Historical Development of the Christian Liturgy and the Liturgical Sacred Space from Antiquity to Middle Ages

Introduction

Many things are being said nowadays regarding the ‘proper’ way of building catholic churches and to celebrate the Liturgy, especially due to the dichotomy between the concepts “Domus Dei”- House of God – and “Domus Ecclesiae” – House of the Church. The defenders of the former prioritize the sense of sacrality and everlastingness that the building and the Rite should evoke, and the defenders of the latter will stress the church as the assembly of God’s people, focusing on the communitarian aspect of both Rite and building.

This paper’s scope is to address the fact that the referred dichotomy is apparent, but not real in its root. Every Sacred Place, designed for the assembly of the faithful in the divine service, expresses a certain ecclesiology that, with its different emphasis, should guard the proper tradition of the church. A catholic enthusiast of architecture visits churches and attend mass in the most varied styles of them: Gothic, Baroque, Eclectic, Expressionist, Modernists and Contemporary. It is the understanding of the Church that there are styles which, by the very philosophy that endorses them, cannot express appropriately what the Liturgy is all about. Nevertheless, would it be correct to reduce the Liturgy – and by extension, the Liturgical Space – to certain standards of construction just because they ‘seem’ better or ‘proper’? This question is not asked by any of the sides. two questions thus must be raised: What are the origins of the liturgy and of the Christian temple? What do they tell us about how a mass should be celebrated, and how a church should be built? As different both positions might be, both need to accept that there is something essential in the Liturgy and the constructed liturgical space that cannot be missing or be removed- as much as  both conservative and progressive architects and self-entitled liturgists might try- because they belong to the very root of the Liturgy that is celebrated in that space which is the very motivation for its existence.  

  Being very fond of architecture in general and having been attentive to features in ecclesiastic buildings for a long time, I felt the need to go deeper into these questions, especially on the matter of ‘propriety’. This paper will focus on the historical roots of the understanding of the Liturgy and of the church building, referring to theological aspects when needed. I will focus specifically on the period where it evolved  

Definition of Important Terms

The proper terminology of secondary terms will be described further according to the need. For now, it is important to describe the meaning of the words Liturgy, Rite and Architecture.

Definition of Liturgy

According to the Oxford Dictionary, liturgy is the customary ritual of worship performed by a religious Group[i]. The etymology of the word, nevertheless, is from the Greek λειτουργία, which is a compost of the word λήϊτος and the word ἔργον, which would mean Work of/for the People, that is, a public service for the people. The Greeks used this word to refer to the public events (like festivals to the deities) that wealthy families were called to subside in exchange of privileges and honor, as a duty to the State and the Polis[ii]. In the translation of the Septuagint, this word was used for the service in the Temple (e.g., Exodus 38:27; etc.), and very soon was assimilated by the Christians in association with their εὐχαριστία, as in the letter to the Hebrews (Heb 8:6) where the High priest obtained a better liturgy, based on a better covenant and better promises. In this work’s context, Liturgy will be considered a synonym for the celebration of the Sacraments in the Church. In this paper, many times ‘Liturgy’ will refer specifically to the celebration of the Eucharist.

Definition of Rite

A rite, according to Ratzinger, quoting a Roman source, is a mos comprobatus in admistrandis sacrificiis, an approved custom in the administration of sacrifice[iii]. In this paper, it will have two different meanings. The first is a liturgical manner agreed on and approved by an episcopate on how to properly celebrate the liturgy. Examples would be the Roman Rite, which is approved directly by the bishop of Rome, the Pope; the Byzantine Rite, common among the orthodox and eastern Catholics, the Siro-Malabar Rite, from India, etc. It is important to notice that a Rite must not be confused with suis-iuris churches. A Suis-Iuris Church is a Church with communion with Rome that holds autonomy in their area, especially regarding their rite and their clergy. The Catholic Church is composed by 24 churches, the Roman Catholic Church and other 23 Eastern Churches. Regarding their rites, only the Roman Church uses the Roman Rite. Many Eastern Churches share with the Orthodox the use of the same Rite- the Byzantine- but, because they are in communion with Rome, they do not share the same Patriarchs and do not need to achieve an agreement with the Orthodox regarding small alterations on the rite.

