It’s the end of the semester and I am inundated with schoolwork. Exams, papers, more than this student/mom/wife can handle in a graceful way, but I am muddling through. The topic of whether or not churches should be ornate comes up from time to time. I have also been taking classes that mention medieval churches/cathedrals quite a bit – art history (studying architecture and sculpture from the middle ages), the Normans (along with their architecture), and Chaucer (who can’t be studied without at least a glance at medieval Christianity and its churches). I had some thoughts and defenses of beauty in worship and if I can gel those thoughts I will post them, but for now here is an old one… (Take the Long Way Home )
I’ve heard more than once that the Catholic Church is all “pomp and circumstance”. What does this mean to those who say it, and are they correct?
First of all, what is “pomp and circumstance”? Well, technically it’s a piece of music, the music that is played at graduations while the graduates walk down the aisle in order to be recognized for their achievements. Since this music is played at pretty much every graduation in the country, people must not have that much against it. So I went to the dictionary.
Pomp, according to Webster, is a stately or brilliant display; splendor; magnificence. But also can be an ostentatious show or display.
Circumstance means several different things, the definition that most seem to fit was one of the last given; it was ceremony or show.
So, I guess what people are trying to say is that the Catholic Church is putting on a show, an ostentatious show. Lots of glitz and glamor without any substance. Where do they get this idea? I keep looking back at Webster’s first definition of pomp, and I can’t help but think, “doesn’t God deserve a stately display? Splendor? Magnificence?”
Where do folks get the idea that God wants simplicity? That God doesn’t want ceremony and beauty in worship?
When the President of the United States walks into a room, everyone stands. Why? Standing is a common form of respect. When we remain seated while the President enters we are making a statement. We are saying that we do not respect this man or his position and we refuse to show him respect. In other words, we disrespect him.
When the Queen of England walks into a room there is quite a bit of ceremony involved. Standing, saluting, kneeling, and all to music playing. Anyone who refuses to follow tradition here will be thrown out on their ear!
As a general rule, we have no problem giving head’s of state their due. Why do we think God deserves less? Shouldn’t He get more pageantry than some Queen or President? In the Old Testament, God was pretty specific about worship. Where is should be held, who should preside, what they should wear, what the surroundings should look like. So what did God prescribe for himself?
Exodus 31:1-11
The Lord said to Moses, “See, I have chosen Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled h im with a divine spirit of skill and understanding and knowledge in every craft in the production of embroidery, in making things of gold, silver or bronze, in cutting and mounting precious stones, in carving wood, and in every other craft. As his assistant I have appointed Oholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. I have also endowed all the experts with the necessary skill to make all the things I have ordered you to make: the meeting tent, the ark of the commandments with the propitiatory on top of it, all the furnishings of the tent, the table with its appurtenances, the pure gold lamp stand with all its appurtenances, the altar of incense, the altar of holocausts with all its appurtenances, the laver with its base, the service cloths, the sacred vestments for Aaron the priest, the vestments for his sons in their ministry, the anointing oil, and the fragrant incense for the sanctuary. ”
Exodus 36:8-19
The tent coverings were made of fine linen twisted, having cherubim embroidered on them with violet, purple and scarlet yarn… Then fifty clasps of gold were made, with which the sheets were joined so that the dwelling formed one whole… Fifty bronze clasps were made (to join the sheets of goat hair)… A covering for the tent was made out of ram’s skins dyed red…”
I know this is a lot of quoting, but I hope I’m making my point. Exodus continues with the description of the Ark: made of acacia wood, inside and outside were coated with gold. The propitiatory was made of pure gold. Two cherubim, made of beaten gold, covered the propitiatory.
The Table was made of acacia wood, plated with pure gold. The vessels to go on the table were also to be fashioned out of pure gold.
The Lampstand was to be made of beaten pure gold.
Altars were made of bronze.
And all of this was while the Israelites were wandering around in the desert! God said, “get me the very best artisans and materials that can be offered, and worship me with those.”
When Solomon built the Temple, he built it out of stone. The inside was lined with cedar that was carved in the form of gourds and open flowers. The interior of the temple was pure gold. The altar was pure gold, in fact the entire temple was coated in pure gold. In the sanctuary were two cherubim made of olive wood and overlaid with gold. The walls on all sides of both the inner and outer rooms had carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. Everything overlaid with gold. (1 Kings chap 6, chap 7 goes on to describe the Temple furnishings)
Now lets move on to the New Testament. In Revelation, John has a vision of the throne room of heaven, in this throne room there is an altar, golden incense bowls, and creatures who fall to the ground before God and sing his praises. John’s vision also includes a glimpse of the “new heaven and new earth”. The New Jerusalem is described as having foundations decorated with every precious stone, gates made of pearls, streets made of gold.
