www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Church Architecture

Axios & Dr John,

I had asked my Priest about this issue sometime back, being a man of few words with my questions he is, he told me that the Bishops use to operate with more control in diocese. But that (and he said this with no ill regard of the Pope) under John Paul II he has pulled in the reigns on the Bishops so to speak. This naturaly angers some. Actually I like that the Pope has laid his weight down on the Bishops, in fact I think if he had the energy and health it would be good for him to rule with an even more iron fist.

Just my 2cents.

There are many here on this forum who have expressed very Liberal ideology toward this important thread of Church architecture. I wish to attempt to expose the true nature behind the new Church architecture for what it really is.

There are those Cardinals, Bishops, Priest, and Religious who wish to eliminate the priesthood all together. What better way to do this than to diminish the role of the priest in the Church. Now, I know many of you are saying I am crazy and there is no proof ect� Well, here are a few statements made by to powerful Church authorities:

Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said,
"What some refer to as a 'vocations crisis' is, rather, one of the many fruits of the Second Vatican Council, a sign of God's deep love for the Church, and an invitation to a more creative and effective ordering of gifts and energy in the Body of Christ."

Seattle Archbishop Alexander Brunett said,
�"The loss of the priests unique intimacy with the sacred has subtly, but mightily, contributed to this development. While insisting that nothing has essentially been changed for the priest because he is still the one who consecrates, the liturgical engineers have made his presence optional at the most intimate moment of holy communion between the flock under his care and Our Lord. The majority of Catholics receive the Eucharist from the hands of a lay person. The act of shared intimacy that is at the heart of shepherding ('Feed my lambs, feed my sheep') is absent. The Church, echoing an increasingly feminized society, is telling priests: 'Once you have consecrated, you are no longer needed.'"

This is all contrary to the words of Pope John Paul,
"For a parish to have a priest as its own pastor is of fundamental importance. The title of pastor is one specifically reserved to the priest. The Sacred Orders of priesthood represent, in fact, for (the priest) the indispensable and necessary condition to be appointed as a valid pastor. Other faithful may actively collaborate with him, even full time, but, as he has received the ministerial priesthood, they can never take his place as pastor. ... The ecclesial community absolutely needs the ministerial priesthood to have Christ Head and Pastor present in it. ... [the non-ordained] must be faithful to their proper function as consultants and care must be taken that no office or person deprive the parish priest of his authority."

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20011221_A_Brief_Defense_of_Traditionalism.html

How would the liberal Church officials destroy the Priesthood? By Church Architecture. Think about it!

People of honor are held in honorable positions. The president is in the Whitehouse, the Queen of England was in the castle, and the Pope in the Vatican. It is no different for priest. In the past the altar was away from the people (Roman Catholic Churches) behind an altar rail. The altar was placed higher than the people and the priest sat in an elevated chair (one of distinction). When you went into a pre-Vatican II church you know the priests job was important by the architecture of the church (with some exceptions i.e. 3rd world countries, mission churches, etc�). In the Roman Catholic Church one way vocations were encourage was through altar boys who looked up to priest and say there job as a job of honor and great importance to the people and God.

So if you are one of these liberals and you wanted to destroy the Priesthood how could you go about doing it? Simple, you reduce the priest position from a place of honor to just another participate in the Liturgy. You could accomplish this by lower the altar to the level of the people and taking away the altar rail. You would place the lecture podium with equal level of the priests chair. No longer is the priest job a job of honor. Now the priest is one of the Laity and his position is nothing more than a mechanical one. Of course you could not tell the Laity what you were doing in fear of backlash so you hide you personal agenda. On of the excuse you for this new Architecture would be that the people can now see the Mass and feel closer to God, You could say that a lowered altar in the center allowed the people not to be distracted by other things and focus on what is happening during consecration.