The second definition of Rite is any smaller part of the liturgy with a specific modus operandi. Inside the Roman Catholic liturgy, there are different rites: the Initial Rites, the Rite of Communion, the Rite for blessing of the Rings in a wedding, etc. As we can perceive, both understandings fit in the definition of Ratzinger, and in the Roman Church, such agreement is condensed in the Roman Missal and its appendixes. The word “Rite” ultimately can be used as a synonym of Liturgy itself, although it is applied with a less general meaning.

Definition of Architecture

According to the Roman Architect Vitruvius, Architecture is the art of construction in a sound, functional and beautiful way[iv]. For the scope of this work, no further definition is needed.

Chapter 1:
Before the Redemption: The Jewish Liturgy and Sacred Space

When one speaks of Christian Liturgy, one of the aspects that is frequently ignored or understated is the complete and organic continuity with the liturgy of the Jewish Temple and the Synagogue. Having as source the New Testament, it is possible to see that the first group of Christians was constituted of one hundred percent of Jews, and so they considered themselves to be. The transition from Judaism to a distinct religion that was more universal was foreseen mostly by St. Paul when the Jews refused to accept the message of the Gospel (Acts 18,6), and St. Peter understood more of it when he witnessed the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10).Nevertheless, they themselves did not plan to make such a separation until the disagreements with the Jews made it inevitable. The Christian Religion only became visually and theologically detached from the Jews with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD[v]. Jewish Christians had then no great reason  to see Jerusalem as the most important spiritual reference. The physical Holy of Holies was no more.

Such catastrophic event was seen at later times a move of Divine Providence to remind Christians of the true nature of Worship that Christ brought. They needed now to turn themselves toward the real temple in heaven, the true one, where He, the Word, is expecting to receive us to reward each one according to his deeds, and from where he will come on the last day[vi]. But to understand in depth such transition, it is important to see how the Jewish liturgy was also a liturgy of expectation of deliverance, the gift of true worship and of full communion with God. That is what will be explained in the next session. First, the Liturgy and setting of the Temple and then, the Liturgy and setting of the Synagogue.

The Architectonic Setting of the Jewish Temple

The construction of the first Temple of Jerusalem is described in detail in the first book of Kings (1 Kg, 5-7). It started around the year 959 BC[vii].  It was really a copy in stone of the tabernacle. The temple was constructed on Mount Moriah, facing East, toward the Mount of Olives. The Temple porch measured 20 x 10 cubits in area (approx. 10 x 5 m) and will correspond in use to the narthex in a Christian church, according to Parrot[viii]. Beside each side of the entrance there was a column of 2 m in diameter and around 12 m high. They were adorned with garlands of pomegranates and opened as a lotus flower at the top.

Such porch gave entrance to the Hekal, the Holy Place. It was a chamber in rectangular form, with 20 x 10 m in area, and 15 m high. It was paneled with cedar wood, carved with decorative figures of flowers and palms, and all covered in gold. The furnishing of the Holy place consisted, among many small objects for cult, of ten golden candelabra, a golden altar for offering incense which was right in front of the entrance to the debir, the Holy of Holies; an acacia table covered in gold where 12 wheat loaves of bread, called ‘Bread of the Presence’, were put as offering to the Lord and changed every week before deterioration there were most likely windows at the top to allow some natural light t come in. The debir was most likely approached by a set of steps and was separated from the hekal by folding doors. It was a perfect cubic room (10 x 10 x 10 m), and as the hekal, was also completely covered with panels of gilded cedar wood, carved with figures of flowers and cherubins. It has no windows, as God himself said he would inhabit in darkness (1 Kings 6, 31).

The only additional decoration beyond the walls was two gigantic cherubins of olivewood covered in gold, 5 m high. Between them, there was a space for the Ark of the Covenant, which was, from the beginning, a material sign of the presence of God amid His chosen people. The ark itself was a box of acacia wood covered in gold in and outside, measuring 1,2 x 0,5 x 0.5 m. It contained the two stone boards where God wrote the ten commandments, a pot with manna from the time of the peregrination in the desert, and the blossomed staff of Aaron. In the ark’s covering were two cherubins prostrated in adoration towards the center, with their wings pointing to above, and as if covering the ark with their shadow. According to Parrot[ix], it was an imitation of cultic arks described in Egyptian and Phoenician religions, which had the figure of the deity in between the winged figures. There was, deliberately, no image in the middle, precisely to signify the infinite majesty and transcendence of the invisible God.

