The translation of the Liturgy by Fr Andrew Phillips (to which I had some minor editorial contributions) renders it as "Birthgiver of God", which I like. It's just that "Mother of God" is so commonly used to refer to her in English that it seems a fair approximation for what it is.
It's also that 'Birthgiver' is not an English word - the standard equivalent is 'Mother' because it is a mother who gives birth to a child. You can't create a portmanteau of 'birth' and 'giver' and claim it as an English word.
Sorry for prolonging the tangent, but yes you can. You can do anything (more or less) with the English language, as Lewis Carroll and G M Hopkins among others have proved. 'Mother of God' is a familiar expression I agree, but avoided by many because it could imply that God didn't exist until Mary brought him to birth. 'Birthgiver', 'Godbearer', while they are unfamiliar and arguably clumsy expressions in English, for that very reason convey the uniqueness of what happened when Mary gave birth to Jesus, and the paradox of a created being giving birth to her Creator.
I think that's very much the point. There are two problems with 'Mother of God' for Anglophone ears. One is trivial, though sufficient that I think it's necessary to take it into account. The other, though, is serious. The serious one, is that English usage means that it implies the pre-existence of Mary.
Personally, I prefer to use Theotokos. It may have the disadvantage of not being an English word, but it has a precise theological meaning and gets over the problems with 'Mother of God'. I also think it has more prospect of catching on than 'Birthgiver of God'.
'Godbearer' seems to me to be the best expression in English.
I know (I think...) what 'Mother of God' means, but I agree that it does have difficult theological implications, even though I say it frequently when reciting the Angelus.
Ora pro nobis,sancta Dei Genetrix
Ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi
is amongst Catholics a fairly well known prayer
It is usually renedered into English as
Pray for us,o holy Mother of God
that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ
The German form of this prayer as normally recited is
Bitt' fuer uns,o heilige Gottes Gebaererin
Auf dass wir wuerdig wereden der Verheissungen Christi
'Gottes Gebaererin 'is indeed' bearer of God 'just as' Dei Genetrix' in Latin
However for Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is True God as well as True Man'
Mary is indeed mother of Jesus,the true man, but must also be mother of God as Jesus is True God. That,at least,is the rational for the expression Mother of God.
Indeed. It's about Christology. I remember a Church in Wales priest stating rather provocatively in an article that unless you were a good Marian you were in danger of becoming a good Arian.
It had never occurred to me that anyone might choose to infer from the expression that the Mother of God gave birth to God in eternity until there was a fairly heated debate about the Mother of God in Purgatory on the old boards in my early days on SoF (nearly 20 years ago now) and the idea was expressed by those accusing others of mariolatry. I expect that most others who commonly use the term would find such a suggestion equally surprising and what it suggests just as alien to their understanding.
"Mother of God" is a very common English-language expression and is clearly understood. My experience is that it only causes a theological problem for people who are determined to find one.
The translation of the Liturgy by Fr Andrew Phillips (to which I had some minor editorial contributions) renders it as "Birthgiver of God", which I like. It's just that "Mother of God" is so commonly used to refer to her in English that it seems a fair approximation for what it is.
It's also that 'Birthgiver' is not an English word - the standard equivalent is 'Mother' because it is a mother who gives birth to a child. You can't create a portmanteau of 'birth' and 'giver' and claim it as an English word.
Sorry for prolonging the tangent, but yes you can. You can do anything (more or less) with the English language, as Lewis Carroll and G M Hopkins among others have proved. 'Mother of God' is a familiar expression I agree, but avoided by many because it could imply that God didn't exist until Mary brought him to birth. 'Birthgiver', 'Godbearer', while they are unfamiliar and arguably clumsy expressions in English, for that very reason convey the uniqueness of what happened when Mary gave birth to Jesus, and the paradox of a created being giving birth to her Creator.
