 |
| source: traditionalcatholicism83.blogspot.com |
Why, we may ask five decades later, were they reduced to spectators at the act of baroque theater that had become of Mass—the "opera of the poor," as Voltaire put it? Yes, medieval English, French, and Italian were closer to Latin, but not so much closer that the faithful were so drastically less capable of comprehending the liturgy just a few centuries later. Consider what the faithful did during Mass in the first millennium: on great feasts there would be a night-long vigil, beginning outside the church. The pope or local ordinary would arrive for the Office and a procession would follow into the church proper. Then Mass would be celebrated. In the middle ages, there would be prayers and hymns around the church to the local saints, a procession would follow around the church and arrive at the rood screen, where prayers for the church were made in the vernacular, and then Mass would follow. In both cases the faithful stood unimpeded and were free to move about as the Spirit or their bodies compelled them. Those tired could take a break. Those wishing to pray quietly could disappear to a side chapel. Those especially moved could stand closer to the front. The call to Communion would been the movement of a crowd towards Christ, not unlike those who sought to hear Him preach on the coast on atop the Mount. Communion was not a linear parade.
How different was Mass with pews? First, the ritual itself was highly reduced: no processions, no night watches, no rites for the local saints. Just one or three clerics performing the Mass itself in a simple fashion. Then there was the pew. The faithful could not move, could not process, could not go somewhere to pray, could not do anything but sit still and watch for an hour. The only "break" in action was the possibility of a sermon. Gone were the rood screens and the air of mystery. Instead, an elevated altar behind a rail was viewed by a layman sitting on a bench. There was the mystery, to be watched by a remover spectator in plain sight.
As low Mass replaced high Mass as the norm, people were naturally further disengaged. Even in languages closer to Latin than our English—French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese—the faithful could not really do anything other than find means of diversion, means of entertainment.
If anyone doubts this thesis, and you are open to doing so, consider the 1955 Holy Week. Eight years before Sacrosanctum Concilium put "active participation" into our liturgical vocabulary and fourteen years before the new Mass ritual, Pius XII introduced a series of rites which have, as one of their stated goals the "living participation of he sacred ceremonies." Churchmen in 1955 understood "living participation" differently than churchmen in 1455 did. They wanted the priest to talk to the congregants and for the congregants to talk back to them, and what better way of doing that than facing them? Pius's Holy Week includes Palm Sunday (now "Second Sunday in Passiontide") and Holy Saturday (now "Easter Vigil") rites conducted at length atop a table versus populum in front of the actual altar. Ritually, it was likely an experiment to test how the faithful would receive it and to tweak the ceremonies for when the complete reform was ready for release.
Mass facing the people, what Geoffrey Hull called the "great narcissism," became a matter of fact in almost every parish by 1965.
Pews were not the immediate cause of the new liturgy, but they were a necessary cause.
Another great incisive post. BTW, the church in that picture you posted at the bottom is Our Lady of the Angels Church, SSPX, in Arcadia, CA, for those not familiar with the SSPX. The priest is Fr. Charles Ward, and the bishop is Bp. Galaretta.
ReplyDelete"Participatio actuosa" is already included in St. Pius' X motu propio "Tra le sollecitudini", so you can't blame that on V2.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Pius X was the flawless "super pope" some think he was, but I'm pretty sure his idea of "Participatio actuosa" was something more akin to what could be found in Medieval Masses, Anglican Ordinariate masses, or most Eastern Liturgies I've attended. I also get the impression that he actually wrote or at least dictated the encyclical on sacred music, unlike 'Pascendi Dominici gregis'.
DeleteThere's a Rad Trad narrative building here, centering around the idea of the Tridentine period engaging in a number of strategies to fight the Reformation which may have had more problematic consequences than we as traditionalists might like to admit or even realize.