Okay, so obviously God likes the ornate, the beautiful, the rare, and He likes it to be fashioned by experts, by those who can give the material its due. What about ceremony? Do we have any picture of God being casual? Of God not caring how He is approached? Of God saying, “worship me any old way you want”? We are told to worship Him in spirit and truth, but does that mean the material is no longer important? Then what is God doing mentioning it again in Revelation?! Does spirit and truth equal the fundamentalist understanding of simplicity?
In the OT, God again was very specific about ceremony. So specific, and so serious, that when the prescribed rituals were not followed death came to those who profaned God by not following his ordinances (see Leviticus 10). Everything was ordered in the minutest detail. Why would this God, who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, suddenly change His preference for worship? And then change it back again in the end (with Rev)? If the worship that God prescribed for Israel was to be completely thrown out with Jesus, then why did the Apostles continue to meet in the Temple on the Sabbath? Even after Sunday, the Lord’s Day, became the meeting day of Christians? Why are things in heaven (at least according to the glimpses we’ve been given in Isaiah and Revelation) so formal? Why do much bowing and singing? Why are there altars in heaven? How does the fundamentalist explain these things?
When they want to argue that the “early church” met in people’s houses, I will agree. In fact you can tour some of these homes if you visit Rome. But inside you will find altars (like the ones in heaven), you will find evidence of ceremony. They had no buildings or fancy accouterments while the Roman government was persecuting them purely for being Christians! They also met in the catacombs to avoid this persecution. But how does this speak to ceremony? Do you really think that the Apostles, who were steeped in the symbolism of Judaism, didn’t see the parallels between what they were used to and the new revelation they were given from Christ? Where is the idea that the Apostles led worship in homes and later in cemeteries with no ordinances, no ceremony? And you will also notice, if you read Eusebius, that as soon as the persecutions died down (not completely, but by around 200 AD) you find Christians worshiping in buildings. Buildings that were dedicated to the worship of God (this was why they were destroyed by the Roman Emperors who liked to persecute Christians).
Is the Catholic Church full of “pomp and circumstance”? I certainly hope so. God deserves whatever finery we can come up with. God deserves much more pomp than we give to mere Heads of State. I want to worship Him in the way that most closely matches what He reveals in Scripture to like. Why should our churches not resemble the New Jerusalem?
17 Comments
April 28, 2009 at 12:13 am
[...] From Scattering Flowers: [...]
April 28, 2009 at 1:08 am
I sat tonight to read further from “Jewish Liturgy, A Comprehensive History” by Ismar Elbogen translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin. While thumbing to my place in it I found the following which made me think of “pomp and circumstance”.
“Only Soferim gives a detailed description, though not an entirely clear one, of the taking out of the Torah and of an elaborate liturgy connected to it. On this model all prayer books since Amram provide the taking out of the Torah with prayers that lend it POMP AND MAJESTY. With all the notable differences among the various rites, the principle is everywhere the same; hymnic verses and thanksgiving verses, mostly taken from the Bible, are used to embellish the appearance of the Torah. It is no longer only the words read from the Torah that are honored, but the Torah itself.”
I capitalized the phrase that made me think of your post. But beyond that I find the phrase “mostly taken from the Bible” to be somewhat ironic. The section I am heading to tonight deals with the public reading of scripture, the definition of what was scripture, etc. among Jewish people.
April 28, 2009 at 11:15 am
I’m really enjoying your musings on this book. I have become very interested in liturgy of all types since becoming Catholic, and especially those of the Eastern Churches and the Jews. I keep thinking that someday I’m going to have time again to read such things.
May 2, 2009 at 7:17 pm
In the OT, the mandate given to the Israelites to build what they did, was not for the purpose of display per se, but was a detailed outline of tangible symbol for the purpose of telling a story, or more specifically, typifying spiritual realities that were to find their culmination and final manifestation and revelation in Christ. Once Christ came, these tangibles were no longer a necessity because the fullness of the revelation had come, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth.
Furthermore, the Israelites posessed a large propensity to make more out of the tangibles than God intended them, and were thus blind to the realities which they were ment to bear witness to. When Christ came, he rebuked his own people for such hypocracy.
