Worship

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I have repect for the Catholic church and its' beautiful Worship service. Lutherans, Anglican's and the Orthodox are close. I have found that by having more symbolism and liturgy during the service really enhances the meaning of the message of Christ. This is what I have not seen in many other churches. At least from my point of view. A friend once told me that all we do is mutter words..no meaning..I found that insulting...of course I turned the other cheek and didn't say a thing. How sad that some people find words unhelpful.

-- susan (susanlatte@aol.com), October 28, 2003

Answers

While the Mass is beautiful I think that in recent years it is leaving something to be desired. Our Churches are becoming ugly and are starting to look more like protestant churches. We are starting to have white walls, few statues, altars that are becoming tables, plain windows, and architecture that is not put a person in the presence of God. I mean look at the new Jubilee Church in Rome.

http://www.richardmeier.com/PROJECTS/Jubilee.html

This ugly thing was actually okayed by the Pope. I read an article on it that said the church is totaly devoid of any religious symbolism. No religious symbolism? What are we, Calvinists?

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.


Scott,

That is a bleak looking church. It can't possibly be finished. I am sure they are going to add interior decor yet.

susan,

I think your friend was being rude. The divinity of Christ can be found in Protestant Churches for when two or three are gathered in his name he is there. His divinity is there. That scripture says that having people gathered in his name is the only requirement for his divinity to be there. No mention of extras. But also no mention that extras don't help. The whole variety of possibilities (within limits) are used to build up the entire Church. The main worship void in non-Catholic gatherings is lack of Our Blessed Lord, that is his body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Eucharist.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.


I think when things distract you from the message of Christ then there is a problem. Some Calvinists are ok...but possibly their fear is the distraction away from the message. Hence the plain church.

-- susan (susanlatte@aol.com), October 28, 2003.

you know, i strangely find that building visually appealing. perhaps when it is finished it will be even better. remember, just because you like gothic architecture does not mean that more modern archetecture cannot be inspiring as well.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 28, 2003.

You mean like the cathedral(?) in San Francisco that is referred to as St. Mary Maytag because it looks like a washing machine agitator?

Susan, I think a lot of church buildings are rather plain-looking today because most parishes I know of build the hall first, and the church later, after the hall has been paid off. You might actually be looking at the hall, which parishes do the best they can with, but do not want to give the impression that it will be the permanent church. Sad to say with parishes struggling for money it can be several years until a real church is built.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 28, 2003.



The overall look of each Catholic church is a personal choice and as such reflects the traditions and values of the parishioners who worship there, just as our homes reflect our own personalities and values. You should always be very careful when entering other churches, to keep from being overly critical. You would never thoughtlessly criticize a friends home because their home is an extension of their personality and values. To criticize the home is to criticize the friend. Each church is also a personal expression of not just the personal values and personality of the parishioners who worship there, but of the way they celebrate their faith. To criticize their church building is not just to criticize their “good taste” but also is a criticism of their “expression of faith.”

It's very important to understand that what Vatican II did was much more than just re-arranging our furniture. The look of the church is a function of our liturgy. Churches serve an important role in the liturgy of the church. So many early Catholics are inclined to wax nostolgic for their magnificent, beautiful pre-vatican II church without taking the trouble to understand what the bishops of the church are asking of them.

In Vatican II our Bishops sent out a call for a return to a more Sacramental kind of Holiness. They reminded us that, it’s what we “do” that is most important in making our churches holy. We gather, we forgive, we show forgiveness, we offer peace, we promise to love one another, we participate in the Sacrifice – we offer our lives to God and God returns our Gift in consecrated form. We are dedicated to the service of God. They remind us that we have responsibilities in the liturgy that go far beyond merely being present for the sacrifice which takes place in the course of the Mass.

In this respect, the bishops have tried to bring the church back to the early church – In the early church, before Constantine, Christians met in peoples homes, they gathered in informal seating around a table. They gathered together, shared a meal, told stories, broke bread, they laid down their life for one another. Christ was made present among them by what they did for one another.

It's important to understand that the pre-vatican II church, while it had great splender and magnificance, what it said to us about liturgy was not the central focus that Jesus left us. The emphasis of our Liturgy was on the inherent holiness found in the church. Liturgy was focused upon a more passive kind of worship. A worship centered on devotion to holiness, being in the presence of Holiness, Listening to, showing respect for, and meditating on Holiness. The Bishops of the church said that we needed more.