ReplyDeleteThere is, of course, the common progressive Catholic narrative which argues a more emphatic version of this: The Tridentine Church taking a number of wrong-headed detours that badly deformed the Church, only to be corrected belatedly by some aggressive aggiornamento after Vatican II (though this is always seen as not having been aggressive enough). As if, had the Church refused to engage in any of the Tridentine responses it generated, it would have cruised onto a pleasant glide path to another happy Liberal Protestant denomination well ahead of schedule. Which in any case, would mean a denomination that much closer to terminal senescence.
But this narrative is much more compelling because it points more to what was lost, usually unwittingly, rather than what was supposed to be gained by a different course. Rampant heresy required not only better priestly formation and catechesis but also tighter control over the liturgy, the result being a loss of much of the spontaneity and gradual organic growth that characterized medieval liturgy, as well as legitimate diversity - and not just the heterodox sort. The growth of the modern nation state and its ambitions generated centrifugal forces that drove the Church to greater centralization around the Papacy, which in turn had the unwitting effect of creating a potentially dangerous ultramontanism that would not only have dire consequences if liberals gained control of it, but even some problematic near-term consequences for liturgy and ecclesiology. The need for a more urgent and relatable spiritual witness resulted in a calendar packed with semi-doubles of Baroque-era saints and, yes, the supplanting of ancient and powerful devotions like St. John the Baptist with St. Joseph. Pews are an ironic development, being essentially Protestant development, but one can see here how they found a way to fit into an urgent Tridentine ethos of greater structure and sobriety. In short, it was a Church that found itself forced to gear up for battle, only to find the battle never reaching a real conclusion, incurring the costs that a long-term war footing always generates - and ultimately wrong-footing it once it found itself in a new, very different kind of battle.
I am reluctant to criticize our Tridentine forebears too much (the occasional Archbishop Ireland notwithstanding), given the gravity of the crisis they faced - not only most of the Germanic cultures gone over the cliff, but Poland, Austria, Bohemia, Hungary and even France threatening to join them. Even Italy did not seem safe. But as tradition starts to restore itself, I share the hope that we can look much deeper than the 20th century to discern what else has been lost along the way that can be restored in whatever fragment of the Catholic Church in the West that emerges in the late 21st century.
Dear Athelstane,
ReplyDeleteWhat an excellent and well thought out reply! Like all your contributions I've read here and there. I could not agree more with everything you wrote.
You are much too kind, sir.
DeleteDear Rad Trad. Smashing, sir; smashing. In reading this one is reminded of Dix', "Shape of the liturgy" and the difference twixt doing Mass and saying/hearing Mass.
ReplyDeleteABS is now but a short distance from The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom but that short distance brings him a galactic distance from what we Latins have lost and what ABS has now found at Our Lady of The Sign.
{Part I}
ReplyDeleteThis seems like an interesting view, but does it really add up to saying (and accepting) that the use of pews was some kind of a cause for the New Order? It definitely seems very far-fetched.
[By the way, in case you do not know, you will appreciate the irony in knowing that the Catholic Priest who wrote the article on pews in Catholic churches --pews having a protestant origin-- has very recently painted the doors of his church red, which, if you did not know, is a very Episcopalian (as in protestant!) practice ... I'd be interested in seeing a post about the New Order and red doors, or an article on Crisis Magazine on the New Order and red doors]
Back to the main topic:
1) I cannot envision that in the early centuries of the Church (in the catacombs -- when there were no pews) people felt free to walk around and do other things other than be part of the Liturgy as it was taking place. So, this idea that people should be free to move around and do whatever their devotion requires has to be a modern (in comparison) idea as well. I am sure that back then (catacombs) people were not required to attend/hear Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation (which right there implies that you should not be simply walking around as much).
The Eastern churches, as far as I know, do not have side chapels (don't they simply have one Altar?) and they tend not to be as big and large as the Roman churches (so, there should not be much room for the faithful at Eastern churches to walk about if they want to have their own private devotions while the Liturgy is going on). Does it mean that the lack of pews at Eastern churches causes people to walk about the church during the liturgical services? By the way, pews alone do not make people seem like “spectators.” There are concerts that people attend where there is very little to no sitting, and they are not less spectators than people at an opera house.
