I think they are after you ebb, you still at 1060 west Addison?
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/29/2017 12:30:48 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Too many off topic personal comments. |
Posted on 08/28/2017 3:39:09 PM PDT by NYer
If the grand altars, with all their gold and statues and size, are at their core outward signs of inward devotion, what does it say about plain altars that more resemble a table than a temple?
For most of the Catholic Church’s 2,000-year history, it has been known for its magnificent churches. In the popular psyche, the stereotypical Catholic church has high, arched ceilings, statues of saints, massive crucifixes, incense that seems to pour from the walls, and gilded, beautiful, and (sometimes) obnoxious altars.
There is perhaps no better example of this than St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, the Vatican itself, which fulfills every Catholic stereotype to the highest degree. If any building could embody the very essence of Catholicism, it would be the Vatican.
But those stereotypical churches are fading into the pre-Vatican II past and being replaced with churches that are, simply, bland. Statues of saints have been removed, the incense is gone, the ceilings and walls have a color palette comparable to Starbucks, and the Great Altars have been replaced with simple blocks of marble, or sometimes even wood. These losses may be aesthetic, but they reveal something deeper about the changes in the Catholic Church following the tumult and fallout of the Second Vatican Council.
I attend two parishes in Chicago with some regularity. One is a traditional parish that celebrates most of its Masses in Latin, doesn’t shy from public rosary or Eucharistic processions, and has a healthy, loyal congregation. This type of engagement — public on major feasts, but otherwise focused on parish-centric activities — used to be a major component of parish life that has largely dried up.
Parishes do still hold processions, pastors still assert themselves in the community, and faith is still lived outside the church building. But the style of community engagement and parish building that drove (and continues to drive) traditional Latin Mass parishes is vastly different from the way it is done in more contemporary parishes, and not necessarily in a bad way.
Activities like rosary groups, First Friday devotions, and catechesis-centered book groups may be old-fashioned, but they generally achieve the same ends as theology on tap and keynote speaker events do for other parishes. For example, the contemporary-minded parish I attend is similar to the traditional one except that its Masses are exclusively in English, there is a stronger emphasis on community-building (speaker series, networking opportunities, etc.), and displays of faith outside the church building are more limited. But it also has a strong, loyal congregation.
One of the major differences between the two is that the Latin-Mass parish kept its Great Altar, while the English one removed it long ago for something more modest. To many Catholics today what separates one parish from another is more about the politics of the place and less about the aesthetics. It is not uncommon for young adults or a young family to “parish shop” around their city or suburb until they find a place that aligns with their priorities.
Does the pastor speak more about abortion, or more about climate change? Does the parish school have a rigorous curriculum, or is it too watered down? How is the music at Mass? But one thing that is often overlooked, for whatever reason, are the aesthetics of a parish. Does it have a Great Altar?
The Great Altars of the church do, at times, deserve the criticism they have received after Vatican II. Their gilded exteriors and baroque architecture can come off as gaudy if poorly executed. But if the grand altars, with all their gold and statues and size, are at their core outward signs of inward devotion — just like the Rosary and other sacramentals are for Catholics — then what does it say about plain altars that more resemble a table than a temple?
This isn’t to imply that people’s faith is weaker because churches are blander now than they used to be. But for a church that put so much emphasis on aesthetics for millennia, to shift away from it so suddenly would go a long way towards explaining the crisis that many parishes suddenly find themselves in.
The reform that came from Vatican II stripped a number of rituals (aesthetic and otherwise) from the Mass that had organically come into existence over time and for specific reasons. For instance, in the traditional Latin Mass the priest faces the altar in the same direction the congregation does, and his movements are choreographed down to which fingers handle the Eucharist. The altar, considered the point where heaven and earth meet, was designed with the according dignity.
Perhaps the largest disruption that came from the destruction of the old altars was the reordering of the purpose of the Mass, both literally and figuratively. There is a reason churches-in-the-round were rare before Vatican II, and why they are now more popular. The physical design of old churches was meant to dictate several things: ornate artwork on the walls, domes, and arches was meant to pull the eye upward and spark meditation on the divine mysteries, the altarpiece was placed in the apse to orient the congregation properly, and incense was meant to draw together and sanctify the individual properties into one event.
That sort of order and hierarchy has been misplaced and is often focused inward, not upward. The importance of physical design on the structure of the Mass is lost on a number of twenty-first-century, postmodern Catholics. But it is important to remember that how a building is designed is integral to its function.
That’s why removing the old altars was one of the most detrimental post-concilar things that could have happened: by reorienting the altar to meet the people, the Mass is now too often (though not always) about the people themselves. The number of Masses I have attended that function more as performance art and less as worship are sadly too many.
Vatican II certainly had a point that the church should be doing more to meet people where they’re at, instead of asking them to meet the church where it was at, which was often inaccessible. But re-orienting the structure of the Mass to focus on the congregation, in the long run, ended up de-ordering the priority of the Mass, which ultimately exists to worship God.
Whatever faults the old Mass may have had, one thing it excelled at was prioritization. Everything that happened had a reason behind it and each Mass progressed as a timeline recounting salvation history through Old Testament prayers and readings, and culminating in a re-presentation (not representation) of the “new and eternal covenant” in the Eucharist.