When you look at a post Vatican II church, it’s important to note the difference between sacramental holiness “what we do to make Christ present” and “Reverence for Holiness.” Both kinds of holiness are still important, but the emphasis is shifted between a pre-vatican II church and a post-vatican II church.

When you enter a Catholic Church and do not immediately focus upon the tabernacle and the reredos of the high altar, it is apparent that there has been a fundamental change in the way Catholics are asked to participate in the Eucharist. This change has upset more than a few Catholics, but the reasons for the change are fundamental to understanding our faith.

The celebration of the Eucharist is the focus of the mass. Through the Eucharist we particapate in the Paschal Sacrifice. We die to oursenves and our old ways and rise with Christ, dedicated in service to God and a new life in Christ. We put on Christ. We look at the world as Christ did, loving God and loving one another and all of God’s creation. We are “raised” in a state of Grace, free from Satan and the effects of our “sinfulness.

The "celebration" of the Eucharist is the focus of the mass and “as such, the major space of the church is designed for this “action.”

. . . beyond the action of the Eucharist, the church has an ancient tradition of reserving the “blessed host.” The purpose for the reservation is to bring the sacrament to those not physically able to participate with us. It has also become a source of private devotion. Church standards call for a separate chapel to be set aside for such devotion – separate from the major space so that no confusion can take place between the importance of “celebrating” or participating in the action and the devotion to the reservation.

Active and static aspects of the sacrament should not claim the same attention.

In our own church, the tabernacle is still in the center of the sanctuary. We are currently discussing an alternate location, but could move it, grudgingly no further than to a side altar, which is still clearly in the focal area of the Assembly area. We accept this change with much deliberation and soul searching, and yet we have discontinued the practice of reserving the host as part of the Eucharist during the Mass with little notice. It is our practice now to consurme the bread and wine entirely. We do not go to the taburncle or even open it during the Mass, unless for some reason we should run out, before all have partaken of the sacrament. Our parishioners have taken to this practice because they have been told to do so and yet I doubt if any of our eucharistic ministers truely understand the reasoning behind the practice.

In the Middle ages, a greater stress was placed on the sacredness of the Mass and an other worldly character to the mysteries was stressed. Holy communion was reserved only for the clergy. The altar was moved back away from the assembly until it became a part of the back wall. The liturgy was in a language that could not be understood and the assembly did not participate, so they worshipped with their presence. The Church became a feast for the eye. Current liturgy calls for a return to balance between seeing, hearing and doing with a focus centered back on the sacrifice of the mass.

“In a world dominated by Science and Technology, liturgy’s quest for the beautiful is a particularly necessary contribution to full and balanced human life” (Environment 34) Statues and beautiful objects of art, banners and flowers will always be important elements forour worship, just not the central focus.

The principal function of the church is our common worship. Objects which compete with that purpose are out of place. In many areas of religious practice, this means a simplifying and refocusing on the primary symbols.

“The principal decoration” and “treasured possession” of the church is the worshiping community. It is the face of “living saints” who carry the message of the Eucharist out into our world and our time. The principal beauty of the Catholic Church is the hospitality of its assembly, the eagerness with which they hear the Word of God, the devotion with which they share the holy Eucharist and the love which they take forth to transform the Earth.

. . . Portions of this post have been lifted from "Art and Enviromment in the Catholic Church" published by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Other sections have been borrowed from "Cathoic Update" and other RCIA literature.

Peace



-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), October 28, 2003.


Leon,

You must have a lot of time and wealth of information to share such a nice response.

-- susan (susanlatte@aol.com), October 29, 2003.


I help teach RCIA in our Parish. My last class was on a tour of the church so it was still kind of fresh on my mind.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), October 29, 2003.