As a Catholic myself, I understand where you come from and disagree with the protestants who make such accusations at the Church. However, I sympathize with them because it is a just complaint–they understand the more important realities. There is no doubt today that very many Catholics are too caught up in the formalism of the Church and are ensnared in the same net the Israelites were. It might be true that there is a bit more pomp and circumstance in the Church than there should be. God is not concerned as much with the P&C as he is with the inward realities. The early Church knew nothing of the P&C and were just as glorious, if not more. It was the imperial Church which ushered in the P&C. Whether this was a good thing or bad thing can be argued either way. Personally I like many elements of the P&C, but at the same time I can see how it has taken its toll on the Church in a negative way. All I can say is that these things are not necessary, though they are beautiful.
In Christ,
Jared B
May 2, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I don’t have huge issues with what you say here, but I have a few comments.
In your first paragraph you say that the purpose of the beauty and splendor and tradition of the Temple was to point to Christ, and I will grant that you are partially correct, but not entirely. Even if and when things might point to Christ they had other uses (and “pointings”) as well. The Israelites would not have had any concept of these things pointing to a future reality, but to a current one. For example, the bronze bowl of water in front of the altar represented the need for baptism (as the ancient Jews understood it, and as was outlined in the Old Covenant), the need to wash away sin and be purified. This was a picture of how one was to approach God – with clean hands and a pure heart. This also points forward to Christ, and to baptism in the New Covenant (which is a tangible that we still employ, right? Just because Christ fulfills the law and the prophets that doesn’t mean that the tangibles disappear. we have the sacraments.)
I agree that part of the purpose was “telling a story, or more specifically, typifying spiritual realities” (I know I’ve cut your quote short but I want to deal with this part of it). Our “pomp and circumstance” today does this too. When you walk into a Church you dip your fingers into the water and make the sign of the cross. By doing so you reaffirm your baptismal promises, and renew the covenantal bond between you and God (just like the Passover is/was a renewal of the covenant between God and his people), and you do so by physically making the sign of the cross which simultaneously is your avowal of the Trinitarian nature of God and also recognition that your acceptance into his family through baptism comes through the cross. These rituals and circumstances do not disappear with Christ, they are merely adjusted to meet with the new understanding of the old tangible and what it pointed towards.
I take issue with your point about the propensity of the Israelites to “make more out of the tangibles than God intended”, meaning that we shouldn’t have tangibles. Just because my neighbor “worships” money doesn’t mean I should eschew it – I need to pay my electricity bills too! Just because something is misunderstood or misused doesn’t mean it should be thrown out. I know alcoholics who can’t and shouldn’t drink, but that doesn’t mean that alcohol is bad, only that it’s misuse is bad. This was what Christ was taking issue with – “he rebuked his own people for such hypocracy” – he said, about the Pharisees, do what they say, just don’t do what they do! It’s not hypocrisy to use tangibles in a correct way, it’s hypocrisy to tell someone to do so, and then not do so yourself. Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrits for insisting that the people pay tithes, even of their spices, while ignoring justice and mercy… but he didn’t suggest not tithing! He didn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
I disagree that protestants understand the more important realities, while Catholics are caught up in formalism. This is way too broad a brush to paint with. That might be true of some protestants compared with some Catholics, but you can’t make that kind of generalization and have it hold up. I personally know plenty of protestants who don’t have a clue what their church teaches, what the Bible says, what the Lord’s supper is all about, what baptism means, etc.
As to the “imperial Church” ushering in pomp and circumstance, that’s just plain ridiculous. Have you seen the beautiful paintings in the catacombs? Talk about spiritual realities in tangible form! What about the elaborate sarcophagi of the early Christians? What about the ritual described by Justin Martyr? What about the free standing churches that Eusebius tells us about, that were destroyed by the Roman emperors before Constantine? I think maybe you have been sold a bill of goods here. I grew up being taught the same thing – that the early church was simple and was destroyed by imperial recognition, but I can’t find any proof of that in history.
I agree with you that it’s possible for people to miss the point, and it’s possible for people to not understand the spiritual truth behind the tangibles, but the whole point of this post was to make the argument that it’s not wrong on it’s face. But I disagree that it has had a negative effect on the Church. How does the idea that God is greater than any emperor, king, head of state, and certainly me in the pew, and therefore should be given more glory, more honor, take a negative toll?
I’d like to end with this thought. One of the aspects of the Catholic Church that I love is that she encompasses the “both/and”. There are movements, orders, etc within the Church that have elaborate and beautiful ritual and costly accutrements, but there are also movements, orders, etc within the Church that focus on simplicity and austerity. Both are included and welcome, and we, as Catholics, have the choice to follow whichever one best suits us, or better yet, we can understand and appreciate both of them for what they offer.