2) What year exactly were pews introduced? From then to the advent of the New Order, does it seem logical to say/think that it took that long for the effect of pews to emerge as a factor in the creation of the New Order? Were pews ever ordered in Catholic churches as a “requirement” by some Council, such as the Council of Trent, which, it seems on here, is the worst council in the Catholic Church after Vatican II?
{Part II}
Delete3) Taking into account that the New Order is very heavily influenced by Protestantism (and pews are Protestant), does it seem logical to say that since Protestantism developed WITHOUT the use of pews that *the lack of pews* eventually caused the Protestant reformation? If pews someone assisted in the development of the New Order, would it be safe to say that the lack of pews actually caused the Protestant revolt? After all, it has long since been rumored that Martin Luther suffered from constipation … maybe he did not want to stand that long during religious services (especially since the sacred ministers do not normally sit at Low Masses)! Or would it be safe to say that the lack of pews in the Eastern churches caused so many heresies to spring up in the East in the early Church, heresies that were later recycled by the Protestants?
Of course, these ideas also seem extremely far-fetched, especially given the fact that heresy and liturgical abuses simply come out of a fundamentalist and fanatical heart that has no faith (and not out of a behind that has no pews). Reason and high intelligence, as we have seen, do not always protect against heresy and liturgical deformation – let us think of Photios, as smart as he was or as Adrian Fortescue says Photios was, he led almost the entire East into schism while he was alive, and then after his death, under Michael Cerularius – and the use of pews had nothing to do with it. Additionally, in the 1600s, Cyril Lukaris tried to protestantize/calvinize the Orthodox Liturgy and the use of pews had nothing to do with it, either -- unless it is the lack of pews that caused him to fall in love with Lutheran and Calvinist views.
4) I would argue (not incessantly because it is meaningless at this point) that the "return" of the "gothic" (more properly, semi-gothic) Chasuble was more a Trojan horse for the New Order than the use of pews could ever be.
I would not write a whole article on Crisis Magazine about this, but already in the 1800s there were so many German Bishops (always those Germans!) who were clamoring for the full restoration of the gothic Chasuble and referred to the more common Chasubles at the time in negative terms. Rome, semi-officially, did not allow them to bring them back, but the Germans and Bishops in some other areas continued to encourage and allow (in disobedience) the use of such Chasubles. It was not until the 1950’s, I think, that official permission for such chasuble was left at the discretion of the Bishop of the place (although, the people in the liturgical movement in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s were pushing for such style already).
Then, later on in the liturgical movement(s) you can't stop hearing about the "ridiculous" fiddlebacks (or as Fr. Rutler refers to them "lobster bibs," etc.) Adrian Fortescue himself (who was given to hold some weird liturgical ideas) preferred the "fuller" style of vestments and thought the Eastern vestments were splendorous. The worst of all the people who attacked the more common vestments at the time (1930's) and absolutely called for the gothic vestments was Dom Roulin.
Now, with that in mind, let us ask ourselves: Do all those people who preferred the fuller vestments (read: gothic) with their “magnificent and glorious folds” that they claimed were obvious in old statues of Bishops all over Europe, do we think that those people had a good and healthy intention towards the Liturgy? I would think not!
Is it a coincidence that as soon as the traditional Mass became an "obstacle" and itching for “changes” in the Liturgy became common the gothic vestments became extremely common as well and, almost by default, the only type of vestments used in the New Order? If Protestants use vestments, which type do they resemble the most?
Pews vs. Gothic … I would lean more towards gothic being more damaging to the soul!
You're just saying the typical Traditionalist narrative. Prof. Hull and others have shown that the New Order was influenced by a myriad of things, Protestantism being only one of them.
DeleteI actually welcome the return of the "Gothic" (really Roman) chasuble, despite the wrong intentions of the reformers!
Photius ultimately admitted that he was wrong in condemning the Roman Rite.