A legitimate excuse could be made that the Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her own so she is free to change throughout time to meet the needs of the people. True, but the Church as also laid down some particulars that limit changing architecture. For example,

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal reminds us of the hierarchical nature of the liturgy and that the church buildings should reflect that nature in a unity of space with diversity of roles (no. 257), whereas the U.S. bishops' statement seems to be chiefly concerned with showing that different ministries do not imply "superiority" or inferiority" (no. 3 7). It is interesting to note that the Roman document recommends some kind of emphasis on the sanctuary as special and different from the nave (no. 258), whereas the American document does not - an omission that reflects a less sacred view of the altar.

General Instruction says that the altar should be revera centrurn (truly central), which seems not to permit the casual off-center treatment which gives the lectern and altar equal billing.

http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/15/SubIndex/0/ArticleIndex/10

I could continue this on and on but the point is that most of the Bishops of America have a dangerous personal agenda that will have dire consequence in the future.

So, you might say what does this have to do with the Byzantine Catholic Church? Well, the point is this, if the Bishops (Future Popes) want to do away with the priesthood or at least have women priest then that will effect the Byzantine Catholic Church. It would then be conceivable that we could have Women Pope who would be head of the Byzantine Catholic Church!


Axios,

You said, �1. In St. Peter's the altar is not in the apse but the center of the church.

2.the tabernacle is in a side chapel�

First of all the altar is not necessarily in the center of the Church. St. Peter�s is in the form of a T with most seating being in the shape of a rectangle. The Altar is much higher than the laity. Second, the tabernacle is in a �side chapel� right behind the altar. Therefore, if you were to enter St. Peter�s and genuflected you would face the tabernacle at all times! Finally, please give specifics as to what images of individuals who have not been approved for veneration in St. Peters. I am not aware of any but I could be wrong.

aRCG,

You are not crazy or at least if you are we both are. I personaly do believe there are people within the Priesthood and probably within the heirarchy of the Church, that wish to do great damage to the Church - even to the point of destroying it if that were possible. Even if I were to abandon the Catholic Church and become a Hindue hermit I would still believe this situation presntly exists within the Church. By the same token I think there exists an element of persons within in the Church which wishes to rid the smiles from off of every persons face, damn everyone to hell or the fear of hell, and ridicual third world peasent girls with child but no husband - all the while they try to take her to bed or do take her to bed.

Is this in the architecture? I don't know. I don't really think so though - that would be one @#$$ of a conspiracy theory. But I think intentions and reflections are more honest then that. By-in-large I think much of the Priesthood and hierarchy develope their theology or philosophy toward compassion, love, and respect for the human person.

Maximus,

You said, "By the same token I think there exists an element of persons within in the Church which wishes to rid the smiles from off of every persons face, damn everyone to hell or the fear of hell"

That is funny I have never heard a Catholic Priest EVER talk about going to hell in ANY sermons in all my life. I was born Post-Vatican II so I guess that must have been a Pre-Vatican II thing.

God Bless!

p.s. Did priest really preach "Fire and Breamstone" sermons? I just can see that in a Catholic Church.

The most memorable homily my father ever heard was when he was in the service in the early 60s, stationed near San Diego. The Mass was in Latin (of course), but the community was Mexican, so the Homily was in Spanish. My father speaks no Spanish himself. The Priest went on "blah blah blah blah NO!!! blah blah blah NO!!!! blah blah NO!!! blah NO NO NO!!!" Whatecer the Priest said, it hit home with the congregation. Needless to say, no one was laughing after Mass. He sometimes wishes he knew what the Priest was saying.

Roman Guy:

You present some challenging hurdles to Orthodox-Catholic relations. First, one factual error. One of the changes in the Latin Church with the Council was the introduction of a new piece of liturgical furniture previously uncommon - the presidential chair.