Plan of Solomon’s Temple (Source: New World Encyclopedia)

It is not in the scope of this work to go deep in the symbolism of the Jewish temple, but it is clear that such a detailed account of the construction of the Temple in the Bible was intended to show a symbolic meaning to each one of the measurements and the smallest flower in the carved walls. The house of God was a synthesis, not only of a common doctrine or religion, but of a cosmology and understanding of the universe.

The Liturgy of the Temple: God among Men

The Liturgy of the temple is the same liturgy of the tabernacle, developed in the Pentateuch. The only relevant theological aspect added with the construction of the physical Temple by Solomon around 1000 BC was the choice of Sion as the perpetual Mountain of God (1Kg, 6) , which confirmed Jerusalem not only the political capital of the Kingdom of Israel, but the religious too, making the relevance of prior places of worship such as Shiloh and Betel decrease in importance (See 1 Sam).

The Sacred Scriptures shows that the liturgy of Israel – and later on, the one of the Temple- was constructed around a week of seven days. The seventh day marked the sacred rest of God after finishing the creation, and therefore, the whole week – which were cosmically associated with the days of creation – was oriented towards the sabbath. Jews were allowed to work for six days, but on the seventh, they had a mandatory rest. The eschatological meaning of God’s Day of rest was understood clearly from the beginning, as Scriptures named “resting with the ancestors” as a synonym to death, and when God rebukes the infidelity of Israel, He curses them saying “ And in my wrath, I said to them: They will not enter my rest” (Ps. 95,11). The liturgy was constructed around a year with three main celebrations: the Passover, which marked the beginning of the year and coincided with the first new moon of spring; the feast of Pentecost, which occurs fifty days later, celebrating the gift of good harvests, and the feast of the Tabernacles, which occurs in late September-early October.  These feasts helped to keep in the core of Jewish worship the memory of the action of God in the history of the chosen people. The moments of the year in which they occurred were not coincidental: The New Year coincides with the beginning of spring. The moment when trees start blossoming and the fields, dormant during the winter, start yielding the stems. Passover was a movement from slavery to freedom, which was mirrored in nature in the transition from winter to spring. The feast of Pentecost was the moment when the first fruits of the crops and the flocks were offered to God in thanksgiving. The feast of tabernacles coincided with the beginning of fall – it starts getting colder – and the rainy season. The people went to live in tents for seven days, just as they did in the desert for 40 years, to remember the moment when God was sustaining and protecting them in adverse circumstances. Here are the clear two elements which will be particularly important later on: Making memory and Cosmic Significance.

The sacrifices were seen as an act of due justice, to give back symbolically (the fact that it was a symbol was clear from the beginning[x]) to God what He, in his mercy, have given to the chosen people: freedom, A new land, and prosperity. Every day, sacrifices were supposed to be offered to the Lord. There were two incense offerings, “of pleasing odor”, in the morning and in the afternoon. Also, beasts were to be offered; two lambs, one bull, two goats and two rams. In the book of Exodus, Moses received from God a detailed account on how, when and where the sacrifices should be executed, which animals were acceptable and who was to offer the sacrifices, “according to the model seen on the mountain” (Ex 25,40). In Scripture, the service in the temple was mainly for the Praise of God and atonement for sin or impurity. The fact that the first sacrifice to be described is the ransom of the first-borns shows that a theology of substitution or replacement was in the core of Jewish belief. They could see it explicitly in the foundational story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac and the escape from Egypt, in the pascal lamb: The Ram, or the lamb, was being sacrificed in the place of the first-born of the Israelites, so that they might live. Here is clear the aspect of symbol and substitution, which Ratzinger states very clearly:

