B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
A Latin Renaissance (CNS Report: 21 Sept 2012)
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
Very nice. Ten thumbs up.
I like his comparison with Shakespeare and I like his description about the assonance, consonance, rhythm, and meter stirring up the heart.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Glad you liked it. I did think the short piece made a dispassionately compelling case.
I liked the Shakespeare comparison for other reasons. Those with poor language skills (command of their native language alone) cannot easily grasp how command of another language, or in the case of English even a more ancient form, can bring about greater literacy in their own tongue. The same can be said of spiritual literacy, with language being one element contributing to one’s spiritual development and awareness.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Thank you, but the subject doesn’t have anything to do with Franciscans. What I meant by personal poverty is that he (St. John Mary Vianney) had little interest in seeking comfort in his living situation. Eventually he just slept on the floor and ate very little. And I was relating this to how he thought that all glory and honor is to be shown to God, which also meant, for him, to have the best available items for the Church and especially the altar.
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I am saying that “liturgical austerity and Gospel Poverty” applied to a diocesan church is wrong and a missed opportunity to evangelise. Even secular schools put up pictures for the children, so they can learn! We complain about catechesis but fail to do it in the central building of our religion.
Saying ‘but monks have bare churches’ is a diversion.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
And I’m saying that “applied to a diocesan church is wrong and a missed opportunity to evangelise” can be wrong (not always, but it can be). It’s not only a missed opportunity to evangelize Catholics about the blessings of living a simple life of Gospel Poverty, but it’s also refusing to be open to the blessing and charisms of a religious order. The same religious orders who brought us Saints, devotionals, practices, and Doctors of the Church.
Imagine if people have always had the attitude of “get that ‘consecrated religious’ stuff out of my parish!” If people had the closed-off attitude some are having here, you’d be missing several distinct Catholic practices.
If you really don’t want the traditions of the religious impacting diocesan churches, then stop praying the Rosary and start using whatever Missal was around in the 800’s. And stop suggesting that Thomism be the main method of teaching in seminaries.
Regarding the topic of austerity and whatnot, I seriously recommend you read the book I suggested before, “Happy are you poor”. You will gain a bit of a better understanding where I’m coming from with some of this.
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I think Catholic laymen and women, in these perverse and worldly times, would like a Catholic Church to look like Catholic Church and not an architectural experiment, a ship, a spaceship or just a bare lecture hall with some religious features. It would help our faith and sense of identity.
Are posters here using religious’ poverty and austerity as an excuse for this sort of progressive minimalism? In non-religious’ churches? That’s how it’s sounding.
But that’s a common theme on here, I find: find some precedent, no matter how tangential, to excuse the peculiar state of Roman Catholicism in the late 20th century. A Catholicism that seemed bent, up until recently, to excise anything Roman out of itself.
Are posters here using religious’ poverty and austerity as an excuse for this sort of progressive minimalism? In non-religious’ churches? That’s how it’s sounding.
But that’s a common theme on here, I find: find some precedent, no matter how tangential, to excuse the peculiar state of Roman Catholicism in the late 20th century. A Catholicism that seemed bent, up until recently, to excise anything Roman out of itself.
B
Baelor
Guest
If a Catholic Church has a Crucifix, candles, a Catholic altar, and an organ, how can you say that it is not Catholic?
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I want it to be demonstrably, militantly and in-your-face-Luther! Catholic. It would help Catholics, too. It’s a rule they have to go there on Sunday. They are big places with big bare walls. So put something on them!
Catechesis, y’ see.
By whatever means available.
Catechesis, y’ see.
By whatever means available.
O
OraLabora
Guest
No, it’s not a diversion. It’s recognition that the religious orders have had tremendous influence in the Church throughout the ages, and if Catholicism is to be, well, Catholic, they must be allowed to continue to do so.
Otherwise we have a compartmentalized Church that is no longer truly “universal” where different orders, congregations and traditions cross-fertilize each other. And that my friend would make the Church seem far more “Protestant” than anything an architect could do to a church building. Because that’s exactly what each individual Protestant sect seeks: a uniform way of thinking, a uniform spirituality, and there’s no room for philosophical differences under the same roof. It’s why we have so many different Protestant denominations. If you want to be a Pentecostal, you’d better be into being slain by the spirit, never mind this contemplative nonsense. Just one example. Yet in Catholicism the Charismatic movement, and contemplative orders, flourish under the same roof. It’s a mistake to think that they should not be allowed to have influence within their dioceses. It’s simply not Catholic.
What Catholics need is not some caricature of Catholicism. What they need is authentic Catholicism and that includes allowing the influence of religious orders, congregations, personal prelatures, and other authentically Catholic traditions, to flourish far outside the cloister, convent or whatever. This applies equally to the liturgy and to the architecture, besides of course the spirituality and charism of the order.