May 3, 2009 at 4:31 am
Jackie,
Sorry, for not making myself more clear. I think there was a bit of misunderstanding.
Just because Christ fulfills the law and the prophets that doesn’t mean that the tangibles disappear. we have the sacraments.)
I wasn’t referring to sacramentals. I really don’t know how P&C implies sacraments, actually. I was speaking more about, for example, the temple as a whole, and how we build huge Cathedrals in like manner. (Im not against doing this, Im just saying it is not a necessary practice. Neither is there anything sacramental about it.) Back in Constantinople, when Christianity became the Empire’s religion, some 2,000 people would fill the Hagiai Sophia for a worship service. Before the building of extremely large places of worship, congregation sizes were much smaller, taking place in homes and other small buildings(by this there was a stronger sense of community and fellowship, and the needs of the saints were met on a more intimate basis.) Once the imperial Church appeared, the Church lost this close sense of community it had. I can’t tell you how upset I get when I walk into my mom and dad’s church, how there is no sense of community at all. People go in, here a homily, take communion, and dart out the door when Mass ends as if soldiers were throwing mustard gass into the church; there is no fellowship and communion taking place afterwards, and there is a real tragedy that many in attendance don’t put much stock in what the Church is actually supposed to be. This has been a standard phenomenon in most Catholic Churches I visit here in the Cleveland area(which is probibly why many of them are closing down). This is, I believe, residue from the imperial Church.
I take issue with your point about the propensity of the Israelites to “make more out of the tangibles than God intended”, meaning that we shouldn’t have tangibles.
I wasn’t saying such things, I dont think. At least that is not what I was trying to say. Specifically, I was speaking about the Jews’ orientation to the Law in that their heart’s were displaced from where they should be, and the P&C is all that there was for them.(saducees, pharasees, and those who followed suit)
I disagree that protestants understand the more important realities, while Catholics are caught up in formalism. This is way too broad a brush to paint with.
I may have painted that with too broad a brush, but I was referring to some Protestants, and some Catholics. Maybe you are a lucky one, but it is tough for me (here in Cleveland) to actually find more than a few Catholics who are really and truly devoted to Christ, like I find in some Protestant Churches around here.
I agree with you that it’s possible for people to miss the point, and it’s possible for people to not understand the spiritual truth behind the tangibles, but the whole point of this post was to make the argument that it’s not wrong on it’s face. But I disagree that it has had a negative effect on the Church. How does the idea that God is greater than any emperor, king, head of state, and certainly me in the pew, and therefore should be given more glory, more honor, take a negative toll?
By negative effect, I mean, for example, the abuse of indulgences prior to Trent.
I do hope you understand what I was trying to explain. Im not saying that the Church is caught up in formalsim, but the formal nature it carries, as I know by experience growing up in the Church my whole life, without the proper cathechesis, individual Catholics may easily fall into the same mess.
I really do think the telling sign is lack of community in a Church. I cannot explain to you how many Churches I have went into as a newbie trying to find a vibrant parish, and no one takes a second to say hi or introduce themselves. There really is not much to say of a Church who disregards strangers and doesn’t even take time to commune with each other. Im just hoping you understand a little of how things are here in Cleveland. There are many very nice, beautiful, and extravagent empty Churches.(and by empty I don’t merely mean void of bodies)
Again, Im with you, that having these things is not wrong on its face. It becomes wrong when the wieghtier matters of Christianity are lost in the periphery.
In Christ,
Jared B
May 3, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I’m pretty sure I understood you, I guess I wasn’t clear on why art and architecture, and ritual and ceremony ARE sacramental. As an aside, sacramentals and sacraments are not the same thing – some of my readers may not know that.
I’m sorry that you are in a place where you don’t experience community, but I have some bad news for you, that happens in protestant churches too. I’m not sure if you read my About page or anything, but I am a recent convert to the Catholic Church. I grew up protestant, and I have experienced very vibrant churches and very formal, solemn, dead feeling churches. This is not a reflection on protestantism or Catholicism, but on the human heart, the human condition. We all have the capacity to fall short and we sometimes do, we get comfortable and don’t want to change or grow, and this is reflected in our churches. There is also a great deal of diversity in art and architecture within protestantism, just like in Catholicism. When I was a protestant there was a book that was being tauted called something like, Outgrowing the Ingrown Church, or something like that. The subject matter was trying to help churches to reach out to new people, be hospitable, etc. The success of this book was because the same lack of community was being felt in many protestant churches.