Contemporary Masses may be more accessible in a literal sense, but too often their priorities are in the wrong places. If a lively parish has a handful of priests to itself, why do there need to be ten or more lay Eucharistic ministers at every Mass? Why must every song sound like something from a low-budget Christian movie? And why must the altar and tabernacle be so plain?
Coming into focus 60 years after Vatican II is what we lost with the Great Altars. The Catholic Church has lost not only the altars themselves, and the artistic treasures most of them contained, but also an appreciation for the spiritual and religious impact aesthetics can have in a sacred space.
The rich history of the church — everything from Latin to kneeling for communion to saint statues — has been put on the postmodern, post-concilar backburner in favor of “innovations” that were supposed to bring the church into the present day. But have all of these innovations worked? That’s an open question, and one worth asking of reformers and traditionalists alike.
Exactly.
However, the ancient churches, Rome included, were founded by Apostles. (Rome, by Peter and Paul; Alexandria, by Mark; the Byzantine Church is descended from the Church of Jerusalem; the churches of Iraq and India were founded by Thomas, etc.)
Roman Catholics know a lot....the problem is so much of what they know is wrong.
A competing theory promotes Peter as the carrier of the gospel to Rome. The mysterious reference in 12:17 (Peter “went to another place”) opens the door to speculation that Rome was the destination.57 Later church tradition asserts that Peter’s ministry as bishop of Rome spanned 25 years. While the biblical evidence rules out a continuous presence in Rome, it is surmised that Peter could have founded the church in A.D. 42 and then continued his leadership over the church even when in other locations.58 Finally, Rom 15:20-24 could contain an allusion to Peter’s ministry to the Romans, which dissuaded Paul from focusing his outreach in Rome.59
A closer look at earlier Patristic testimony lessens the probability that Peter established the church at Rome. In the mid-second century A.D., Irenaeus envisions a founding role for Peter alongside Paul: “Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, laying the foundations of the Church.”60 Soon after, he refers to the “universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.”61 Immediately, the problem surfaces that in comparing Peter to Paul, who arrived to Rome relatively late in the church’s history, Peter’s unique founding influence in the church becomes less likely.62 More likely, relatively obscure Christians made contributions to the church’s establishment, leading to a vital and growing community. As a parallel, Christianity surfaces in places like Cyprus and Cyrene without any apparent missionary journey by noted apostles (Acts 11:20).
https://bible.org/article/origins-church-rome
Well, at least since around the 300s.
Ha Ha.
Yet you posted what you did.
Hope you don’t mind, but if you do, stick your concerns up your arse.
Proving again it is usually the Roman Catholic who resorts to the personal attack and/or profanity when the argument goes against them.
It seems to be a consistent pattern with Roman Catholics.
A consistent pattern is you being an anti Catholic troll.
Everyone, quit feeding him.
Proving again it is usually the Roman Catholic who resorts to the personal attack and/or profanity when the argument goes against them.
Roman Catholics do not like when things they've been taught are shown to be incorrect.
Roman Catholics do not like when things they've been taught are shown to be incorrect.
You once demanded that I never post to you again and you cc'd the moderator. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.
You were called out because your post was of a threatening nature which was followed up with an equally disturbing freepmail.
I have a feeling if we'd been in a bar we wouldn't have been having a pleasant conversation.
I still have the freepmail btw. We're asked not to publish those but I can provide to any interested parties.
I don't mind the debate. I think it's good we have a forum to discuss these issues.
However, I notice the Roman Catholic doesn't like to be challenged. Some Roman Catholics think the forum is their own private internet blog site on which they can post whatever they want without being challenged.
You are a good example of that. How many times have you wrongly accused me of "stalking" you? Only to have many of those posts pulled.
You continue to call me a troll....only to have those often pulled.
I've had several threads I've started be asked to be pulled by Roman Catholics simply because they didn't like the topic. Sorta like the Left and Antifa does. They attempt to shut down the conversation.
So no....it is Roman Catholicism that doesn't like the debate.
You feel threatened?
I think they are after you ebb, you still at 1060 west Addison?
I see you're starting your juvenile antics again.
That’s who I’m including when I say “all” caucus violators should be removed by moderator. Friendly FReeper G-F, maybe inadvertently, did the initial violation by referencing “Disciples of Christ” in a caucus discussion.
Anyway, I just got done re-reading Genesis and Exodus—Exodus being the book where the Isrealites leave Egypt after the plagues and all.
Well, once they're well along, having received the Ten Commandments, the specifications for the Tabernacle and teh Ark of the Covenant are issued to Moses by YHWH.
Boy, talk about "fancy schmancy"! The Catholic Church has nothing on those Israelites and their Tabernacle, including Aaron's priestly garb. It truly must have been a sight to behold—especially for a portable structure that had to be disassembled, and then reassembled at every new destination...
Yes, inadvertently.
Yep...and Roman Catholicism continues to try and recreate the OT system of worship.
What do y’all say about building some new, great alters?
JoMa
Please read and follow the guidelines for posting in the Religion Forum here at Free Republic.
They can be found by clicking on my screen name at the bottom of this post.
Your comment was removed.
>>Your comment was removed.
Will do. Apologize for the transgression.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.