www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Modernized Byzantine Churches

With all the discussion on Church architecture, especiallyin regard to Roman rite parishes, I thought that I would point out of such things do not occur (And indeed have occured) in Byzantine rite parishes. One such Church that comes to mind for me is St. Michaels Greek Catholic Church in Passiac, New Jersey. I wa somewhat dissapointed to see a picture of the Church interior from 1965 and one from the present day on the web site "Carpathian Conection". The old Xhurch seemed to be more arrayed with iconographich frescos and ornate interior design. Yet, the new Church seems more plain and bland in its apperance. Mny of the truly beautify frescos have been painted over and only blank walls remain in their place. The Church now has an iconostasis but its one of those chincy looking, half and half ones in which you can see through. All the gaudiness and baraqual beauty that glimmered in the old Church has seemingly been cut down and a more flat and unimaginative llok has replaced it.

Is this a common result of post V2 "de-latinization eforts in our parishes? The old model, while not perhaps being the most Eastern to many, was, non the less, IMHO, very beautiful and did not need any change to it.

Robert K.

Christ is Risen!

The link is at: http://www.tccweb.org/passaichouses.htm#St. Michael's

<The old model, while not perhaps being the most Eastern to many, was, non the less, IMHO, very beautiful and did not need any change to it.>

I think it's an improvement. There's an iconostasis which looks fine - an open type iconostasis is a bit modern, agreed, but at least there's an iconostasis. The old one looked practically indistinguishable from a Latin church. The old frecoes... *ick* all baroque art should be removed from our churches. yes, I'm an Easterner for real - you sound like a Uniate.

in Domino,

Edward

I agree with Edward, the picture from 1965 looks very much like St Stanislaus Church in Rochester, NY, where they celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass every Sunday afternoon.

It looks great for that.

The picture from 1980, which by the way is 22 years ago, looks more Byzantine. I like it.

As a side note, two years ago I went to the March for life in DC. I noticed that there were no Byzantine Catholic marchers, at least none met at the National Shrine, so our chapel in the crypt church went unused. I noticed that they had chairs with kneelers in it.

A couple of weeks ago I was back in the DC area and stopped by the National Shrine, I checked out our chapel..... They have removed the chairs.


Your brother in Christ,
David

To be honest, St. Michael's in Passaic, with its double icon screen and minimalist "decoration", is hardly the worst of the lot. In fact, I would say that compared to the 1950-60s "statuary and holy water font" pseudo-Greek Catholic style, it's a huge improvement. In fact, it does feel like a cathedral church and overall is a prayerful and beautiful place. It is like Constantinople compared to the old St. John's Cathedral in Munhall before the new one was constructed.

You must understand (and a lot of the new Byzantines on this board won't or don't), some of these parishes have had rather troubled history with schisms and the resultant constantly needing to "prove that they're Catholic." St. Michael's had 4 churches split from it, 3 of which became Orthodox. If that parish had stayed together it would have been the largest Greek Catholic parish in the USA. But today there are 2 Russian Orthodox (Patriarchal) parishes, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, and an OCA church which are directly descended from St. Michael's.

Compare St. Mary's BC church in Johnstown PA (an architectural gem but a decidedly anti-Byzantine furnishing/appointment and liturgical nightmare) with its daughter church, Christ the Saviour Cathedral of the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese. You'd never guess that they had anything to do with each other at all by looking inside at the services or the icons/no icons disparity. And that's exactly the way St. Mary's wanted it. The more "schismatic" the other group became, the more "Catholic" St. Mary's became. That's what they chose for themselves, and those who didn't like it could just become "schismatics" -- and they did -- in droves! But St. Mary's survives and thank God for that. Souls are still being nourished and saved there and hopefully St. Mary's children when they go out into the world will maintain their Byzantine Catholic heritage, identity, and affiliation wherever they end up.

