Spirituality and money

Paul Jones7 said:hmm... what about prebendaries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prebendary

As I understand it, the clergy are merely granted use of church property for their own enjoyment—they act as stewards rather than owners. It isn't their personal property to sell, distribute, or dispose of in any way.

He doesn't actually own it; it was simply entrusted to him. It’s much like how the Pope doesn't even own the vestments he wears—they are granted to him for his use and service, yet they aren't his personal property. Once his tenure ends, those same items are passed on to the next Pope.

You can sell things for a profit, or you can simply give what you own to someone you love because you hold the title—isn't that right? 😁 And they simply can't. Specifically the Pope or those high-ranking clergy.

And that’s considered a good thing because... Is there anything more fundamental than the art of tying knots? Material possessions can truly lead a person astray. They have this way of steering you toward selfishness, greed, vanity, and an inflated ego. I’ve always believed there is more value in living a simple life. Personally, I don't keep much clutter around my house; I prefer having fewer items, provided they are high quality and hold some personal meaning. Even with my wardrobe, I tend to recycle pieces after each season or pass them on to others. I once read a fascinating book about a woman who practiced this lifestyle by giving small tokens, like pens or even an apple, to her students. 😁 Or something like that, but I’d always give them something along with a genuine smile—you know, from the heart.

Perhaps it's better to be free like a story. 🙂 Some might see it as a total paradox—that the more we give, the more we actually end up with. It’s true for our finances, too, not just the sense of satisfaction that comes from it.

@Susan Price30:
What’s the actual, fundamental difference here—are we talking true ownership or just possession? I mean, for someone living within the church circles, staying single, and having no offspring (at least officially 😁)?

These folks—the prebendaries, if you want to get technical—get their own salaries, which they can spend however they please on themselves. I don't think there's anything stopping them; they could even make donations
. They use what they hold just like they actually owned it
. Plus, those with authority in the hierarchy can, say, buy a car—technically, the buyer is the KC, but really, they're the ones driving it
.
The 'employees' of the KC have everything they need, and some people higher up the ladder have way more than they actually require
.
The KC holds massive wealth, but maybe not just to sustain the faith itself, but to maintain its power—real, tangible political influence—and by extension, its status
.
Now, we could speculate whether this kind of approach was actually necessary for the religion to survive. Maybe it was. But that would imply the KC doesn't quite believe that God would look after His church if it weren't busy amassing property and assets
.
Honestly, I used to doubt that the ban on marriage was primarily about protecting assets, but lately, I've come to believe that's the main reason
.

Larry Moore83 said:🤦
But aren't they at fault simply because they don't know? Is there not a certain culpability in being a student—in that state of perpetual unknowing?🧐
😁

Look, nobody can be blamed for anything, especially not someone who's still learning!

wearyhawk83 said:Look, nobody can be blamed for anything, especially not someone who's still learning!

🤣
Ignorance is truly the root of all evil, isn't it?

Paul Jones7 said:@Susan Price30:
What’s the actual, fundamental difference here—are we talking true ownership or just possession? I mean, for someone living within the church circles, staying single, and having no offspring (at least officially 😁)?

These folks—the prebendaries, if you want to get technical—get their own salaries, which they can spend however they please on themselves. I don't think there's anything stopping them; they could even make donations
. They use what they hold just like they actually owned it
. Plus, those with authority in the hierarchy can, say, buy a car—technically, the buyer is the KC, but really, they're the ones driving it
.
The 'employees' of the KC have everything they need, and some people higher up the ladder have way more than they actually require
.
The KC holds massive wealth, but maybe not just to sustain the faith itself, but to maintain its power—real, tangible political influence—and by extension, its status
.
Now, we could speculate whether this kind of approach was actually necessary for the religion to survive. Maybe it was. But that would imply the KC doesn't quite believe that God would look after His church if it weren't busy amassing property and assets
.
Honestly, I used to doubt that the ban on marriage was primarily about protecting assets, but lately, I've come to believe that's the main reason
.

What do you think? 😉 Whether you're looking at Protestants or Anglicans, my understanding is that they can marry, but once they hit retirement, they end up with absolutely nothing. They lose everything they once owned, leaving them with no assets to pass down to a spouse or their children.

They have their own priest's residence, of course, and everything else operates on the basis of a tenant rather than an owner.

It’s clearly due to Christian teachings. Both through study and practice, one learns to avoid attaching oneself to anything trivial or fleeting, focusing instead solely on what truly matters in life. And Christianity isn't even the only faith that specifically upholds this truth or this doctrine.

Susan Price30 said:What do you think? 😉 Whether you're looking at Protestants or Anglicans, my understanding is that they can marry, but once they hit retirement, they end up with absolutely nothing. They lose everything they once owned, leaving them with no assets to pass down to a spouse or their children.

They have their own priest's residence, of course, and everything else operates on the basis of a tenant rather than an owner.

It’s clearly due to Christian teachings. Both through study and practice, one learns to avoid attaching oneself to anything trivial or fleeting, focusing instead solely on what truly matters in life. And Christianity isn't even the only faith that specifically upholds this truth or this doctrine.

If the KC is all about not getting attached to worldly or passing things, then why does it seem to be constantly pushing to grow its wealth and assets?

Check out these self-proclaimed spiritual gurus who seem to have stumbled into massive piles of cash:

A few days back, the ex-wife of Luka Rajić posted a video on YouTube titled 'beauty from within,' where she basically gave a lecture on her wealth, claiming it’s just a direct reflection of her unwavering faith in God. She was essentially saying, "Ask and you shall receive," because apparently everything God created is meant to be harmonious, beautiful, and overflowing with abundance. According to her, poverty isn't some twist of fate or divine will—it’s just a sign of ignorance. Her advice? Change your mindset and live life in all its fullness and glory. Basically, "wake up," says Borna Rajić, one of the wealthiest designers in America.

Does any of this actually hold water for you? Because if it sounds crazy, maybe if we all just tapped into the "beauty of our souls," we could attract someone like ex-Rajić... who knows? If you happen to possess the right kind of "knowledge," maybe you'll actually strike it rich too. I mean, clearly, she figured out the secret sauce. 😁