“Already in I Samuel 15: 22, we meet a primordial word of prophesy that with some variations, runs through the Old Testament before being taken up anew by Christ: ‘More precious than sacrifice is obedience, submission better than the fat of rams!’ In   Hosea the prophesy appears in this form: ‘For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings’ (…) thus Temple worship was always accompanied by a vivid sense of its insufficiency. (…) Moses, he says, in the tent of the meeting, in obedience to God’s command, according to the pattern he had seen on the mountain (cf. Acts 7:44 and Ex 25:40). This means that the earthly Temple is only a replica, not the true Temple. It is an image and likeness, which points beyond itself.”  (Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg. 39 and 41)

So as synthesis is possible to understand that the Jews, although understanding the promises of God as of everlasting validity, were, from the beginning, in expectation of better promises. This will also be clear in the ritual of the Synagogue.

The Architectonic Setting of the Synagogue

According to Louis Bouyer[xi], the old synagogues were built in the same style as the Greek basilicas, a rectangle with three naves, the middle one being the widest and highest. Upon entering the building, the first thing to call the attention was the so-called “seat of Moses”, a chair where the rabbi and the doctor of the law would sit during the service. The assembly would gather in the main nave and on both sides. They would, however, be oriented towards the ark, a wooden casket that imitated the ark of the covenant in the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, this ark in the Synagogue would contain the sacred scrolls for the readings in the service. As Synagogues became common only after the exile, there was no ark  in the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem by this time, so the presence of an ark in the Synagogue had in itself an explicitly symbolic meaning: a reminder of the presence of God in the middle of his people, which although no more physical as with the primordial ark, appealed exactly to a deepening in the spiritual meaning of their belief.

In front of the ark there would be a veil, simulating the separation of the debir of the Temple, and in front of it, a Menorah, a seven-branched lampstand. On the center of the building there was an elevated platform named bema with a lectern for readings and preaching. One aspect that is particularly important in the construction of every Synagogue was that the whole building and furnishings, the seat, and the lectern, would be oriented towards the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem.

Bouyer states there was a transition in building Synagogues, progressively setting the ark at the end of the nave, and changing the entrance position. At the beginning, the entrance would be facing Jerusalem and the seat of Moses, and the bema would be in the opposite end. Later the bema and the seat came forward, occupying the center of the nave. The entrance, in this second stage, already changed side, directing the incomers to face the end of the building, directed towards Jerusalem. On a third stage, the bema with the lectern the seat of Moses and the ark were all occupying the posterior part of the building, with the ark on the center and the seat and lectern on opposite sides. The assembly therefore faced Jerusalem during the whole service period.

Progression of typical floor plans of Synagogues in Late Antiquity (100 BC-400 AD) (Source: L. Bouyer)

The Liturgy of the Synagogue

It is the common impression that the service of the synagogue, contrasting to the one in the Temple, would be completely non-ritual and reduced to a place for teaching, that is, that the ritualized religion of the Temple contrasted with the intellectualism of the religion preached in the Synagogues. Boyer states that this thought is extremely far from reality:

“Modern Scholarship (…) has shown that the origin of the religion of the word was in the ritual religion of Israel, the religion of the Temple itself, and before the Temple existed, the religion of other sanctuaries (…) therefore the synagogal worship was included and has never ceased to be a ritual celebration, closely connected  with the acknowledgement and the cult of a special Presence of God with His own. And this was the Presence which for the Jews has always related to the Temple or the place where it stood, more especially the Holy of Holies where the God that the heavens cannot house has nevertheless condescended to dwell in the midst of his own.” (Louis Bouyer, Liturgy and Architecture, pg. 9-10)

The service of the Synagogue consisted, yes, of the reading of the law and prophets and further preaching on it, alternated with recitation of psalms and prayers, but this word they meditated was the word of life in which God was constantly communicating himself so as to become present in their midst[xii]. The assembly and the rabbi were always directed towards the ark and, ultimately, towards the Holy of Holies of the Temple in Jerusalem, where God was truly present. Such a community was not enclosed, but their prayer was directed beyond itself. It was not a mere attachment to a physical place. For them, the Messiah would manifest himself in the Holy of Holies and in his coming he would build a New Temple and a New Jerusalem. A proof of that is that even after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, Jewish communities would continue to construct their synagogues oriented to the place of the debir. Therefore, in words of Bouyer:

“This is not just a persistent attachment to the past, a clinging to some historical manifestation of God which now ceased forever. In their view it is much more an expectation of the future.” (Lous Bouyer, Liturgy and Architecture, pg. 20)

Interestingly enough, in the meanwhile, that is, while they await the coming of the Messiah, it is the Jewish belief that, as there is no more Holy of Holies standing in Jerusalem, God would be present – according to the teaching of the rabbis referring to Ezekiel’s prophecy – among ten jews who gather together for the meditation of the law. The synagogal service becomes, then, much more enbibed in ritual and sacrificial form than one would first assume: the presence of the veiled ark is thus justified. A proof of the acceptance of such substitution is that many of the prayers used in the cult of the Temple become part of the synagogal service: the Hallel (Ps. 118), the Kedushah (the hymn of the Seraphin in Is 6), and the Abodah, a consecration prayer, also called a ‘Memorial’[xiii], that beseeches God to send the awaited Messiah and the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel [xiv].

Something also mentioned by Bouyer is the existence of a ritual meal that complemented the liturgy of the Synagogue, which already existed even before the time of Christ. This ritual meal was celebrated in the family and manifested the expectation of the eternal banquet in the Messiah’s Kingdom. Such a meal included the blessing of cups of wine and the breaking of bread[xv]. Therefore, when Christ chooses bread and wine to institute the Eucharist, it is no random choice: He is fulfilling a prophetic sign that was clearly understood by his Jewish disciples, as the Messiah was supposed to.

Chapter 2: The Christian Worship: From Apostolic Age to Constantine

The Liturgy of the First Christians

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised to the Jews. When Christ died on Good Friday, a new age started in humanity: The Heavenly Temple was open, and the High Priest offered himself, his own body and blood, in atonement for the sins of the whole humankind, once and for all (see Hb. 9:26-28). The true paschal lamb was slain, and with His resurrection from the dead, the heavenly banquet begun (1 Cor 5:7-8).

Apart the Acts of the Apostles, there are too few sources that can tell us of how Christian Worship from the times of the apostles onward was before it was accepted and later established as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Adolf Adam, when explaining this period of the liturgy[xvi], states that Paul mentions the breaking of the bread and agapes (1 Cor 10:16, 11:17-34). There is already a rite of baptism from the end of the gospel of Matthew (Mt 28: 19), but the ceremonial of the liturgy is quite undeveloped: Paul gives witness of charismatic manifestations in the assembly and  fosters freedom of interaction: “Do no quench the Spirit ; do not despise prophesizing but test everything; hold fast to what is good ” (1Thess 5: 19-21)  and “ When you come together, each one has a hymn , a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, an interpretation” (1 Cor 14:26). Paul nevertheless makes sure that the apostolic succession is respected, and that only episkopoi and presbiteroi can act in the name of Jesus[xvii], as is clear in his first letter to Timothy, when specifying the demands in choosing good bishops and deacons (1 Tim, 3). The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles[xviii], a document dating from 80-130 AD, gives the oldest example of what we would call an offertory prayer or, even, an anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer:

“Now concerning Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, give not that which is holy to the dogs (Mt 7,60).” (Didache, Chapter 9)

The Didache shows a deep concern, also present in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, to preserve and protect the Liturgy against heretical teachings[xix], that were already starting to sprout in the different churches, due to different developments in the understanding of both the nature of the rite and the true message left by the Apostles.

 Two other sources are also noteworthy for the light they throw in the understanding of how liturgy was at that time. One is the letter of Pliny the elder to Trajan from around 110 AD regarding how he should punish Christians (who were being persecuted at the time), and the other is the apology of St. Justin Martyr, written by him as a defense of Christianity and directed to the Roman Emperor of the time, Antoninus Pius between 155-157 AD. Interestingly enough, they are sources that complement each other in curious ways: Pliny, a pagan, writes in Latin from a Greek province, while Justin, a Christian, writes in Greek from Rome. The sources also attest how both languages were used as frank languages in the Roman Empire.