"When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
The Humphrey-Dumpty reference, though, is to using words to mean something other than their generally accepted meaning, not to new words or portmanteaus. I think @angloid is right. English is full of words—compound words in particular—that developed to translate ideas from another language or to express an idea for which we didn’t already a single word. That’s how we came to speak in the Creed of “God the Father Almighty.”
Sorry Raptor Eye, I’ve only just seen your question! As we’re using Zoom we don’t have newcomers who aren’t already known to someone, as they wouldn’t have the email link. What we have noticed is that when someone is normally the only regular churchgoer in their household, now the rest of the household quite often comes to at least part of the service. It’s much easier for them to wander in, stay for the bits they like and leave any time they want.
Our vicar does also film ten-minute services, one on a Sunday and one midweek, plus a separate film for the children. I assume those are on YouTube, though if I watch them it’s usually on WhatsApp. I don’t know how many views they’ve had but apparently they’re popular. I met someone* from a neighbouring parish last week who said she’d been watching them regularly as their vicar isn’t technologically minded.
*unscheduled meeting in park, 2 metre distance maintained. I haven’t seen her for years and can’t remember her name!
I’ve just found our videos - they’re on the parish page on Facebook, not on YouTube. There are some additions to the regular list, such as meditation/prayers to reduce anxiety.
The Church of Scotland gave a webinar yesterday mainly about finance, or lack of it, and buildings. The main take away point was that buildings have to go. Congregations should ask if the special space they like to use for worship and other activities has to be space that they also own. It was clear that the speakers were avoiding using the term “sacred space” because technically Presbyterians believe all space is equally sacred. But they were clear that just because a building was historic, or the congregation was large or had funds was not reason to keep it.
A sad thought, given the way people attach themselves emotionally to a church building (it's a very human trait, of course - same applies to houses etc. etc.), but maybe we (and I include the C of E, possibly faced with a similar situation) will eventually benefit spiritually by travelling more lightly.
Yes, I know that sounds a bit trite...and I can't think, offhand, where Our Place would meet if we didn't have the church building. I suspect that the majority of the present congregation would simply melt away. Some might go elsewhere, to a church still open, but some probably wouldn't.
Has the Kirk given any (even vague) indication of how many buildings are likely to go? Or is each congregation being enjoined to face a worst-possible scenario?
The Church of Scotland gave a webinar yesterday mainly about finance, or lack of it, and buildings. The main take away point was that buildings have to go. Congregations should ask if the special space they like to use for worship and other activities has to be space that they also own. It was clear that the speakers were avoiding using the term “sacred space” because technically Presbyterians believe all space is equally sacred. But they were clear that just because a building was historic, or the congregation was large or had funds was not reason to keep it.
I know where they are coming from, but oh my!
Methinks they may find that the penumbra of people who are nominally affiliated to the Church of Scotland (those who might have their wedding or funeral there but aren't on the communion roll, roughly) have something to say about that. Even among those who are regular attenders there are more than a few whose faith, like it or not, is bound up with their sense of place. We closed one of the two remaining buildings here 5 years ago, with the hope and intention of securing the future of the other. If we find ourselves having to go to our congregation and wider community and say that even that will be lost too I'm not sure what the outcome will be, but I doubt it will lead to a widespread renewal of Christian discipleship.
At the same time I would be glad to be relieved of the millstone that is a century+ old pile of stone built in a bog (it was a replacement for a previous building on the same site that succumbed to rot). My heart and my hope say "ditch it", but my head knows I have the mindset of a sojourner rather than someone settled in a place.
I may say that I have just has an email from a forward thinking member telling me how the most vulnerable of my buildings could be maintained by the community as a kind of historical centre, and only used for worship for weddings, funerals etc, while regular worship is in the village hall. Creative thinking at its best, because while in that community there is no mileage in gutting the church building (B listed) to make a community hall, since there is already a good one, the community, which has wind fund money, could do what she proposes, while the church could not.