As to the main topic, you're just begging the question. All the ancient Roman basilicas and the Gothic basilicas had not one trace of pews. I do admit pews were used first in the Middle Ages, but mainly for singing in choir the Divine Office. It was only after Protestantism spread that pews became popular!
As to painting church doors red, what you call Episcopalian (and Protestant) goes back to the Middle Ages as well. Perhaps you have a disdain for medieval things (as "Gothic" vestments are)?
Red doors? Red doors.... That's the first I've ever heard of that. And I spent 20+ years as a Trad!
DeleteI personally thank the Ordinariates (which some trads deride as "protestant") for bringing back true Gothic vestments to counteract the polyester raincoats worn in most Pauline masses.
And many Eastern vestments are quite lovely! The Armenians and Syriac have some of the best while the Coptics and most Byzantines have very good vestments.
I have had to attend Vietnamese Novus Ordo weddings, and they are actually very conservative in their vestments; they do actually use true Gothic vestments, instead of those raincoats! The priests, one of them my uncle, actually did look very dignified in them.
DeleteAs for the Eastern vestments, I too like the look of them.
@latinmass1983 - September 8, 2015 at 9:36 AM
Delete2) What year exactly were pews introduced?
Pews and pulpits seem to date from an introduction c.1370-80 in England. Earlier there were benches against the walls (hence the saying - "the weakest go to the all").
Plenty of examples survive.
Whether Photius admitted his guilt or not, is irrelevant! That does not erase the fact that he caused, created, and helped perpetuate a spirit of schism (not just independence) in the East, even to this very day, which somewhat directly led to the rise of non-Apostolic See of Constantinople.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not like the gothic style myself, but I do not condemn those who do. That is not the case, however, with those who dislike the style that came to be known as "Roman." However, you cannot go both ways, and that's what I tried to say (in the two extremely long comments).
Ideas that are to be considered seriously should not be based simply on what one likes and dislikes (and that goes for everyone on this and every other blog on earth), as well as the article on Crisis Magazine. It is fine to like and dislike something, but in/tolerance and/or criticism of tradition or what is solidly considered traditional should not be selective or so obviously biased.
Besides, without the advent and creation of the New Order (and the state in which it is in), most of you here would not even have given a thought to the Eastern Liturgies and their vestments.
I know that there are different "styles" in the East as well and that some are better-looking than the others, but some of those (like the Armenians) are very Latinized! So much so, that if those vestments were a bit shorter, they would end up looking like the fiddle-backs some people dislike! And that's not to mention their miters!
The red doors (even if they were a practice in the middle ages) have not been part of the Catholic practice in a very long time, and it probably was not a universal practice either, and it has, as mentioned already, become associated with protestant sects -- just like the (exclusive) use of the vernacular came to be associated with Protestantism, even though it had always been used in the East.
It is fine to like medieval things, but that, again, shows "selectiveness" or preference for a particular period. If I remember correctly, there were different colors used for vestments and cassocks in the middle ages, but I would think that you would be shocked if you were to see a Bishop or a priest in orange and brown vestments.
A good thing to be exposed to the Eastern Churches. Most people in the Latin Rite have for too long been contemptuous of their Eastern Catholic brethren and messing with their rites because of an erroneous belief that the Roman Rite is the most superior rite and all must conform! It is an act of ironic justice that the Roman Rite was totally destroyed by the Novus Ordo, given many bishops forcibly Latinized many of our Eastern Catholic brethren. No wonder many of the Orthodox, whatever wrongs they may have done, keep distant from Catholics!
DeleteBTW, you forget that the period of the post-Tridentine period is characterized by a widespread disdain for the Middle Ages. Prof. Hull shows that the liturgical life and devotional life of the Catholics during the Counter-Reformation suffered heavily.
DeleteAnother thing: Fr. Adrian Fortescue also decried the shortening of the chasuble to the "fiddleback." It is hardly Roman, but Baroque. St. Charles Borromeo tried to stop the shortening of the chasuble, but to no avail!