Another point is that overall, our churches did not benefit from the 1960s and 1970s. That's when most of them lost their ikonostases in an attempt to be "truly Catholic", and new churches like Hazleton PA (St. John's), Linden NJ, Parma OH (Holy Spirit) and many more did not resemble a Greek Catholic church in any way inside or outside. "Let's forget the past" was the rallying cry, and now some of these churches are doing backflips trying to come up with something to distinguish them from the RC church down the street that has better art (sometimes better iconography), better music, more youth & adult programs, etc.

Fortunately we also have some churches from almost the same era, e.g., St. Ann's in Harrisburg PA from the early 1980s, that did the total opposite. While the church style is "modern" it is also traditional and as opposed to minimizing its origin it revels in it. And somehow, I can't help but think that the parish is all the healthier for it. Generally the people there are under no such impression that they are "Roman Catholics of the Eastern [sic] Rite" and the children see in church exactly what they are being taught in the religious education program. In many other churches that's not the case, and we're paying for it now.

Robert, another point.

With the timeline I alluded to, I would say that most of the older churches like St. Michael's that were redecorated were a result of Vatican II only in the sense of putting an icon screen in for the first time (a "return to our traditions"). The minimalist style that is somewhat evident there, but evident in much greater degree in many other churches of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, is (I believe) more a result of the "forget the (ethnic, hunky) past" mentality that pervades much of the clergy & hierarchy who were/are the decision-makers over the past 30 years. As a result, the early USA GC churches and the old-country village churches bear little resemblance to most of the even most-"Byzantine" churches we have today. No shrines, no embroidery, very few candles, no banners, a barebones icon "screen" with see-through "doors", no chandeliers or lamps, no candlestands, very little decoration of the walls or ceilings to distract from the "action at the altar", etc.

Of course, some of the 1960s and 70s new Byzantine Catholic church structures were indistiguishable from RC churches of the same era (except, perhaps having -- of all things -- a Russian three-bar cross atop a church with no icon screen, no banners, no real candles, no icons...) and except that they were even less appealing to look at than their more-expensive cousins around the block. This could certainly be seen as the first fruits of Vatican II for us. Fortunately, the later fruits (a true return to (some of) our traditions) seem to have been better but perhaps too little, too late.

Well, while I am happy that many of the un-eastern things have been taken away and replaced by a more solidly Byzantine style (I love those long beeswax candles)! Non the less, I feel that at times many parish can go just too far in remodeling. While many, for instance, think that the gaudy western like baraquial interiors ought to be cleaned up a bit, I fel that this can really make the Church interior look somewhat too simplistic. Yes, I like the big frescos and celling paintings even if they do look somewhat Latin in appearance (Many Orthodox parishes from the period have the exact same looking western style iconography). Also, an iconostasis is good for the Eastern flavor but I still feel that those see through ones really leave a lot to be desired.

As to pews, why on Earth should we get ride of something that most Orthodox Churches have themselves added for the comfort of their parishioners? Isnt that going a little too old world now?

Robert K.

Wisdom, Stand aright!

Everything in an Orthodox Church should be directed toward one thing, God. Fatigue and being uncomfortable is the idea(!) It is not a "old world thing". It is a sacrifice we offer to God during the divine service and during prayers. That is why this fatigue is blessed and beneficial.

The words of the Cherubic Hymn call us to "put away all worldly care." We must free ourselves from all external, worldly superfluous baggage which frequently and very successfully distracts our minds from the greatness of God.

I very often stand irreverently, pray mechanically, judge others while they are praying, but do not look after myself.

At home I sometimes pray with great reluctance and absent-mindedness, so that often I do not hear my own prayer, and sometimes I simply omit it.

Here is a very good article on the subject...

Standing while we pray as commanded by God [gnisios.narod.ru]

Dear OOD,

Yes, standing can be difficult, but it is very spiritually beneficial in the long run.

When I feel weak and want to sit down, I think of how God upholds us in His righteousness and how He resurrected, standing up from death to life.

On the other hand, I think we often don't know how to stand properly, this not being a usual position for many of us.

We need to flatten our feet on the floor, slightly bend the knees and relax the body.