Portions of this post have been lifted from "Art and Enviromment in the Catholic Church" published by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

On, no!! This is probably the single worst, most damaging document ever to have come out of the bishops' conference. It was actually not published by the USCCB, but by a small group of bishops called the Committee on the Liturgy -- of the (old-name) National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) in the 1970s. It was never approved by the full body of U.S. bishops. However, through stupidity or devious actions, most of the nation's bishops, parish pastors, liturgists, and architects were fooled into believing that it was approved and had legislative authority. It had/has NO AUTHORITY AT ALL! But this document, more than anything else, led to the disastrous "wreck-ovation" of hundreds of formerly beautiful churches and the building of hundreds (if not thousands) of mediocre-to-ugly, undecorated boxes, unworthy to be called the "House of God." The document caused so much damange for 15 to 20 years that another group of bishops prepared a replacement in recent years, but I don't know if it has yet been adopted by the full body of bishops.

It's very important to understand that what Vatican II did was much more than just re-arranging our furniture.

All that "Vatican II" actually stated on this subject was general in nature, but people with (sometimes overly) creative minds undoubtedly went beyond what the Council Fathers had in mind. Here is what they wrote (as the last chapter of the 1963 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) -----


CHAPTER VII -- SACRED ART AND SACRED FURNISHINGS

122. Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of man's genius, and this applies especially to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred art. These arts, by their very nature, are oriented toward the infinite beauty of God which they attempt in some way to portray by the work of human hands; they achieve their purpose of redounding to God's praise and glory in proportion as they are directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning men's minds devoutly toward God.

Holy Mother Church has therefore always been the friend of the fine arts and has ever sought their noble help, with the special aim that all things set apart for use in divine worship should be truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world, and for this purpose she has trained artists. In fact, the Church has, with good reason, always reserved to herself the right to pass judgment upon the arts, deciding which of the works of artists are in accordance with faith, piety, and cherished traditional laws, and thereby fitted for sacred use.

The Church has been particularly careful to see that sacred furnishings should worthily and beautifully serve the dignity of worship, and has admitted changes in materials, style, or ornamentation prompted by the progress of the technical arts with he passage of time. Wherefore it has pleased the Fathers to issue the following decrees on these matters.

123. The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her very own; she has admitted styles from every period according to the natural talents and circumstances of peoples, and the needs of the various rites. Thus, in the course of the centuries, she has brought into being a treasury of art which must be very carefully preserved. The art of our own days, coming from every race and region, shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided that it adorns the sacred buildings and holy rites with due reverence and honor; thereby it is enabled to contribute its own voice to that wonderful chorus of praise in honor of the Catholic faith sung by great men in times gone by.

124. Ordinaries, by the encouragement and favor they show to art which is truly sacred, should strive after noble beauty rather than mere sumptuous display. This principle is to apply also in the matter of sacred vestments and ornaments. Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense. And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.

125. The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they may be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise they may create confusion among the Christian people and foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy.

126. When passing judgment on works of art, local ordinaries shall give a hearing to the diocesan commission on sacred art and, if needed, also to others who are especially expert, and to the commissions referred to in Art. 44, 45, and 46. Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or dispersed; for they are the ornaments of the house of God.

127. Bishops should have a special concern for artists, so as to imbue them with the spirit of sacred art and of the sacred liturgy. This they may do in person or through suitable priests who are gifted with a knowledge and love of art. It is also desirable that schools or academies of sacred art should be founded in those parts of the world where they would be useful, so that artists may be trained. All artists who, prompted by their talents, desire to serve God's glory in holy Church, should ever bear in mind that they are engaged in a kind of sacred imitation of God the Creator, and are concerned with works destined to be used in Catholic worship, to edify the faithful, and to foster their piety and their religious formation.

128. Along with the revision of the liturgical books, as laid down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of material things involved in sacred worship. These laws refer especially to the worthy and well planned construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars, the nobility, placing, and safety of the eucharistic tabernacle, the dignity and suitability of the baptistery, the proper ordering of sacred images, embellishments, and vestments. Laws which seem less suited to the reformed liturgy are to be brought into harmony with it, or else abolished; and any which are helpful are to be retained if already in use, or introduced where they are lacking. According to the norm of Art. 22 of this Constitution, the territorial bodies of bishops are empowered to adapt such things to the needs and customs of their different regions; this applies especially to the materials and form of sacred furnishings and vestments.

129. During their philosophical and theological studies, clerics are to be taught about the history and development of sacred art, and about the sound principles governing the production of its works. In consequence they will be able to appreciate and preserve the Church's venerable monuments, and be in a position to aid, by good advice, artists who are engaged in producing works of art.

-- (Be@Careful.Please), November 01, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