DeleteProf. Hull shows that the liturgical life and devotional life of the Catholics during the Counter-Reformation suffered heavily.
DeleteProf. Hull has something of a cheering section here, and I think his critique is generally on the mark about where the Latin Rite Church went off the rails. His book deserves a much wider audience. On this point, however...I think he may overstate things a little.
If the (late) Medieval is privileged by the blog host and most posters, it's because there's a rather powerful argument that the High Middle Ages really did represent a high water mark for the Latin Rite liturgy, vibrant in its energies, depth and legitimate diversity, utterly self-confident without being defensive. I think one can say this with a great love and admiration for the Baroque, and even a recognition that measures fostering liturgical and devotional austerity, centralization and homogenization of that period were, in some cases, reasonable and perhaps even necessary immediate responses to a dire crisis for the faith. I'm sure that leaves plenty of room for argument between many of us on particular points, however.
Googled "red church doors":
ReplyDelete'Some churches say the red signifies the blood of Christ that has been shed so that all who come to God's care may be saved. In ancient times, no one could pursue an enemy past red doors into a church, and certainly no one could be harmed or captured inside a church.'
I don't see the problem. That actually sounds like an excellent bit of symbolism.
@ Ecclesial Vigilante: There is no problem, except the hypocritical criticism of pews because they are protestants, but not the use of red paint for the doors (which is almost only done by protestants).
ReplyDeleteFrankly, priests can paint the doors any color they want and few will be the people to complain about it. But if that is accepted because of the "excellent" symbolism, then why criticize the use of pews?
@ Paul - I do not disagree with you. It is good that people know of the Eastern Rites now more than in the past. However, the main reason why they fell into oblivion was their schism.
Officially, I do not think that the Catholic Church always forced the Eastern churches to conform to the Latin Rite. I know it did happen in many cases, but not due to an official and universal command from Rome. I thought that the guy who did that with most of the Orthodox churches was the Patriarch of Constantinople, so much so that even in the Coptic Liturgy Greek is used and so many of the other Rites were forced to use Greek as well. Go figure! Not only was there latinization, but also byzantinization!
I never said officially, and I also agree about byzantinization. And the schism that you mention was only Michael Cerularius' one, the one in Constantinople. The rest of the Eastern churches that kept with Rome in 1054 remained so, until other things occurred. The Latin Rite superiority complex prevalent gave rise to the Eastern Rite inferiority complex: the most blatant case being the Maronites, refusing to get rid of their latinisms.
DeleteBTW, I don't see how the criticism of pews is hypocritical, given that pews only came into being in the Middle Ages, whereas painting the church doors red ultimately came from Exodus.
If I may correct you on a matter of Eastern Liturgy, the use of Greek in the Coptic Rite has nothing to do with Byzantinization, which only started after the Muslim onslaught when there was already a split between the Monophysite/Miaphysite Christians and the Chalcedonian Melkites. Byzantinization really kicked in once the situation got much worse, Latin Patriarchs replaced the original ones (who fled to Constantinople), and then the Crusaders were driven from Outremer. Byzantinization was a tragedy that robbed the Melkites of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria of their own traditions, but the non-Chalcedonians kept those traditions alive.
DeleteThe use of Greek in the Coptic Liturgy is actually the result of the Bilingual official custom of the Roman Empire (especially in the Eastern provinces) that raised Greek to the same status as Latin (you may remember that Christ was crucified with the inscription 'King of the Jews' in Latin, Greek, and the local language). At the time of Chalcedon, Greek would have been widely used in Egypt (especially considering the Ptolemaic Greek era preceding the Romans) and so it was preserved in their liturgy.
Oh, thanks for the correction.
DeleteI was correcting latinmass1983's comment about the Coptics being "forced" to use Greek.
DeleteIf anyone wants to assign blame for the Hellenization of Egypt, blame the Ptolemaic Dynasty. ;)
I know.:) I took his word on that Coptic use of Greek as correct.