I grew up in a growing, popular Presbyterian church where my father put on his best suit, and I put on my best dress every Sunday, because I was taught that you always give your best to God. It might be okay to wear ratty jeans to play with your friends, or even to school, but not to church. The preacher sat way up high in a carved pulpit in front of a beautiful pipe organ. But this was nothing compared to my boyfriend’s Episcopal church, which was a Gothic revival type building. It was beautiful! The tall spires, the stained glass windows, the statuary, the artwork. It invoked a sense of solemnity, a reverence that was missing from my other friend’s Baptist church which was huge. huge. huge. but very simple and casual. Of course there was always the Baptist church another friend went to which had a large dome with dry ice clouds, and sounds of rolling thunder and simulated lightning strikes. Weird.
Before I get to your example of the Haggia Sophia and indulgences I want to offer you a scenario. There are two musicians, each wants to compose a work of music for God, to express their faith. The first musician is not very skilled or talented, he knows only the crudest, most basic chords, and so his song is rudimentary. The other musician is a professional, highly skilled, extremely talented, and so the song he composes is complex and rich, one that only the very best can play. Which of these musicians has created the work that will please God? If the unskilled musician’s work is pleasing to God then should the talented musician ignore his ability and talent and compose something simple too? The artists, architects, and sculptors who created cathedrals such as the Haggia Sophia were displaying the best they could offer.
The pomp and circumstance (the artwork, the sculpture, the architecture, the ritual, the ceremony) IS sacramental. It is a physical manifestation or representation of a spiritual reality. Stained glass windows are the same as scapulars in this. The beautiful cathedrals have a purpose and a point. The Haggia Sophia is a good example of this. The masses in Byzantium were not literate, but the paintings, the amazing frescoes that cover the ceiling are like a living Bible, telling the stories of the Old and New Testament. The building of the Cathedral itself makes a statement as well. Why should the Byzantine emperor live in splendor, while God lives in poverty (and God does live there in the Eucharist)? And think about how many people were exposed to art and architecture through that cathedral? The common man couldn’t visit the emperor or the villas of the nobility, there were no museums or places where they could see such things, but they could go to church. It gave the common man access to beauty, instead of only the wealthy.
When you walk into the Haggia Sophia your eyes are immediately drawn up to the huge dome, that seems to float above the clerestory of windows. Your eyes, and your heart, are drawn to heaven, to God, to the heavenly Jerusalem that comes down to us and joins with us in the Mass. The immensity of the arches and vaults are designed specifically to raise the eye. The architecture draws your eye, first to heaven, and then forward to the apse, where the altar sits, the focus of the Mass. It’s the book of Revelation come to earth. The saints on earth are joined with the saints in heaven as the Gloria and the Alleluiah and the Great Amen are pronounced. The architecture reminds us of present realities, the glory of God, our union with Christ through the Eucharist, but it also points forward to things not yet fulfilled – the marriage supper of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem, the Second Coming of Jesus in glory.
By saying that a sense of community is lost in the building of cathedrals and that it existed before in small groups, you are making huge assumptions that you can’t back up historically. Throughout the middle ages cathedrals were built, but so were small churches, and they were just as glorious (there were also small and large churches built in simpler styles, it depended upon what message you wanted to convey). Have you seen those house churches that you mention? They were gorgeous ! It wasn’t a small group of Christians sitting around in someone’s living room on couches, they met in homes of wealthy patrons who had special areas set up for worship. The walls were covered in frescoes and mosaics; there was an altar, a baptismal font, etc. And this is from well before the fourth century, before you can make your “imperial” claim. You didn’t respond to my comment about the catacombs, I wonder why.
Now, for the abuse of indulgences. I know you can’t be suggesting that bilking the congregants for money is a purely Catholic trait? I don’t know how old you are, but I remember well when Jim Bakker fell, and when Oral Roberts declared that God had told him he had to raise a million dollars! I live in Joel Osteen country, and he lives pretty high on the hog! All you have to do is turn on the tv and see preachers cajoling their fans to send them money. They live in big houses and drive fancy cars. Greed is another one of those sins that doesn’t only strike one group of people. But does this make you conclude that preaching is wrong, since it’s possible to abuse it? Should we stop all preachers from preaching, because some are using the pulpit to further their own ends?
For a serious look at indulgences I have a post on them. Again I will say, just because a practice can be abused doesn’t mean the practice is bad, just the abuse.