I wonder how many of these people making decisions about church buildings (and, for doubtless valid reasons, questioning their value) are clergy? Almost by definition (certainly in most traditions) clergy are 'sojourners', imported to a place from elsewhere; whereas many lay worshippers are more rooted. As one in the former category, I realise that I have often been guilty of underrating the values of the latter,
I wonder how many of these people making decisions about church buildings (and, for doubtless valid reasons, questioning their value) are clergy? Almost by definition (certainly in most traditions) clergy are 'sojourners', imported to a place from elsewhere; whereas many lay worshippers are more rooted. As one in the former category, I realise that I have often been guilty of underrating the values of the latter,
In the Church of Scotland, at least, many of the people suggesting this will be elders rather than ministers. On the other hand I suspect they are more likely to be "sojourners" than the average person in the pews.
In fairness, all I can think of when I try to consider how the Kirk, both locally and nationally, should proceed all I can come with is "well I wouldn't start from here" with a side order of "50 years ago they should...".
Sadly I think the Kirk is already a good quarter century further down the road than the CofE, when you look at the shortage of both money and ministers.
I wonder if the Kirk is still suffering after-effects of all those splits and reamalgamations, which certainly in the past left it vastly over-supplied with (expensive) buildings and with too many congregations. (I do realise that a lot of rationalisation has taken place over the years).
No, the water in and of itself does not have the power to make the surrounding water holy on contact. As an Anglo-Catholic, an ordained priest and the right words are required for that.
It is not holy until it is blessed. Thereafter however the water is enduringly holy, so like all such objects must be disposed of reverently.
Soooo.... what happens if you receive a blessing and then you need to go to the loo? Does the water (let's not go the other place) cease to be holy once it leaves the blessed vessel or is there something you can say to de-reverence your water before flushing?
We do not drink holy water. We use it to bless things including ourselves a symbol of washing. I mean it is more normal to have this than to drink it. The drinking you see is normally from healing wells.
We do not drink holy water. We use it to bless things including ourselves a symbol of washing. I mean it is more normal to have this than to drink it. The drinking you see is normally from healing wells.
Sorry, you misunderstand. I know holy water isn't drunk. You are blessed and since you are 60% water presumably the water inside you is blessed at the same time.
Or is the blessing given to the water trans-formative in some way whereas the blessing given to a person is not?
We do not drink holy water. We use it to bless things including ourselves a symbol of washing. I mean it is more normal to have this than to drink it. The drinking you see is normally from healing wells.
Sorry, you misunderstand. I know holy water isn't drunk. You are blessed and since you are 60% water presumably the water inside you is blessed at the same time.
Or is the blessing given to the water trans-formative in some way whereas the blessing given to a person is not?
That's not actually correct. The Orthodox definitely do. I've seen large containers at the door of churches in Greece with little cups on hooks round them provided for that very purpose. Possibly, at the moment with Covid, they may not be but normally, they are definitely used.
Incidentally, although the CofE being Protestant, has historically been a bit wary of holy water, I was at a baptism once where after the rite, the vicar dipped his fingers in the font and splattered all the children standing round it. It was obvious that they were expecting this to happen and looking forward to it. For those that are not familiar with CofE practice, baptisms these days normally take place in the main Sunday service. Children who are not part of the family party are often encouraged to be near the font so that they can see and hear what is happening.
Also, if you go to Salisbury Cathedral, the city being low lying and on water-laden ground, it now has a font which is perpetually filled from a live spring. Not only do visitors seem to feel an irresistible urge to dip their fingers in the water, but if you watch them, it's not that unusual to see them cross themselves after doing so.
We do not drink holy water. We use it to bless things including ourselves a symbol of washing. I mean it is more normal to have this than to drink it. The drinking you see is normally from healing wells.
Sorry, you misunderstand. I know holy water isn't drunk. You are blessed and since you are 60% water presumably the water inside you is blessed at the same time.