Good catechesis would not depend on the frills of a church building to get its message across. Good catechesis would teach the vital importance of the influence of the orders etc. to the health of the Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
St. Francis never said such a thing. In fact, in the rule and in the admonitions, he writes very specifically about the importance of the chapels being clean, cared for with great detail and making sure that everything is orderly as befits the Lord. He never advocated the use of any form of wealth for our chapels or churches that we built. He actually gave away the missal to be sold in order to feed the poor. Later, the Church would condemn this as simony. But Francis didn’t know about simony. He knew about holy poverty and charity toward the poor.
In fact, this is how the tabernacle on the front wall came to be. It’s NOT a Church tradition as the Trad Movement wants to make it. It’s a Franciscan tradition that spread as the order grew. The chapels were so simple that they were tiny. There were no side altars as there were in the cathedrals and the chapels of monks and canons. Franciscans have always had a very special devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. We started the custom of Perpetual Adoration, without a monstrance. There was no such a thing. There had to be a place to reserve the Blessed Sacrament. Since there was not enough space, a pedestal was built flushed against the back wall with the tabernacle on it. The altar was actually about three feet forward so that the friars could stand around it.
When we went or when we go into a diocese and we build, we build according to the wishes of the bishop. Whatever we build, we must build with our money, but we may not own it. If we have to leave, everything is handed to the bishop free of charge, this includes the furniture in the house as well as whatever is in the church or chapel.
When we set up chapels for our use, they are very austere. The walls are usually white. There is a crucifix, tabernacle, altar and that’s it. There are no altar rails, no kneelers, no paintings on the walls. Some have stained glass windows, depending on the province.
There is also a particular practice of austerity that is very pleasing to God as you see among Benedictines, Cistercians, Carthusians, Franciscans, Discalced Carmelites, Missionaries of Charity, Missionaries of the Poor, Salesians and other communities where austerity is key to their life of holiness and to their apostolate. Austerity is not always a sign of meaness. It can also be a sign of holiness. For example, the communities that I just mentioned, practice austerity in our sacred spaces to reflect the austerity of the cross.
Franciscans do not own too many properties, even today. If it’s a parish, it’s owned by the diocese. If it’s a school, it may be owned by the diocese or by a board. If it is owned by the community, it has entitlements attached to it, meaning that if the community must sell it, it must use the funds for a similar purpose, not for profit. There is a limit to what the community can sell without the permission of the Holy See.
If we own it, it’s very simple. If someone owns it or if someone built it before we came, it follows someone else’s taste. For example, In Quito, Ecuador - South America, the Cathedral is St. Francis of Assisi. The city is named after him. It’s name is San Francisco de Quito.
It is one of the most beautiful cathedrals in the world. A trip to Ecuador is worth it, just to see this cathedral. It was built by the Observant Franciscans in the 1600s. Everything is in gold, marble and precious stones. However, here is the important detail. The cathedral was built with the money of the aristocracy who were financing the missions and who donated gold jewelry to be melted and precious stones and beautiful marbles at their expense. The friars were really commissioned to build this cathedral with a very special population in mind and they were not to own it. It has always been owned by the Archdiocese of Quito. Across the street, is the friary. The chapel there is a white shoe box.
Red is mine. In Mystical Theology, the term does not refer to the temporal aspect or the tangible aspect. It refers to the transcendent experience. We say that the liturgy and the sacred space in which it is celebrated is “heaven on earth”, we’re not talking about its physical attributes. It’s much deeper than that. That is the difference between Catholicism and Judaism.
In Judaism, to this day, the external observances are very important, because the transcendent is not as important. In Catholicism, the transcendent is much more important and much of our architecture reflects the transcendent. We have Gothic churches that point to heaven. We have white shoe box chapels in religious houses that point to the nakedness of the cross. Either way, they both point to realities beyond us.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Hmmm, well, what ascetic monk or friar influenced these designs, do you think?
google.co.uk/search?q=modern+catholic+architecture
This article gives a contrary overview:
adoremus.org/1097-Stroik.html
My bolding, below.
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
It comes down to this: What is a Roman Catholic Church supposed to do?
If it’s just a meeting place for The Community At Prayer, then any hall-like structure will do.
If it’s meant to be a Holy Temple in which the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses is to be propitiated by the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of his Son, in a sanctuary, then that won’t do.
Because there are churches which are bare, does not mean that this is a desirable norm. It gives too much wiggle room to iconoclasts.
Who knows how many souls have been lost because a bare church, added to insipid hymns, ‘everybody goes to Heaven’ theology, lay women in the sanctuary, CITH and all the other innovations convinced men that this was just another effeminate, mutable, communal activity they could abstain from and have a lie in on a Sunday?