I also like the tradition of making many Signs of the Cross and Prostrations as that can increase circulation.

Sometimes I think that prostrations are "God's calisthenics."

Somehow the muscles needed for standing are strengthened through prostrations, or that has been my experience.

Alex

Many people don't even know what a prostration is.

I rememeber back in the days before I joined the Church, I visited a GOA parish with all of the pews during Holy Week.

Out of perhaps 300 people, there was only me and one other woman, who was obviously from the old country, who did the prostrations. We had to get into the middle ilse to do them.

I'm not saying this like I am proud or anything, it is actually quite sad. I even felt like they had no idea what we were doing. But I'm sure they knew how to use the kneelers on Sunday.

So during the service, admittedly, after I noticed that nobody else was going to do them, I could not even concetrate on prayer. I felt like some kind of spectacle, me who was wearing casual pants and them, with their perfumes and suits.

How could they ever return from were they came?

I'm quite excited about some recent events in our church. We are constructing a website. I've heard that pictures of our church will be on it. Wait until you see! Father is our Iconographer and he has returned our Church to a truly Eastern place of worship. Sadly we have pews but at least no kneelers.

Part of the reason I alternate between being an altar (boy? man? Sub deacon?) and a cantor is that I get to stand the entire liturgy and when appropriate become prostrate. Maybe someday we will be able to remove the pews. At least we no longer have kneelers.

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

I noticed you are in Joliet, IL, which I am very familiar with.

I would like to ask, is the Orthodox looking Church right off of Black Dr(?) Eastern Catholic?

Though I've never been in it, I don't believe so. I'll have to check it out. I know what Church you are talking about.

The parish I referenced above is The Annunciation of the Mother of God BC Church, 14610 Will-Cook Road, Homer Glen, Ill. It is situated between Lockport and Orland Park.

Dan Lauffer

Khristos hareyav i mereloc'!

Dear Robert,



These Orthodox churches should have their frescoes redone in a more eastern style - to point to latinising abuses in Orthodoxy to justify the same in Greek-Catholicism is wrong.


It's not about "flavour" - it's about what's correct. Also, a see-through iconostasis (some of which are admittedly in quite bad taste) was common before the russian style of solid iconostases came back down and became the norm.


Refer to my above paragraph about abuses in Orthodox. WOrship is not meant to be comfortable, as OrthodoxyOrDeath pointed out - I have nothing further to add to his comments.

in Domino,

Edward

Indeed! This is a point that I have been trying to make to my Protestant girlfriend time and time again. Being raised a Latin, my back, which is a mess to begin with, isn't quite used to standing for long periods of time (the Passion narrative notwithstanding). After a while, it becomes more than a wee bit uncomfortable to bow and sign myself at various points of the Liturgy. She's constantly asking me why I put myself through it. I've started to just point to the crucifix I wear as my explanation, which usually quiets her down.

In Christ,
mikey.

Coming from the design/art field, there is one thing I dislike the most: the divorce from structure and design.

Let me explain: there is something hokey about an iconostasis that lays back against a wall like a big poster hanging half on the wall and half off. It seems to imply that the iconostasis is an after-thought and that it looks like it is a few sizes too big for the structure given.

This has nothing to do with Byzantine Traditions, but with architectural continuity. The same goes for false domes with windows looking into an enclosed roof. Falsity for the sake of "the look."

We can see in the older temple structures a tighter relationship between structure and design. A post was a post. Just call me an archaic post-and-lintel structuralist. If you have to cover up structural supports then you are hiding something.

Sometimes we settle for less because of cost and limited funds. This I can understand. But what is the significance of having church domes over the passenger drop-off? From an architectural-theological point of view this sounds like the voice in one's car that reminds you that your door is ajar. In this case, the "fit" between structure, design and theology is ajar.

The wooden churches built by our ancestors in Eastern Europe speak more of a structure that is in sync with its materials and surroundings. The building itself is beautiful from its design without all the jewelry.

Just my thoughts.

Joe

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]