You say that these things are not wrong on their face but become wrong when the weightier matters of Christianity are lost in the periphery. I think again you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. The answer is not to throw out the beauty, the symbolic, the tradition, it’s to explain it. Teach the people in the pew about Christ and about hospitality. Teach them the stories embedded in stain glass and use them as reminders for yourself. Employ the sacramentals as they are intended. You mentioned lack of catechesis, and this is key. It is not the formal nature of the church that leads to this lack, it is human beings who fail to pass on their faith. It is us who need reforming, not buildings.
May 3, 2009 at 11:07 pm
To the sacred architecture. As you know I was raised Seventh Day Adventist, but married in a stone Anglican church just about 18 years ago.
Last week I learned the reason was my architect wife felt that the departure from the classic architecture had truly lost something sacred. The faith was weaker precisely because of the lack of grandeur. The concept of our place in the world relative to God and the majesty of heaven etc. etc. etc. Yet at the time, and to this day, she is a staunch protestant. SDA at the time and now Lutheran Missouri Synod.
And then this last week, sitting on the patio, reading a book with an icon of Christ and Peter on the cover with boats and Peter holding the nets in classic eastern icon style my very young son began to ask. First I had to convince him I was not holding a Bible. Then he began to ask about all the different things he saw in the picture. And as I sat I told him the story that the picture told. He is still not fully potty trained, so one can grasp his level of literacy. Yet with that image he learned a lot and when he looks at it again he can tell it.
The wholeness of the Church is amazing. Not all are theologians, not all educated but all learn from it.
The ceremony we see is largely that of the Jewish synagogue, with Christianity slathered over it. Once one understands the Jewish liturgical nature, their view of image, etc. one suddenly sees that in fact these rituals we watch are indeed apostolic. Especially those of the Eastern Church but certainly those of the west as well.
The apostles and Christ were liturgical. Christ reading in the synagogue was part of the liturgy. The apostles prayed the Hours of the Jewish liturgy. John was a Jewish Monastic. Baptism, the use of Holy Water for purification and sanctification, the amazing pomp, indeed prayers and sacrifice for the departed, even the sprinkling of water upon a corpse as part of the funeral rites its all what the Christ and Apostles were doing when they worshipped.
Even the wonderful round wafer broken by the father, has one ever looked at the traditional bread eaten by the Jewish people on Passover ? Its round unless made to fit in square modern boxes. Oh and as you look into it guess what ? They make a wide assortment of elaborate boxes in which to store and eat the bread on passover. So even the tendency to put the host in those fancy boxes up on the altar etc. in the older churches. That too is inherited from the Jews.
The standing at the reading of the Scripture, the holding of the Word up to be read. The manner it is read and the benedictions around its reading.
Oy. The list is never ending.
Imperial Rome didn’t do it, Constantine didn’t do it, it is the Faith delivered from the Apostles.
Did you know that the Jews viewed the scripture which they housed in the synagogue in “the ark” as a form of the literal presence ? Just as God was present in the temple on the Ark his Word was his presence in the Synagogue. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us!” And guess what replaced the Ark in the typical synagogue ? The altar with the presence, the host.
I will now step away from the keyboard and relax. I am so passionate on this topic and suffer from the inability to fully articulate and explain with examples what I have learned and continue to learn.
May 3, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Jackie,
I am quite aware that sacramentals and sacraments are different things. I should have not made that mistake of typing the word “sacramentals”. I was referring to sacraments, more specifically. Sacraments are indespensable. (and by sacraments, I mean those peculiar to Christianity, i.e. baptism, eucharist, pennance. Not marriage)
I am quite aware that protestant Churches fall into the same errors. I wasn’t making any kind of argument against Catholicism(I am Catholic), or for protestantism(God forbid).
I am quite aware about the catacombs, but I didn’t feal the need to comment on it because that is not what I was arguing against, which shows you really were missing what I was saying, which is probibly more my fault than yours. I didn’t express myself clear enough.
Im not at all arguing against any type of visible representations of spiritual realities, or arguing for simplicity. Im arguing against letting the weightier matters of Christianity being caught in its periphery, which both Catholic and Protestant Churches are guilty of. Trust me, I know it is this way in many Catholic Churches, I have grown up in the Church my whole life.
By saying that a sense of community is lost in the building of cathedrals and that it existed before in small groups, you are making huge assumptions that you can’t back up historically.
Community is not lost by building cathedrals per se, but what happens is when cathedrals are built, congregations grow to a size too big, where it is no longer conducive to familial community and fellowship, which are so essential to the health of the Church. So, if the smaller community gatherings are not maintained while using cathedrals, then community is lost. We cannot benefit from each other as a body when there is a loss of community. Where there is a loss of community, love cannot grow. Moreover, strangers cannot be noticed, and the needs of the saints become more difficult to meet.