If 80% of the cues you are getting are happy and/or bland, why bother? It’s the cumulative effect of these changes that does the trick. It ain’t just one or t’other.
If it’s just a meeting place for The Community At Prayer, then any hall-like structure will do.
If it’s meant to be a Holy Temple in which the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses is to be propitiated by the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of his Son, in a sanctuary, then that won’t do.
Because there are churches which are bare, does not mean that this is a desirable norm. It gives too much wiggle room to iconoclasts.
Who knows how many souls have been lost because a bare church, added to insipid hymns, ‘everybody goes to Heaven’ theology, lay women in the sanctuary, CITH and all the other innovations convinced men that this was just another effeminate, mutable, communal activity they could abstain from and have a lie in on a Sunday?
If 80% of the cues you are getting are happy and/or bland, why bother? It’s the cumulative effect of these changes that does the trick. It ain’t just one or t’other.
J
JReducation
Guest
The red is mine.
We have to be very careful when using this phrase. Souls are lost through choices that they make, not choices that others make. When someone follows, believing that what he is following is good, there is no culpability involved, especially if the person whom you’re following is in a position of authority. In that case, it is the person who KNOWINGLY misleads, who puts his or her soul in jeopardy, not the person who innocently follows.
We tend to be too generous with this term of “losing souls” because someone else messed up.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Are you confusing authentic Gospel Poverty (which everyone is called to, religious just have a more extreme version of it) with “minimalism”? You do understand you are effectively demeaning the 1500 years that religious has influenced the Church? Are you saying that the religous should no longer have any influence on dioscean life? At what point should they have stopped having an influence? Are you saying that Archbishop Chaput should step down from being a Bishop, because as a Franciscan he may influence the diocese with some Franciscan practices (you can’t take the Franciscan out of someone, after all)?
That’s how it’s sounding on your end.
You sound surprised that there are people who disagree with you on this point. But in this thread alone we have;
- A Benedictine Oblate.
- A man who had a life-changing retreat at a monastery.
- Superior General of the Franciscan Brothers of Life.
- Someone starting their formation with the Order of Secular Franciscans next month.
- A Carmelite Friar.
- One or two members of the Eastern Churches.
The end for the Christ-like Pius came peacefully on August 20, 1914, and the world, though in the throes of a death struggle, paused to mourn the gentle and humble man whose last will and testament gave such an insight into his character. It read, in part, "I was born poor, I lived poor, I die poor."
Amen, sir. Amen. Especially the last paragraph, but especially everything.
Yet we have how many Saints provided through monasticism and the mendicants? Even our only layman who is a Doctor of the Church was a member of the Third Order of St. Dominic. All done with simple church buildings.
- We’ve covered “bare churches” already. 1500 years the Church has had them, nothing new here.
- Insipid hymns is subjective.
- “Everyone goes to Heaven” is a heresy that’s been around for CENTURIES. in my three volume set “Faith of the Early Fathers”, several of them spend time refuting it.
- CITH was practiced a few different places before the last few decades.
- I’m sorry, but are you saying that any male who prefers the OF or prefers a “bare church” is effeminate?
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Well, isn’t that part of the problem? When you ask “Who decided we should have stark modernist architecture, CITH, insipid copyrighted(!) hymns, lay women in the sanctuary and watered down theology, etc.?” and you try to trace it back, the answer is “no one”. It just sort of happened. Even the new mass seems to have been a committee effort that Pope Paul VI didn’t realise the ramifications of, by one account I read.
This is, I guess, the oft-mentioned ‘Spirit of Vatican II’, a kind of consensus that arose of itself. Kind of like Political Correctness today. Like the latter, I think it should be confronted, if it’s contrary to good sense.
Personally, I don’t automatically expect reason from either individuals or crowds. I’ve realised that people are more or less focussed on their dominant passions and you have to tread carefully around them.
I’ve been very disappointed with the standard of politician we have these days, for example. Yes, yes, It’s facile to knock them but they seem to be making such ignorant mistakes, in the past 20 years. Are we getting dumber as a society?
O
OraLabora
Guest
All subjective opinion. Bad architecture will sadly always be with us. So too will variation in tastes. I think the basilica of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona is hideous. Some love it.
Here’s the new church of a Benedictine community in the US. I’m going to guess you find it too plain:
Interestingly, this is a very traditional community. The only celebrate the EF Mass and they pray the pre-Conciliar Benedictine Divine Office, the only one that has any kind of claim to being “traditional”, as it is 1500 years old as opposed to the Breviarum Romanum of 1960 which is based on an Office only 100 years old.
That church at Clear Creek is true to Benedictine tradition: austere.
