becoming more and more common in modern Ireland. So don't be surprised when the spikes come out.

Theres definitely the perception of a profound gap between materialism and spirituality. I think it's right that someone maintains these architectural gems and keeps them in good order as they are world heritage sites but what percentage of church income overall would be spent on carrying out ''good works'' etc compared to paying for the trappings of pomp and ceremony etc?

catbear

I love visiting Rome but I believe to view the Vatican and it's adornments without taking in the full history of the city itself is a wasted trip.

From Trajans markets, the forum, right up to the converted tombs of the emperors, the story of Rome is one of adaptation and renewal. The last remnant being the Vatican city itself.

I'm not RC but I found the place fascinating as a piece of history. Couldn't possibly comment about any spiritual significance but hopefully on my next trip to Rome I can secure a tour of the excavated Roman road lined with tombs right underneath the Vatican itself. I had the tour booked before but I think I had had my fill of european museums at the time and needed something less intriguing.

The Quadratic Equation

Jaden wrote: »

I went there in 2003 on my Honeymoon. We were staying in Rome for a few days, and the Vatical tour was high on the list. We went early on a Thursday morning to be there for the opening, to avoid the madness that is lunchtime.

There are 4 walks through the museum, all colour coded with a rough time taken to cover each. I think the Green tour is the longest at about 2 1/2 hours. It the one we took. It is bacially several kilometers of wall to wall riches.

I remember sitting in the foyer at the end of it all, (sore feet!). It was the first time I'd thought to myself that there may not be a God. The idea you could concentrate that much wealth in one place gave me a very empty feeling inside.

It is a museum like any other national museum, in Paris, London etc. It belongs to the people, for the people, all these human arts and masterpieces are open to anyone and everyone regardless of class or creed. Would you rather it belonged to wealthy private individuals and was kept hidden away in their homes for only their enjoyment ?

The Quadratic Equation

psychward wrote: »

Theres definitely the perception of a profound gap between materialism and spirituality. I think it's right that someone maintains these architectural gems and keeps them in good order as they are world heritage sites but what percentage of church income overall would be spent on carrying out ''good works'' etc compared to paying for the trappings of pomp and ceremony etc?

Like any national museum it costs money to keep it open and available to the public.

The Catholic church distributes more money and financially supports more charities and aid agencies worldwide than any other organisation in the world.

Jaden

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

It is a museum like any other national museum, in Paris, London etc. It belongs to the people, for the people, all these human arts and masterpieces are open to anyone and everyone regardless of class or creed. Would you rather it belonged to wealthy private individuals and was kept hidden away in their homes for only their enjoyment ?

Let me explain my perspective by asking a question. What need does the church have that is fulfiled by even having this museum?

The Quadratic Equation

Jaden wrote: »

Let me explain my perspective by asking a question. What need does the church have that is fulfiled by even having this museum?

Let me explain my perspective by asking a question, as the answer is the same.
What need is fulfilled by public museums in any other city ?

catbear

Jaden wrote: »

Let me explain my perspective by asking a question. What need does the church have that is fulfiled by even having this museum?

Revenue? As a non RC my visit to the Vatican museum was no different in formality than entering the British Museum, the Prado or the MET. A fantastic collection of items from early etruscan to the recent past. The map rooms were very interesting but the scale of what was on offer was exhausting.
It's a business, just like publishing. If the church want to raise revenue then how they do it matters only to their members as long as it doesn't break common laws. They even made money from publishing porn in Germany; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/revealed-publisher-owned-by-the-catholic-church-sells-pornography-6257572.html
Now that's enterprising!

Jaden

Muesems exist to preserve our history and heritage, or to showcase artistic and scientific achievement. This I believe we both already know and accept.

Governments and private institutions do it because either it is the will of the people whom they serve, or because they are personally motivated to do so.

What motivates the Church to amass such collections? I would not be suprised to discover it has the single largest art collection on earth.

What does God want it for?

gigino

Jaden wrote: »

What motivates the Church to amass such collections?

same as what motivates anyone to amass such collections. Greed. If you google "Vatican wealth" you will find thousands of reliable sources / research which shows the Roman Catholic Church also has massive reserves of shares + Gold + property worldwide as well. ...something like 93 billion worth.

Jaden wrote: »

What does God want it for

God does not want it. The hierarchy of the RCC and God are 2 different things.

The Quadratic Equation

Jaden wrote: »

Muesems exist to preserve our history and heritage, or to showcase artistic and scientific achievement. This I believe we both already know and accept.

Governments and private institutions do it because either it is the will of the people whom they serve, or because they are personally motivated to do so.

What motivates the Church to amass such collections? I would not be suprised to discover it has the single largest art collection on earth.

What does God want it for?

You also forgot to mention education.The Vatican also has its own observatory. The Vatican state is a mere care taker of these items, open to all, for all. When Church and state in Rome were combined, and many of the Renaissance era Popes in particular, among other things, also felt socially obligated to be patrons of the arts and artists, and make such works available to all. Many of these works of art have religious and spiritual links. They are the vestiges of another era. These works were on public display from the begriming of the museum in the 16th Century. Today the Museums of the Vatican state have the same purpose and function as any other sate art museums.

The Quadratic Equation

catbear wrote: »

Revenue? As a non RC my visit to the Vatican museum was no different in formality than entering the British Museum, the Prado or the MET. A fantastic collection of items from early etruscan to the recent past. The map rooms were very interesting but the scale of what was on offer was exhausting.
It's a business, just like publishing. If the church want to raise revenue then how they do it matters only to their members as long as it doesn't break common laws.

Like most state museums, the Vatican museums actually operate at a loss. Personally I think they should try and transfer most of it over to the Italian state. Let them look after artwork and cost of preserving it for the public.

Jaden

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

You also forgot to mention education.The Vatican also has its own observatory. The Vatican state is a mere care taker of these items, open to all, for all. When Church and state in Rome were combined, and many of the Renaissance era Popes in particular, among other things, also felt socially obligated to be patrons of the arts and artists, and make such works available to all. Many of these works of art have religious and spiritual links. They are the vestiges of another era. These works were on public display from the begriming of the museum in the 16th Century. Today the Museums of the Vatican state have the same purpose and function as any other sate art museums.

So the museum is there because it's always been there, and created so that a long since dead pope wouldn't feel awkward at dinner parties? It costs the church money to provide this service, presumably removing funding from other projects.

How is running a loss making enterprise, while stockpiling vast quantities of precious art carrying out God's work on earth? Am I missing something?

The Quadratic Equation

Jaden wrote: »

So the museum is there because it's always been there, and created so that a long since dead pope wouldn't feel awkward at dinner parties? It costs the church money to provide this service, presumably removing funding from other projects.

How is running a loss making enterprise, while stockpiling vast quantities of precious art carrying out God's work on earth? Am I missing something?

Why does the Irish state not sell off our Museum collections to the homes of private foreign collectors, and close them permanently to the public to save us money ? Why does the London Museum and the Louve not do the same ?