The altar in St. Peter's is in the crossing of the church, much as is proposed for the Milwaukee Cathedral. The tabernacle is in a seperate chapel. Yes, if you are in the main body of the Church you may well be facing it, just as if you are in Rockefeller Center, you may be facing the tabernacle in St. Patrick's Cathedral. In both cases, the Latin customs (or at least the Pope's custom in St. Peter's) is NOT to genuflect when the tabernacle is in another room from where one is. Speaking of the Pope, many of his predecessors have images in St Peters, including those not canonized.

But this comes to a greater question. Some of my fellow Orthodox Christians may have the exasperation "They just don't get it". Let me explain this Orthodox reaction.

From some Catholics, and many who post here, I read great desire, sometimes even complaints and harsh words toward the leader(s) of their own communion on the autonomy of the eastern ritual churches. At the same time, I read statements such as "There are those Cardinals, Bishops, Priest, and Religious who wish to eliminate the priesthood all together."

I then read among the dissents who woudl destroy the priesthood are the Cardinal-Archbishop of the largest US Archdiocese, the Archbishop of Seattle, along with "liberal church officials" who wish to destroy the priesthood and are more numerous than those who "tell the Laity" this is their agenda and "most of the bishops" in America.

Countering them are the Pope and Roman documents.

Now I don't want to debate the merits of the theology of the priesthood or church design. I want to make a much more important point. If you accept the proposition that "Most bishops", Cardinals and church officials wish to destroy the priesthood and that they need the Pope and Rome to stop them, you also introduced the propoistion that the Orthodox theory of conciliarism is bunk.

Going back to my earlier point, this is what many Catholics with high regards for Orthodoxy don't get. We Orthodox beleive in conciliarity. Respecting the conciliarity of the 2% of Catholics who are eastern while treating the bishops of 98% of the Catholic Church as papal legate or persons incapable of truly serving as bishops because of their rank heresy is an ecumencial problem.

If it is true that most bishops wish to destroy the priesthood, then yes, the ultramonte Catholic theory is right and all bishops, east and west, should be given no liberty to rule the church. If conciliarity is a true principle (even with some udnerstanding of the papacy, yet to be worked out between Catholics and Orthodox), then our dialogue has been advanced.

Which is it, friends?

Axios

Well I'm fortunate enough to have come from a catholic education, that being said, you didn't have to have the Priest preach about hell, the fear of hell was thoroughly inoculated in you from the Nuns

Why do you want to hear more about hell? Yes we need to know that we all have a chance to get a spot in hell, but at the same time shouls we be motivated to do good and what's right out of a fear of punishment?

Maximus,

"Why do you want to hear more about hell? Yes we need to know that we all have a chance to get a spot in hell, but at the same time shouls we be motivated to do good and what's right out of a fear of punishment?"

That is just a lame statement!

God Bless!

Well, Byzantines (and other Eastern Christians) don't go to hell. We go to Hades. The food is much better. [We have a separate heaven also; Italian chefs, French wine, German housekeepers. Who needs gold streets?] That's why our Churches have their decorations and all the pictures of the relatives all over the walls and ceiling. It's a family thing.

Christ is Risen!!

[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Nice, Dr. John, I love that.

Dr. John


You are correct! My Apologies.

Anyway, I guess we will have to wait till the end before we get the perfect Church Architecture.

Revelation 21:10-20 "He took me in spirit to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.
11 It gleamed with the splendor of God. Its radiance was like that of a precious stone, like jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a massive, high wall, with twelve gates where twelve angels were stationed and on which names were inscribed,
(the names) of the twelve tribes of the Israelites. 13 There were three gates facing east, three north, three south, and three west.
14 The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 The one who spoke to me held a gold measuring rod to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. 16 The city was square, its length the same as (also) its width. He measured the city with the rod and found it fifteen hundred miles in length and width and height. 17 He also measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits according to the standard unit of measurement the angel used. 18 The wall was constructed of jasper, while the city was pure gold, clear as glass. The foundations of the city wall were decorated with every precious stone;
the first course of stones was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh hyacinth, and the twelfth amethyst."