Im not saying larger congregations cannot have community, but only that larger congregations makes it more difficult. We shouldn’t make things too difficult for ourselves. Im not condemning the the building of larger structures, Im condemning the disregard for the smaller community while building larger structures.
Im have a personal conviction the the Church has put herself in this strait by making celebacy a necessary requisit for being a presbyter. This makes the smaller communities more difficult to maintain because there arn’t enough priests to go around to all the people in an intimate fashion. There are many abled men out there who are highly qualified to do ministry, but who are nevertheless unable to because they are maried, though their being able to minister would really benefit the church.
As far as indulgences are concerned, im deffinately not arguing aganst indulgences, if that is what you were thinking. I was just using the abuses before Trent as an example of the Church getting too caught up, at that time, with P&C. So, when protestant churches get caught up in the P&C, they make the same mistakes.
You say that these things are not wrong on their face but become wrong when the weightier matters of Christianity are lost in the periphery. I think again you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. The answer is not to throw out the beauty, the symbolic, the tradition, it’s to explain it.
Yes, you are right. I wasn’t saying that we should throw out the baby. I was saying that the emphasis of these things over the essentials is wrong.
You mention your growing up Presbyterian and your experiences. I just want to say I experienced the same things growing up Catholic. There was never good catechesis, but always a strong emphasis on P&C. I was simply dissallusioned by the whole thing. No one really seemed to care. Of course Im not saying this is the case across the board. You came into the Catholic Church recently, already with a very good understanding of the spiritual realities. But I would bet there are many cradle Catholics even in your own congregation who might be dissallusioned, too. It is just a common theme I find.
In Christ,
Jared
May 3, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Actually I grew up with excellent catechesis in my Presby church. It was a vibrant, growing church with excellent pastors and teachers. There was a well known seminary close by and so I was surrounded by amazing scholars. I didn’t leave the protestant church because of disillusionment.
I am sorry, very sorry, that you had poor teachers and little community growing up. I belong to a very large parish and they try very hard to create a sense of community, but without losing the sense of awe and reverence that goes along with having Jesus, king of the universe, personally there in attendance. My in-laws teeny, tiny Baptist church on the other hand, is not at all welcoming. They are very static, have no new members, no young people at all. Size is not indicative of community or the lack of it.
It sounds like you have lots of “issues” with Catholicism. You say that you are Catholic and not protestant, but you seem to have a very protestant frame of mind and sense of things. I’m not sure I can explain what that means, it’s not an indictment, btw, just a sense.
Why do you assume that the same accutrements, and the same form in the catacombs is okay, but in the Haggia Sophia is wrong? Where does the assumption that the Greeks were emphasizing ritual over reality come from, what do you base it on?
I also don’t get the connection you are making between the abuse of indulgences and P&C. In your comments you kept comparing the cold, dead Catholic churches in Cleveland, with the protestant ones where you see this love for Jesus – that’s why I commented on the protestant parallels.
May 3, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Jackie,
I had this sense you were somewhat dissallusioned. But I stand corrected. That you were around many scholars must explain why you are so intelligent and a wealth of knowledge.
I wish I knew some scholars
Yes, many baptist churches around here seem to be static as well. I actually go to a Byzantine Catholic Church now, and it is smallish, but no young people but a few. It’s sort of in the middle as far as community goes. There are so many old people, many of them don’t talk( but what else can you expect). It seems, though, that many of the non-denominational Churches are the ones that I have noticed are full of life, though they do have their major problems(obviously). I have dabbled in protestant churches here and there, that’s how I know these things.
I know that size is not indicative of community or lack of it, its just that it’s much more difficult.
It sounds like you have lots of “issues” with Catholicism. You say that you are Catholic and not protestant, but you seem to have a very protestant frame of mind and sense of things. I’m not sure I can explain what that means, it’s not an indictment, btw, just a sense.
There is nothing wrong with a protestant frame of mind as long as what your protesting is a legitimate protest. It wasn’t Martin Luther’s being critical and protesting against the Church that made him a protestant, with all the negative connotations, but his dissent from the Church after she made the final decision on doctrinal matters. But criticism is good, or else reform is never possible when needed. So, I am critical on a small amount of issues, but im not Protestant(with a capital P). Im all for the Catholic Church. G.K. Chesterton writes:
“A man does not come an inch nearer to being a heretic by being a hundred times a critic. Nor does he do so because his criticisms resemble those of critics who are also heretics. He only becomes a heretic at the precise moment when he prefers hes criticism to his Catholicism.”