DeleteI was not referring to the "Hellenization of Egypt" or the use of the Greek language by the people as a nation, but to the use of Greek in the Liturgy in particular. I must admit that my knowledge (and interest) in Eastern Liturgies is minimal, but the use of Greek as a language does not automatically translate to having been kept for the Liturgy as a remnant.
DeleteA case in point is the Roman Liturgy: the use of the Greek Kyrie in the traditional Mass did not come as a "preservation" of when Greek was used in the Liturgy in the Roman Rite, but came later once Latin had already been used in the Liturgy.
Plus, if a whole rite can be forced on a group of people by a Patriarch (such as the Byzantine rite), why could the language (Greek) not be forced as well?
@ Paul, I do not think that there has actually been a tradition of painting church doors red since the days of the Hebrew exodus ...
Allow me to explain. Greek is used in the Coptic Liturgy used by the Coptic Orthodox and the Coptic Catholics. They use the Egyptian Liturgy as it roughly was in 451, long before the Melkite Alexandrian Patriarchate was pressured into Byzantinizing. They were using the language even when the Alexandrian Patriarchate was at the height of its power (before the Arabs attacked and Constantinople centralized everything).
DeleteIn other words, I was stating that the usage of Greek in the Coptic Liturgy is a non-example.
@latinmass1983: Of course not. All I meant that in the Middle Ages they took their inspiration from Exodus to paint the church doors red; you can't call it a Protestant innovation. Still, there's no parallel with the proliferation of pews, which is distinctly a Protestant development (as opposed to its mere introduction), which you haven't refuted.
DeleteBTW, latinmass1983, it's news to me that the Eastern churches fell into oblivion, Orthodox and Catholic! They may not be as numerous as the Roman Rite, but they have kept their liturgical traditions far better than the Romans, despite byzantinism, although the Catholics have started to feel the modernization racket as well, with the Kiss of Peace being a mere handshake, among other things (in some churches).
DeleteAs far as i can see, Rite of Paul VI. is almost the same as the Ordo Romanus Primus, the latter being even textually (and ceremonially) simpler than the former.
ReplyDeleteOrdo Romanus Primus being from the time with no pews, i quite don't see the corelation between Pauline Rite and the pews.
I can only say that any church that has pews suffers greatly.
That's only the Ordinary of the Mass. Unfortunately, the Propers and Lectionary of Paul VI were way differently arranged and new, apart from some retained feasts, like Christmas and Easter.
DeleteWell i am speaking about the Ordinary of the Mass.
DeleteOh, ok. Never mind. Just wanted to say that, for newcomers to this site unfamiliar with the Roman Rite, either modern or classical.
DeleteOh yeah! :D
DeleteI've noticed that!
But i've been a regular from like 2013.
Oh, I know that, too.
DeleteMarko has been a faithful reader, perhaps one of the first!
DeleteMy point was not that pews are heterodox, only that their introduction changed the way people attended Mass, that they turned participants into de facto spectators and that some of the more obnoxiously communitarian elements of the new rite take that spectator status for granted.
I for one would like to see more processions and perhaps some attempt to revive the concept of kneeling days and festive days! No one is asking people to sojourn to the nearest parish and rip out the seating.... yet....
If I recall, Holy Innocents on 37th is a gothic styled church with very red doors. Perhaps the cardinal should have shut it down after all!
The doors of Holy Innocents are **not** red anymore!
DeleteBut St. Michael's (which has pews) on West 34th Street NOW has them red. Would you say, then, that the Cardinal should have closed that one, which had also been on the list? In fact, it is still on the list of churches to be torn down and then moved over to the Hudson Yards.
Unfortunately, most priests treat churches as if they were their own personal property and, thinking themselves interior decorators, change and paint things according to their own very personal taste.
Processions: In very Catholic and Spanish countries, processions never stopped. The devotional life did not suffer as much as in English-speaking countries (more affected by Protestant influence). In Latin American countries (though less Catholic than before) do not like public solemn processions. The same goes for the Philippines and Spain.