I guess God does Like Beautiful Churches!

God Bless
Ray S.

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: aRomanCatholicGuy ]

Interestingly enough, the Greek-speaking Church has always viewed the "Apokalypsis" as a poetic document that was subject to a too-wide variety of interpretations, and thus it is not included anywhere in our liturgical life. (And Lord knows, we go on for hours, and hours, and hours, and.......) The Greek church fought its inclusion in the Canon, but acquiesced because it wanted Hebrews in the canon, and the Latins were dead-set against it: hence, a compromise.

Hence, for most Eastern Christians, we view the church as "God's Home/Our Home" simultaneously; indeed we are in the Presence, but we are also 'at home'. So, we do it up well, i.e., to the best of our ability, even if it ain't Regal.

I am recalled of my visit to the Melkite Bishop's chapel in Newton, Mass. Stark white walls with ancient icons mounted under lamps; crimson carpet; and an altar of pure white marble surmounted by the whitest and purest linen. It literally took my breath away when I entered the chamber. I thought to myself: what a GREAT place to pray!! Minimal distraction during liturgy, and clean!!

Christ is Risen!!!

"Going back to my earlier point, this is what many Catholics with high regards for Orthodoxy don't get. We Orthodox beleive in conciliarity. Respecting the conciliarity of the 2% of Catholics who are eastern while treating the bishops of 98% of the Catholic Church as papal legate or persons incapable of truly serving as bishops because of their rank heresy is an ecumencial problem."

"If it is true that most bishops wish to destroy the priesthood, then yes, the ultramonte Catholic theory is right and all bishops, east and west, should be given no liberty to rule the church. If conciliarity is a true principle (even with some udnerstanding of the papacy, yet to be worked out between Catholics and Orthodox), then our dialogue has been advanced."

Which is it, friends?

Axios

Dear Axios,

Your question is right on target.

The official teaching of the Catholic Communion is quite clear about the nature of the Church and the role of the bishop in the diocese and in the larger church.

The bishop of a particular Latin Church (diocese) is not a vicar of the Bishop of Rome; he is a vicar of Jesus Christ himself. This is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n.27.

This role is further explained and put into context by the Decree, Christus Dominus, which deals with the three responsibilities of bishops. They are collegially responsible for the whole Church in conjunction with the Pope in his ministry to the Churches. They are pastors and teachers in their dioceses. They are called to be responsible for the Church in a region (hence national and regional bishops conferences). This decree called for reorganization of the Roman Curia.

To me, the furor about the Milwaukee Cathedral is cause for hope. It seems to me that it was the Counciliar teachings which fueled the negative reaction of many in the Latin Church to the Curial demands on Archbishop Weakland. A clearer understanding and expression of what the Church is and the role of the bishop in it is taking hold among the clergy and laity within the Latin Church.

The ongoing back and forth in the Latin Church about bishops is a sign of healthy growth. It will make possible a wider discussion of the the role of the Petrine Ministry among the Churches.

Your question and the statements above it reflect the complexity of the change process among us as we implement what our Bishops have taught us. We are working to "Get it."

Seems to me that you've put your finger on the constant struggle of all of the Churches and all Christians.

Thank you for your spirited postings.

Steve

Resources I've used to make my comments are two entries in the Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. One is "Bishops" by Richard McBrien (pp. 181 and 182). The second is "Decree on the Bishops' Pastoral Office in the Church" by Frederick Cwiekowski (p. 403).

[ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Inawe,


Could you re-state that please? I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

To clarify, I said "most bishops". What I believe is there is a large number of Bishops and Cardinals with this attitude. Case in point Cardinal Mahoney.

Thanks

[ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: aRomanCatholicGuy ]

Dear Roman Catholic Guy,

The two paragraphs that you attribute to me were actually written by Axios. I simply quoted him in order to comment on what he asked.

Sorry 'bout the confusion!

Steve