Or is the blessing given to the water trans-formative in some way whereas the blessing given to a person is not?
That's not actually correct. The Orthodox definitely do. I've seen large containers at the door of churches in Greece with little cups on hooks round them provided for that very purpose. Possibly, at the moment with Covid, they may not be but normally, they are definitely used.
Incidentally, although the CofE being Protestant, has historically been a bit wary of holy water, I was at a baptism once where after the rite, the vicar dipped his fingers in the font and splattered all the children standing round it. It was obvious that they were expecting this to happen and looking forward to it. For those that are not familiar with CofE practice, baptisms these days normally take place in the main Sunday service. Children who are not part of the family party are often encouraged to be near the font so that they can see and hear what is happening.
Also, if you go to Salisbury Cathedral, the city being low lying and on water-laden ground, it now has a font which is perpetually filled from a live spring. Not only do visitors seem to feel an irresistible urge to dip their fingers in the water, but if you watch them, it's not that unusual to see them cross themselves after doing so.
Thank you. That's interesting. I describe a Christening in my novel and the splashing of water would be a nice addition.
So my rather facetious question does bear out. What happens to holy water once one has drunk it? Does it retain its holiness as it passes through one or is its holiness passed on to the person who drank it?
We do not drink holy water. We use it to bless things including ourselves a symbol of washing. I mean it is more normal to have this than to drink it. The drinking you see is normally from healing wells.
Sorry, you misunderstand. I know holy water isn't drunk. You are blessed and since you are 60% water presumably the water inside you is blessed at the same time.
Or is the blessing given to the water trans-formative in some way whereas the blessing given to a person is not?
Not really because the blessing of Water to make it Holy is normally done separately of the blessing of the congregation or thing with Holy Water. I would not recommend drinking Holy Water as due to there is a good chance that someone has added a preservative (normally salt). A notable exception being the Easter vigil where some of the water is immediately sprinkled* on the congregation. Non-clerics will also bless with Holy Water including themselves of entering the Church.
The one exception to what I wrote earlier is that sometimes older priests will bless the water that is mixed with the wine before pouring it into the wine. Reverent disposal includes drinking.
*Sprinkled is perhaps not the right word. In my experience, the congregation maintain a good six feet distance at this point in the ceremony despite the priest asking them to come closer
One could ask the same question about the Orthodox practice of annually Blessing the Waters at Epiphany or during pilgrimages to holy wells.
I once, jokingly, asked an Orthodox fella why they did it every year. Had the holiness worn off at some point during the year and needed to be topped up or renewed? Had it all run away since the last time and had it flowed on and into the sea and taken its holiness with it?
He looked at me daft, as we'd say in South Wales.
Here aboard Ship, among many other things, I learned that it is the practice of some pious Greeks to try to avoid going to the loo for a good while after receiving the Eucharist so as to retain the consecrated elements within their body for as long as possible.
As with all these things, whilst they are fun questions to ask, I'm not sure they get us very far. You can see how medieval Catholic practices developed about saying so many Hail Mary's and so many Our Fathers and how so many of these or so much of that was the equivalent to so much remission from Purgatory etc.
Protestants tend to scoff at such things, but you don't need to look very far - particularly in charismatic circles - to find equivalents. Some of the 24/7 prayer initiatives strike me as carrying the assumption that unless they've filled the slot at 4.15am the whole thing is invalidated and isn't going to work. I sometimes think of the earnest friend who'd signed up to some scheme promulgated by a South African 'prophet' who claimed, just before the outbreak of the second Gulf War, that it they could get a million women to pray, war would be averted.
When the bombing started I wondered if the Good Lord was saying, 'Dang it! We were one woman short, now look what's happened!'
I do find my Protestant mind doing back-flips and somersaults whenever I encounter some more Catholicky and Orthodox practices but the more gut-level Catholicky and Orthodox core of me - in a kind of folk memory sense - feeling to go with it whatever my post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment part of my mind is saying.