J
JReducation
Guest
Everything that you have mentioned above has been approved by the Church. Even if its beginning was less than ideal, once the Church says that it is permissible, our argument is over. Authority has spoken.
I’ll give you a simple example from the religious life. As I have said many times, Francis and Clare banned Gregorian Chant from Franciscan liturgy. It was not allowed at mass or at the LOTH. The mass was chanted in a rather monotonous plain chant. The hymns were laudas and the Divine Office was recited. This was the case from 1209 until 1970.
In 1970, some communities asked for permission to use Gregorian Chant. Some chapters denied it. The communities appealed it, but while the case was in appeal, they began to use it, albeit illegally. Finally, Pope Paul VI granted an indult which said that if the major superior allows Gregorian Chant it can be used. That was it. End of discussion. Those of us who wanted to keep our 800 year old tradition were told that the decision was in the hands of the major superior, not in our hands. He could make a unilateral decision.
Since then, we have had scores of major superiors. One comes in and allows Gregorian Chant. Another is elected and bans it again and so it goes back and forth. Do we argue about it? No. Are we still discussing it? Only in classrooms. Why not, after all, it began illegally? Because once Pope Paul VI said that it was allowed, it was no longer illegal.
Does is cause some discomfort going back and forth? Of course it does. However, we blow off the discomfort. The result is a life of inner silence and peace. We focus on things that are more important at the moment.
The same with the points that you mention. Once the Holy See approved it, it was left in the hands of the bishops to decide for their respective dioceses. Some bishops left it in the hands of the pastors. Regardless of whether it’s the bishop or the pastor making the decision. The fact is that the decision is legal. Therefore, there is nothing immoral about it. The one good thing about being Catholic is that the Catholic Church cannot legalize anything that is immoral, because that would be teaching immorality, something that the Church cannot do.
There is an important distinction there too, between what is illegal and what is immoral. Some things are both, some are not. Some things are illegal and the immorality is the disobedience, not the thing itself. For example, those who started CITH contrary to the law were disobeying. Objectively, they were culpable of disobedience. CITH itself is not immoral.
We have to be selective about the things that we worry about or we’ll drive ourselves crazy.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
B
Baelor
Guest
The Church does not make moral decisions based on the incorrect beliefs of others; it cares about what is morally correct and what is not. If something is permissible, the fact that some people may get the wrong idea does not make it impermissible.
None, because none of those things forces any parishioner to stop coming to Mass.
Also, your argument does not make sense. Bare Churches are the same as CITH somehow? CITH is bad, even though it is permitted? Lay women in the sanctuary are unacceptable but lay men are not? The Mass should be “masculine” and not “effeminate,” whatever that means?
The Spirit of Vatican II can hardly refer to institutional norms, but rather unapproved ones that embody the “Spirit of Vatican II.” In that case, CITH etc. would not be part of the Spirit of Vatican II because they are officially approved.
Indeed they are, and indeed we do.
No, we are getting less reasonable, like you when you suggest an unreasonable approach to an equally unreasonable problem.
J
JReducation
Guest
Can we get back to praying in Latin? That was more interesting.
We know that classical languages are rarely taught in high schools and colleges. So, I find it interesting when I see someone using a Latin prayer book, without the English translation on the opposite page. I’m often tempted to ask, “Why are you saying prayers that you do not understand when they have been translated for your benefit?”
I’m not talking about the standard prayers that don’t require knowledge of Latin, such as the parts of the mass, Lord’s Prayer, Hail Mary, and Glory Be. Most people can figure those out, even if they have never opened a Latin book. They can figure them out by context. I’m talking about prayers like novenas and other less known prayers or even the Psalter.
One has to be very good at Latin to understand all 150 psalms or have an excellent memory, which is not me. Don’t ask me what Psalm 115 says. I have to look for it. I can read the Psalter because I had four years of Latin in the seminary. Otherwise, I’d be lost with a Latin breviary. It may as well be in Russian, which I don’t speak.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
We know that classical languages are rarely taught in high schools and colleges. So, I find it interesting when I see someone using a Latin prayer book, without the English translation on the opposite page. I’m often tempted to ask, “Why are you saying prayers that you do not understand when they have been translated for your benefit?”
I’m not talking about the standard prayers that don’t require knowledge of Latin, such as the parts of the mass, Lord’s Prayer, Hail Mary, and Glory Be. Most people can figure those out, even if they have never opened a Latin book. They can figure them out by context. I’m talking about prayers like novenas and other less known prayers or even the Psalter.
One has to be very good at Latin to understand all 150 psalms or have an excellent memory, which is not me. Don’t ask me what Psalm 115 says. I have to look for it. I can read the Psalter because I had four years of Latin in the seminary. Otherwise, I’d be lost with a Latin breviary. It may as well be in Russian, which I don’t speak.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status