**Correction:
DeleteProcessions: In very Catholic and Spanish countries, processions never stopped. The devotional life did not suffer as much as in English-speaking countries (more affected by Protestant influence). In Latin American countries (though less Catholic now than before), the Church there does not lack public/solemn processions for very festive days and even for pentitential seasons. The same goes for the Philippines and Spain.
Justinian, one of the posters here, stated that the liturgical life of the Soaniards, nonetheless, leaves much to be desired: Low Mass as norm, even with enough priests to do the High Mass!
DeleteI think it's fair to say that the objection to pews is not that they're Protestant in origin, but that they strongly tend to stultify the liturgical and devotional like of the Church. Fiddleback chasubles and red doors, whatever one thinks of their desirability or aesthetics, don't.
ReplyDeleteI also sense that neither the Rad Trad nor any of the posters here - nor Fr. Rutler or Fr Z! - is arguing that churches with pews should immediately rip them out, this obviously not being practical for most parishes, given the expense and pastoral difficulties that might attend a hasty move. Likewise, it may not be the most urgent point of reform in liturgical restoration. Going forward, however, it's an important consideration that has been overlooked for too long, one that should be carefully considered in all new church construction or major church renovation.
Blast it, a typo. "devotional like" should be "devotional life."
DeleteExactly! My Greek-Catholic Church uses pews (we bought the facility from the Baptists), very comfortable pews. I wouldn't mind doing away with them if the chance arose (and then we could keep just a few for the infirm and elderly). It's just not practical to rip them out at the moment.
DeletePews are the result of the sermon becoming the main event at churches (obviously Protestants, but sadly also many Catholic). I'm sure most of us have suffered through at least one Low Mass with a tedious 40-minute sermon.
All agreed! The sermon has been elevated to too high a stature; the focal point is the Sacrifice, not the sermon!
DeleteIn most of Latin American (in old churches at least), pews are not permanently fixed as they tend to be in the US. In the old rite of consecration of a church, pews were not already "installed," and there are many photos/images of such cases where the rite of consecration is taking place and no pews are to be seen anywhere.
DeleteHowever, with the changes in the 50s and 60s, in which people could already take part in the ceremonies, pews seem to be expected to be in place already. Nevertheless, way before these changes, pews were already part of Catholic churches.
I highly doubt that removing pews would improve people's devotional life. As it is, people can rarely go to daily Mass (assuming they work and that churches are open!). So, the only thing removing pews in a non-Catholic nation like the US could do would be to provide more open space. What devotions are the people going to bring back? Do we actually see processions becoming a hit in the US? This was not even the case in the 1800s!
@ Athelstane,
DeleteBased on the fact that liturgical dance has been common in Catholic churches for a couple of decades, I do not see how pews can stultify the liturgical life!
The acrobatics and the really cool moves and dances has really increased and improved the devotional life of the faithful in the Catholic Church ... all of that as a result of Vatican II. :-)
Pews made it worse, leading to those really cool moves and dances in the sanctuary!
DeleteI'm sure most of us have suffered through at least one Low Mass with a tedious 40-minute sermon.
DeleteIf it's a 40 minute sermon, it had better knock my socks off. But I can count the number of priests I know who can manage that on one hand, with fingers left over. Otherwise, keep it reasonably short. We are not Protestants. But we so often act like them now.
St. Giles' Cheadle has red doors, magnificent ones too. Give me those over 'lobster bibs' anyday.
ReplyDeleteI would assume that, even if it has magnificent red doors, it probably does not have the traditional Mass.
ReplyDeleteSt. Giles certainly did have the traditional Mass at one time in the not too distant past as a good friend of mine was MC for a couple of Masses there. In recent years, alas, I understand that the traditional Mass has been jettisoned in favour of occasional celebrations of the 'EF' by the Latin Mass Society.
DeleteToo bad, especially that the LMS abandoned the older books and just went all '62 as well, even if they sneak in pre-62 things. Too bad as well for St. Giles!
Delete