Mind you, it was like that during my full-on charismatic days too, that sense of cognitive dissonance. It could be positive and creative at times, but equally ... alarm bells would ring.
I suppose these days I take a 'When in Rome ...' approach.
Can anyone point me to a reference, preferably online, that goes into how it is thought that early Christian house-churches "graduated" to worship in dedicated buildings?
Not really, as the transition was very gradual. AIUI, as the 1stC church grew, it took over public halls, and other buildings, that had fallen into disuse (the early Basilicas).
I guess the earliest dedicated churches would have been built after Christianity was nationalised by Constantine, but there would have been purpose-built chapels (maybe in private houses) before then.
Thankyou, @Bishops Finger - that's more or less what I had guessed. I find it surprising that I've been unable to locate a detailed study of the process, but there must have been much local variability - in some cases perhaps dependent on the conversion of wealthy potential donors.
As it happens, I have visited the Etchmiadzin Cathedral some years ago, without realising how early its origins are.
While I cannot point to anything online for cgichard I think it would be good to look up the history of some of the early churches in Rome. One of the oldest churches in that city is Santa Maria in Domnica (Santa Maria della Navicella).The house of the noble lady Ciriaca on the Via Tiburtina was the residence of St Lawrence and part of it was used as the meeting place for Christians and was known by the Christians as Domus Dei (House of God) the building was consecrated by Silvestro I around 314 AD and became S.Maria in domnica later.
Perhaps the oldest church in Rome is S.Clemente. Below today's basilica was the house of the Flavi,the family of Clemente,pope from 91 AD to 100AD. During the time of Diocletian much apart from the dominicum (Domus Dei) was destroyed and at the beginning of the 400s a first basilica was built.
S.Giovanni in Laterano is said to have started as the civil basilica and tribunal of the Laterani which became a Christian church dedicated to the Saviour again by pope Sylvester I in the year 320 AD
Waaaay back in my formative student days -- the 60s and 70s -- there was fashionable discussion of going *back* to the Very Early Church arrangement of "house" *churches* and "worker priests" ...
The disadvantage I think is the loss of the PHYSICAL "There" there, replaced with the Protest Ant ethos of "the People" making places Holy by THEIR presence rather than coming together INTO a dependably Holy Place where we encounter The PRESENCE ...
Thankyou, @Forthview. I missed this when you posted it. Can't quite imagine a suburban house becoming as exalted as those examples.
Where I am, we are reduced to two or three (at best) gathering on a Sunday morning to do the services together, with icons, incense and candles, in a sort of illegal catacomb, but it still feels that God is with us.
Comments
Personally, I prefer to use Theotokos. It may have the disadvantage of not being an English word, but it has a precise theological meaning and gets over the problems with 'Mother of God'. I also think it has more prospect of catching on than 'Birthgiver of God'.
I know (I think...) what 'Mother of God' means, but I agree that it does have difficult theological implications, even though I say it frequently when reciting the Angelus.
Ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi
is amongst Catholics a fairly well known prayer
It is usually renedered into English as
Pray for us,o holy Mother of God
that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ
The German form of this prayer as normally recited is
Bitt' fuer uns,o heilige Gottes Gebaererin
Auf dass wir wuerdig wereden der Verheissungen Christi
'Gottes Gebaererin 'is indeed' bearer of God 'just as' Dei Genetrix' in Latin
However for Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is True God as well as True Man'
Mary is indeed mother of Jesus,the true man, but must also be mother of God as Jesus is True God. That,at least,is the rational for the expression Mother of God.
:;
"Mother of God" is a very common English-language expression and is clearly understood. My experience is that it only causes a theological problem for people who are determined to find one.
Our vicar does also film ten-minute services, one on a Sunday and one midweek, plus a separate film for the children. I assume those are on YouTube, though if I watch them it’s usually on WhatsApp. I don’t know how many views they’ve had but apparently they’re popular. I met someone* from a neighbouring parish last week who said she’d been watching them regularly as their vicar isn’t technologically minded.
