A reader writes:
How would you respond to a deacon during a homily who said: "If everyone were to leave this building, it would no longer be a Church–the people are the Church?
I’d say that he has a point but he’s expressing it in a rather boneheaded way.
It’s true that, THEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, the Church of Christ is the body of people who are incorporated into Christ and that particular churches (e.g., the church of the Diocese of San Diego) are bodies of people who are incorporated into Christ and united to their bishop.
But it’s also true that Christian tradition across MULTIPLE LANGUAGES–INCLUDING LATIN–has received the usage of referring to specific buildings used by the Church as "churches" (Latin, ecclesiae).
Now, of these two uses the first is the original and more important, but human beings of normal intelligence normally have no trouble allowing words to have TWO OR MORE senses and being able to distinguish which sense is being used in what circumstance.
For an individual to pedantically insist on one usage to the exclusion of another usage that has DEEP roots in Christian tradition for his own pet theological concerns is to reject the customs and linguistic identity markers of the Christian community and MAY serve as a sign that he has a problem adhering to that community as it has traditionally understood itself.
It’s the verbal equivalent of a religious not wearing a habit, and it’s no surprise that many dissidents have highly stressed the idea of the Church as a community of people to the exclusion of other senses (e.g., church buildings, church hierarchy). Some–and I’m not accusing your deacon of being a dissident–have even banded together under the ungrammatical banner "We Are Church."
When one encounters such brazen defiance of established Christian linguistic custom, it’s enough to make one want to say, "TALK NORMAL, YA IDJIT!"
I don’t suggest that you should seriously say that to your deacon, though. If you are looking for something practical to say to him, you might try something like this:
Dear Deacon:
I was disturbed by your recent homily in which you said that "If everyone were to leave this building, it would no longer be a Church–the people are the Church."
While it is true that the original and more important meaning of the word "Church" refers to a body of people, Christian tradition has long received the usage of referring to buildings used by the Church as "churches." This is the case even in Latin. Most people have no trouble distinguishing the senses that different words have and are smart enough to handle both the idea of the Church as a people and the idea of churches as buildings.
You should be aware that when you criticize a deeply-embedded Christian usage of a term, it is quite disturbing to the faithful. Since you are rejecting the linguistic customs of the Christian community, it raises doubts in the faithful’s minds about how well you adhere to that community as it has historically understood itself.
If you don’t want to raise such doubts in the minds of the people to whom you are trying to minister, you may wish to find a way to express the fact that the Church is primarily the body of people incorporated into Christ without attacking long-held word usages of that community. After all, referring to church buildings as "churches" is part of "the Pope’s English."
But it’s also true that Christian tradition across MULTIPLE LANGUAGES–INCLUDING LATIN–has received the usage of referring to specific buildings used by the Church as “churches” (Latin, ecclesiae).
I guess that’s the whole point. If everyone were to leave the building, it would no longer qualify as “a building used by the Church”.
Our diocese went through the “we are church” and “how can we be church to each other” bit a few years ago. I hated it then, I hate it now.
It’s pretentious as can be. Thankfully, the chancery beauracrats have eased off that usage for now.
One of my memories of High School RE class in the 1970s was a priest asking our class what the church “is”. Eveyone naturally said a building, the Pope etc. Our teacher then proceeded to write a big THE PEOPLE ARE THE CHURCH on the board.
We should remember that this deacon’s comment may not be implying a dislike for the physical building.
I seem to recall that during the Protestant “Reformation”, the people who believed that THEY were the Church (and who argued that bishops, Popes, and their doctrinal beliefs could take a hike) were VERY fond of the new buildings they appropriated.
“The Church is not a building! (but hey it sure makes a great place – with a captive audience to boot! – in which to criticize the Pope and Catholic teachings!)
Some Christians have taken this to the extreme, not even referring to themselves as Christians, only “follower of Jesus” or something, and won’t even give their churches real names, only call them things like, “People who follow Jesus meet here” and other such things. People like that make conversations long-winded and difficult, that is, if you have the patience to converse with them at all.
That seems a rather misleading thing to say.
If everyone else were to leave the Church and Our Blessed Lord was still present in the tabernacle it would still be a Catholic Church.
Just to keep the comboxers busy, rather than simply answer the question myself:
What would canon law respond to our friend the deacon?
Some–and I’m not accusing your deacon of being a dissident–have even banded together under the ungrammatical banner “We Are Church.”
This I think is the heart of the issue. The expression and the idea of “community” really bother me, because they tend to ascribe significance to incidental things. The community is not significant, but the purpose for which they gather is significant, the Eucharistic Sacrifice of our Lord. This is the only thing that distinguishes the Church community from some randam amalgamation of people. Divorcing the Church from the purpose for which it was formed is the real abuse of languange occurring.
This movement is a effort to reduce the vertical church to a horizontal one.
It got its start with a Fr. Art Baranowski, in chicago, who has been a organizer of the small church communities. SCC are a program to deconstruct the parish into little churchs where
everyone talks about themselves and their beliefs and unlike a bible study, where all is based n scriptural right and wrongs, there is no judging of right or wrong in small church communities.
In other words it is Marxist, by design, and it takes the ‘we are church’ idea to its conclusion.
see the December issue of San Diego NewsNotes under articles.
http://www.sdnewsnotes.com
Can. 1214 The term church means a sacred building intended for divine worship, to which the faithful have right of access for the exercise, especially the public exercise, of divine worship.
And, as one theologian I know likes to say, when we say “The People are the Church,” that INCLUDES the hierarchy. They’re people too. It ain’t just the laity and progressive theologians. You can’t escape normal Church authority by appealing to the Church as “the People.”