Why do you assume that the same accutrements, and the same form in the catacombs is okay, but in the Haggia Sophia is wrong? Where does the assumption that the Greeks were emphasizing ritual over reality come from, what do you base it on?
I wasn’t. I’m simply saying that packing 2,000 into the Haggia Sophia is not something conducive for maintaining intimate communion, which is highly necessary in the Church. However, I could be wrong. I think there is something to say that congregations can be too big, and if 2,000 is not too big, then I don’t know what is. Im not saying, though, that you are for huge congregations. It’s just an observation and concern on my part.
In Christ,
Jared
May 3, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Not an argument, merely a comment: it is not at all unusual in my parish for there to be upwards of 2,000 people in each Sunday Mass, and there are five Masses. I live in a rapidly growing area. My church is not nearly as large as the Haggia Sophia and yet 2,000 (even though there are only seats for 1600) does not feel all that packed in, at least not in a bad way. I think it’s exciting to have that many brothers and sisters all together for the sacrifice of the Mass. 2,000 people together singing the Great Amen! It’s amazing. 2,000 people all reciting the Nicene Creed, affirming what we all believe, together. It really brings home how large the body of Christ is. It really feels like the body when you have that many diverse folks sitting (and standing) together to worship our head.
Now, I also enjoy (and need) my small group Bible study. That’s where true fellowship blossoms, that’s where you learn about your brothers and sisters, where you find out who they are, and they find out who you are, that’s where you discover needs that can be met. Mass is about worship, about coming together as a body (large or small) to participate in the sacrifice. It’s about pointing upwards, offering our sacrifice of praise and of ourselves to our God and Redeemer. Fellowship is better suited to smaller venues where we can be personal. We can love each other, learn from each other, and then take that love back to worship at Mass time and offer it to God. I think this is true even when the church itself is small.
May 4, 2009 at 12:51 am
Where do you live, and what Church do you attend?
-Jared-
May 4, 2009 at 1:15 am
I’m not sure I’m ready to go there. I’m pretty open on this blog, but that feels like giving out my address! Silly, I know.
Because of our conversation, I actually thought about linking some pictures of the dedication of our new building. They are unreal, almost spooky – light streaming through stained glass into incense filled air right onto the head of our archbishop/cardinal. Breathtaking! I’m still considering it, but I haven’t decided if I can get that “personal” yet.
May 4, 2009 at 2:38 am
Oh, sorry for bringing it up. I was just curious so I could look up the Church’s site. (if it has one) I was wondering because you said there was something like 2,000 at each mass, which interested me. I have never heard of such a vibrant community before. (did you mean 2,000 out of all 5 masses or 2000 every mass, equaling 10,000 every sunday?)
Don’t worry, though. Im not a creaper.
I stumbled across your blog because I saw you comment at “called to communion”. I thought it was great to have a woman comment(something I don’t see every day) I was happy to know that there are women out there that are really into theology, and related stuff. None around here, though. :/
It has been a great conversation with you. A breath of fresh air for me.
I like reading blogs, and yours is cool.
May 4, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Please don’t apologize! I didn’t really think you were a “creaper”, but you never who else is out there reading, you know? I’m always trying to bring home to my boys how they need to be careful on the internet, not giving out personal info, etc., so I’m just trying to follow my own advice. I’m not good at staying anonymous, so before long I’ll probably be completely out of the closet!
Yes, I did mean 10,000 on a Sunday! It would only be that big on Christmas and Easter (all Masses being full). On a typical Sunday the 7 am service is not completely full. Yesterday I was shocked at how “empty” the 9 am service was, there were probably only 1,200 (that’s a complete guess based on the empty seats around me, and I’m trying to underestimate) there, which is still a lot, but there was actually space to my left on the pew, which was a first!
Daily Mass is much, much smaller, probably only 60 – 100 people (although I’m terrible at estimating). We have a smaller chapel for that.
For what it’s worth, I know lots of women who are interested in theology and related stuff so we’re out there. There are probably even some around you that you just haven’t realized are knowledgeable. We don’t wear sign on our heads, but we can be found. Sometimes people are very deep, yet very quiet. You can never be sure about the people sitting next to you in the pew, even those that look bored might surprise you if you got to know them.
May 4, 2009 at 1:21 am
That was beautiful, Lucious. I’m so glad you stumbled across my blog.
I love the continuity with the past, through architecture, through liturgy, through the communion with the Saints, and on and on. Fulfilled, not destroyed.