*unscheduled meeting in park, 2 metre distance maintained. I haven’t seen her for years and can’t remember her name!
I know where they are coming from, but oh my!
A sad thought, given the way people attach themselves emotionally to a church building (it's a very human trait, of course - same applies to houses etc. etc.), but maybe we (and I include the C of E, possibly faced with a similar situation) will eventually benefit spiritually by travelling more lightly.
Yes, I know that sounds a bit trite...and I can't think, offhand, where Our Place would meet if we didn't have the church building. I suspect that the majority of the present congregation would simply melt away. Some might go elsewhere, to a church still open, but some probably wouldn't.
Has the Kirk given any (even vague) indication of how many buildings are likely to go? Or is each congregation being enjoined to face a worst-possible scenario?
Methinks they may find that the penumbra of people who are nominally affiliated to the Church of Scotland (those who might have their wedding or funeral there but aren't on the communion roll, roughly) have something to say about that. Even among those who are regular attenders there are more than a few whose faith, like it or not, is bound up with their sense of place. We closed one of the two remaining buildings here 5 years ago, with the hope and intention of securing the future of the other. If we find ourselves having to go to our congregation and wider community and say that even that will be lost too I'm not sure what the outcome will be, but I doubt it will lead to a widespread renewal of Christian discipleship.
At the same time I would be glad to be relieved of the millstone that is a century+ old pile of stone built in a bog (it was a replacement for a previous building on the same site that succumbed to rot). My heart and my hope say "ditch it", but my head knows I have the mindset of a sojourner rather than someone settled in a place.
I may say that I have just has an email from a forward thinking member telling me how the most vulnerable of my buildings could be maintained by the community as a kind of historical centre, and only used for worship for weddings, funerals etc, while regular worship is in the village hall. Creative thinking at its best, because while in that community there is no mileage in gutting the church building (B listed) to make a community hall, since there is already a good one, the community, which has wind fund money, could do what she proposes, while the church could not.
In the Church of Scotland, at least, many of the people suggesting this will be elders rather than ministers. On the other hand I suspect they are more likely to be "sojourners" than the average person in the pews.
Sadly I think the Kirk is already a good quarter century further down the road than the CofE, when you look at the shortage of both money and ministers.
Soooo.... what happens if you receive a blessing and then you need to go to the loo? Does the water (let's not go the other place) cease to be holy once it leaves the blessed vessel or is there something you can say to de-reverence your water before flushing?
Sorry, you misunderstand. I know holy water isn't drunk. You are blessed and since you are 60% water presumably the water inside you is blessed at the same time.
Or is the blessing given to the water trans-formative in some way whereas the blessing given to a person is not?
Incidentally, although the CofE being Protestant, has historically been a bit wary of holy water, I was at a baptism once where after the rite, the vicar dipped his fingers in the font and splattered all the children standing round it. It was obvious that they were expecting this to happen and looking forward to it. For those that are not familiar with CofE practice, baptisms these days normally take place in the main Sunday service. Children who are not part of the family party are often encouraged to be near the font so that they can see and hear what is happening.
Also, if you go to Salisbury Cathedral, the city being low lying and on water-laden ground, it now has a font which is perpetually filled from a live spring. Not only do visitors seem to feel an irresistible urge to dip their fingers in the water, but if you watch them, it's not that unusual to see them cross themselves after doing so.
Thank you. That's interesting. I describe a Christening in my novel and the splashing of water would be a nice addition.
So my rather facetious question does bear out. What happens to holy water once one has drunk it? Does it retain its holiness as it passes through one or is its holiness passed on to the person who drank it?