I can see this also being used as an excuse for the low importance this generation of Catholics places on church buildings… er.. that is, “worship spaces”.
Our parish, its ranks swelled by a decade of heavy immigration, recently built a new “worship space”. It is so very large, blank and beige that fighting drowsiness is a constant occupation.
They call that “elegant simplicity”. I’m sorry, but I completely fail to grasp the aesthetic appeal of concrete.
With a commitment to take more time, spend more money and maybe give up a few things, we could have erected a building that would have been a gift to at least several generations after us. As it is, the new building is destined to go out of style, become obsolete and will itself need replacing in mere decades.
It’s the “vision thing”.
To be real specific, Jesus is the mystical body of the Church, while those who are validly Baptized, are the visible members of the church.
Without valid Baptism a person is not a part of the Church.
We are “children of God” so long as we remain in a state of grace. Mortal sin being a act which ex-communicates us from the body of Christ. This is why regualar confession is so important. And it is confession and absolution which reunites us within the friendship of God.
The ” we are church movement ” is designed to ultimately draw folks out of the church by a process known as the dialectic. It seeks to impart a person with the idea they can decide issues for themsleves. This is no different than the tactic the serpent used with Eve. He tricked her into thinking she could forget the words of God and decide for herself.
This is one reason devotions like the Rosary and the Seven Sorrows or the practice of the First Five Saturdays ( which assures you of getting the last rites ) or Twelve First Fridays are not allowed in small church movements.
Subversives, some ordained, many laity, might be good salespeople, but they also know these holy devotions strengthen the faith of the faithful, and bring one under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Communion of Saints, and a friend of Jesus.
Small towns such as South Bend, Indiana with its parishes like St. Adalebert’s or St. Casmir on the south side, or St. Peter’s in Ashton Wisconsin, ( 5 miles from Madison) or the spectacular Basilica of St. Josephatt’s in Milwaukee are churches built in the 1800’s, early 1900’s by poor Catholics, but they remain some of the most beautiful churches in America.
The stained glass windows and other murals painted inside these churches are spectacular and well worth visiting.
But why are they so beautiful and what is the point of having beautiful stained glass windows.
I asked a 88 year old Polish lady, cleaning St. Adaleberts church one winter day, the purpose of such beautiful windows.
She did not know. She just liked them.
I told her they are to be reminders of the Holy Saints in Heaven, that we can think about and pray to while in Church.
They are windows into Heaven, in the sense these are people who are in Heaven, and we should strive to be like them in thought, word and deed.
All people becasue of the stain of original sin are weak and prone to sin, and we need constant reminders and helps to stay on the narrow path.
A beautiful church is that reminder but it is also a way to praise and glorify God.
Ugly church do the opposite.
And one need not be a adult to figure that out.
Young children know this intuitively.
The saints tell us those who strive to build beautiful churches have angels helping them.
There is no question that is the case with the three above named Churches.
With much respect, Jimmy, I would suggest that your model letter could use some clarification as to why it is disturbing to the faithful to criticize the use of the the word “church” to refer to a building.
The two reasons that come to mind our: 1) It might cause some to overlook the special respect due to the building where the Mass is regularly said and where, most likely, the Body of Christ is physically contained in a tabernacle. Occasionally, I’ll see an older person make the sign of the cross when they pass a church, sort of as a salute, I guess. Maybe that should become a practice for all of us. In any event, I am always trying to stress to my kids the importance of behaving with reverence in the building even if no one else is there.
Perhaps a bigger problem with an unexplained “we are Church”-type comment is that some might conclude that, as Church, we each have as much authority to define teaching, and instruct accordingly, as does the pope or the council of bishops. Ever notice how people who doubt the Church’s infallibility on issues of morality and faith never seem to doubt their own? The “We are Church” philosophy might just as well be “I am Church,” or “There is no Church.”
Tim J.,
You noted “It’s the “vision thing”. And how do we improve the vision in our normal lives?? Big screen HDTV!!! For a modest price, you can add these near the altar and on the side walls of of the Church. Everybody gets to see the “action” up close and personal just like sporting events and outdoor Papal Masses. Just think of the possibilities. Midnight Mass from the Vatican, Vatican art, snippets from movies to embellish homilies, homilies by great homilists, addresses by B16, and the local Bishops/Cardinals, music by the great choirs, sing-alongs in Gregorian chant. Don’t jeer until you visit your local Best Buy and check out the latest in HDTV.
Realist that would be so totally awesome! Free soda and popcorn during the consecration!!
XD
~(Homework-High) Kosh
These novelties are not far off.
When you build a 5000 seat round huse of a church, it will be hard for many to see what is going on at the altar.
There will most surely be monitors or screens in such a facilty so folks can watch and see the priest.
I know I’ve said this joke before, but would anybody want to join my We Are Church counter-group? It’s called Good Then Go Be Your Church Someplace Else or GTGBYCSE for short.
Popcorn and soda at Mass? Well in our parish most parents already bring some type of junk food for their kids to keep them entertained/quiet during Mass because their kids are so bored looking at someone’s rear end all through Mass.
…because their kids are so bored looking at someone’s rear end all through Mass.
Oh, no, no projection in there at all. (rolleyes)
If small children have a book with pictures of Jesus and Mary, they are likely to be quiet during Mass.
It is also helpful to practice the proper behavior expected at Mass, with small children at home. It works well. Most kids fuss at Mass becasue they are hungry or do not know how to act.
Parents can solve both issues.
CatholicDefender, in a family of 6 kids, I can testify to that.