The problem is, as you say, that the Bible was composed of independent books. So, it is difficult to universalize their claim, viz., to say that because one says do not add or subtract from Scripture that it is referring to other Scriptures. It would seem to be best to take it as, "don't mess with Scripture." But it's hard to be polemical about such a statement.

The more interesting claim lies in the question of completion or fullness of revelation. The Epistle of Jude characterizes Christianity as "the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones" (Jude 3). This is more powerfully emphasized by the epistle to the Hebrews which says that, "in times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son" (Hebrews 1:1-2). That is, whereas revelation in former times was partial and incomplete, revelation now is full and complete because we have the Son Himself. These texts are foundational to the Christian view that the fullness of revelation has come to God's people in the revelation of the Son to mankind.

While an opponent might be able to launch a better-- or at least more sophisticated attack-- from this position, it still would ultimately fail. The Catholic Church also believes that the fullness of public revelation has been given, and so the attempt to attack this would be difficult. Of course, I do have a horse in this race.

When a priest is officiating at the Mass he is a symbol of the risen Christ. The glory which we try to represent is shown in the Apocalypse when Jesus is portrayed as a high priest in traditional priestly robes. "I saw... one like a son of man, wearing an ankle-length robe, with a gold sash around his chest" (Rev 1:12-13). In Exodus 28 and 29, for instance, the beauty of the robes which the priests wore is detailed. It reads: "These are the vestments they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a brocaded tunic, a miter and a sash. In making these sacred vestments which your brother Aaron and his sons are to wear in serving as my priests, they shall use gold, violet, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen" (Ex 28:4-5).

This is a good segue into the larger topic of "fancy" things in worship. It's hardly hypocritical to use fancy things in worship-- God has long commanded the use of such things. The worship of God is associated with many fine and even expensive things in the OT, by God's own command. The Temple itself is a veritable second paradise, replete with likenesses of animals and nature and angels-- lilies, oxen, a 'sea' of bronze, lions, palm trees, and cherubim. For instance, the "two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory" on the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:18). The Dwelling was made of "sheets woven of fine linen twined and of violet, purple and scarlet yarn, with cherubim embroidered on them" (Ex 26:1). Solomon's Temple is likewise-- the large cherubim of olive wood which "were overlaid with gold" (I Kings 6:23-24). Also, on the "walls on all sides of both the inner and the outer rooms had carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers" (1 Kings 6:29). Not to mention that "The floor of both the inner and the outer rooms was overlaid with gold." (1 Kings 6:30). And it continues about the: "carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. The doors were overlaid with gold, which was also molded to the cherubim and the palm trees" (1 Kings 6:32). Not to mention the humongous "sea": "The sea was then cast" and it laid on "on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east, with their haunches all toward the center, where the sea was set upon them" (1 Kings 7:25).

I'm sure it was breathtakingly beautiful. These expensive and beautiful things were used in the service and worship of God. Likewise with the 'fancy robes' which the Pope uses. It's not as if he lounges around all day in these garments-- he uses them in the service of God. And this is hardly discontinuous with what God has accepted and ordered. While Jesus did live a life a poverty, He did not deny the expensive gift of the anointing of oil which was given to Him (cf. Mark 14, John 12, etc). His detractors complained that it could have been sold 'for more than 300 days wages' and given to the poor, but He accepted it as a fitting gift. Expensive things are appropriate in our worship of God, and an appropriate way for a community to spend its money so as to show its priorities.

The problem is that our culture no longer understands how the beauty of earthly things can be the first step for raising our minds to the contemplation of God and true worship-- in many ways a strangely implicitly gnostic assumption.

-Rob

__________________

Thanks to Captain Cornflake for the redesign, originally Pipking's.
Rules don't hurt, but mods make sure disobeying them does.|Adopted imstarbright