Not really because the blessing of Water to make it Holy is normally done separately of the blessing of the congregation or thing with Holy Water. I would not recommend drinking Holy Water as due to there is a good chance that someone has added a preservative (normally salt). A notable exception being the Easter vigil where some of the water is immediately sprinkled* on the congregation. Non-clerics will also bless with Holy Water including themselves of entering the Church.
The one exception to what I wrote earlier is that sometimes older priests will bless the water that is mixed with the wine before pouring it into the wine. Reverent disposal includes drinking.
*Sprinkled is perhaps not the right word. In my experience, the congregation maintain a good six feet distance at this point in the ceremony despite the priest asking them to come closer
I once, jokingly, asked an Orthodox fella why they did it every year. Had the holiness worn off at some point during the year and needed to be topped up or renewed? Had it all run away since the last time and had it flowed on and into the sea and taken its holiness with it?
He looked at me daft, as we'd say in South Wales.
Here aboard Ship, among many other things, I learned that it is the practice of some pious Greeks to try to avoid going to the loo for a good while after receiving the Eucharist so as to retain the consecrated elements within their body for as long as possible.
As with all these things, whilst they are fun questions to ask, I'm not sure they get us very far. You can see how medieval Catholic practices developed about saying so many Hail Mary's and so many Our Fathers and how so many of these or so much of that was the equivalent to so much remission from Purgatory etc.
Protestants tend to scoff at such things, but you don't need to look very far - particularly in charismatic circles - to find equivalents. Some of the 24/7 prayer initiatives strike me as carrying the assumption that unless they've filled the slot at 4.15am the whole thing is invalidated and isn't going to work. I sometimes think of the earnest friend who'd signed up to some scheme promulgated by a South African 'prophet' who claimed, just before the outbreak of the second Gulf War, that it they could get a million women to pray, war would be averted.
When the bombing started I wondered if the Good Lord was saying, 'Dang it! We were one woman short, now look what's happened!'
I do find my Protestant mind doing back-flips and somersaults whenever I encounter some more Catholicky and Orthodox practices but the more gut-level Catholicky and Orthodox core of me - in a kind of folk memory sense - feeling to go with it whatever my post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment part of my mind is saying.
Mind you, it was like that during my full-on charismatic days too, that sense of cognitive dissonance. It could be positive and creative at times, but equally ... alarm bells would ring.
I suppose these days I take a 'When in Rome ...' approach.
I took the tangent on 'holy units of measurement' to a new thread in Heaven as I felt it more than deserved a wider audience.
/admin note
I guess the earliest dedicated churches would have been built after Christianity was nationalised by Constantine, but there would have been purpose-built chapels (maybe in private houses) before then.
The oldest Christian cathedral is thought to be that in Armenia, dating from around 303 CE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etchmiadzin_Cathedral
As it happens, I have visited the Etchmiadzin Cathedral some years ago, without realising how early its origins are.
That description does, of course, apply to churches other than (Roman) Catholic, I think.
Thank you. I agree! Why I didn't write Roman.
In current English usage, the upper case C in Catholic is generally understood to mean Roman Catholic.
Perhaps the oldest church in Rome is S.Clemente. Below today's basilica was the house of the Flavi,the family of Clemente,pope from 91 AD to 100AD. During the time of Diocletian much apart from the dominicum (Domus Dei) was destroyed and at the beginning of the 400s a first basilica was built.
S.Giovanni in Laterano is said to have started as the civil basilica and tribunal of the Laterani which became a Christian church dedicated to the Saviour again by pope Sylvester I in the year 320 AD
The disadvantage I think is the loss of the PHYSICAL "There" there, replaced with the Protest Ant ethos of "the People" making places Holy by THEIR presence rather than coming together INTO a dependably Holy Place where we encounter The PRESENCE ...
Where I am, we are reduced to two or three (at best) gathering on a Sunday morning to do the services together, with icons, incense and candles, in a sort of illegal catacomb, but it still feels that God is with us.
Worth remembering in these difficult times.