The letter of Pliny the Younger[xx] is basically a legal document written to ask the emperor for directions in legal procedures. Pliny was Governor of the province of Bithynia, Asia Minor, dealing with infractions against the worship of the emperor. Nevertheless, there are mentions regarding the celebration of the Eucharist. In it he describes briefly a certain order followed in the liturgy of the Christians around 110 AD:

“(…)They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food.” (Pliny the Younger, On the Christians, 110 AD)

Although there is no general questioning that the ‘fixed day’ was Sunday, there are different interpretations of what Pliny’s report was referring to. The most common is the assumption that the first meeting was the gathering of Christians – Both baptized and catechumens – for the Liturgy of the word, while the evening meal was the celebration of the Eucharist, only for the baptized ones, as the catechumens were not allowed to be shown the mysteries of the Eucharist.

The Apology of Justin have, in the three final chapters[xxi], a description of the Eucharist. His language is defensive and argumentative, as he is trying to show to the emperor that there is no basis on the accusation of atheism and perversion in the Christian gatherings. He thus describes in detail how is the Eucharist celebrated in Rome:

“Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen.(…) and there is a distribution [of bread and wine] to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 65 and 67)

He then continues, in the next chapter, the description of transubstantiation, which is one of the earliest explicit accounts of such belief in Christian writing after the New Testament, attesting the transmission of the faith to the post-apostolic generations:

“And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist] (…). For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (St. Justin, First Apology, Chapter 66)

The architecture of the Christian Worship Space: Domus Ecclesiae

It is perceivable that the liturgy of the first Christians was already enbibed in a Baptismal and Eucharistic theology. We, nevertheless, have little evidence regarding the ‘proper’ way of building churches in this period. The first gathering spaces for Christians were the houses of the community members, and such a custom remained until the legalization of Christianity by Constantine. The circumstances of Christian communities were of recurrent persecution, and the majority belonged to the poorer classes of society, which would justify the reason the places of worship were almost intentionally inconspicuous in the external appearance. From the very circumstances there was a theological reason for it as well. Adolf Adam[xxii] affirms it was the explicit Christian belief that Christ is the Temple of the New Covenant, hence He is himself the place of God’s saving presence. In the Book of Revelation, God and the Lamb are its Temple (Rv 22:22). He also affirms, echoing the letter to the Hebrews, that when the veil of the Temple was torn, the need of an earthly Temple was no longer there. Bouyer will confirm that such belief remained even when Christians started building more sumptuous basilicas after the edict of Milan[xxiii]. Christ the true high priest entered in the debir of Heaven and consummated the perfect sacrifice:

“At the death of Christ, the veil of the Temple in Jerusalem was torn from top to bottom. Many of the Fathers of the Church interpreted this as symbolizing the end of worship in the Old Testament temple and the beginning of a new order of salvation. By his death Christ dismantled the wall separating Jews and Gentiles (see Eph 2:14) and thus established the universal temple that is open to all peoples and gives them salvation and a home. As a result, a new temple cult begins with an in Jesus, a new era in worship of God, when human beings swill worship him ‘in spirit and truth’ (Jn 4:23)” (Adolf Adam, Foundation of Liturgy: An Introduction to its History and Practice, pg. 322)

Adam also makes an interesting statement, if not controversial: for Christians, the need of a build gathering place becomes, because of the primacy of Christ as the real Temple, a secondary matter: the building exists only to provide a service and nothing more, and its dignity derives from the ecclesial assembly that gathers there. His argument to assert the validity of this thought is that even after  the construction of artistic churches and the creation of the rite of dedication, and the beginning of the reservation of the blessed sacrament around the 11^th century, the dignity of the building could not derive from the reasons just mentioned, because then any church of the first millennium would then be completely deprived of dignity. This is confirmed by remarks in the new rite of dedication of a church, and from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that the blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a chapel separated from the main body of the church[xxiv]. Adam thus emphasizes the predominance of the spiritual over the material in matters of Church Architecture.[xxv]

A surviving example of a church of the period would be the House-Church of Dura- Europos, built in the upper Euphrates River. The house was built in the 3^rd century AD and show signs of having been remodeled to be a Christian space of worship. The house had a place of gathering a Baptistry, a room for celebrating the Eucharist and another most likely for assembling the catechumens. The Church at Dura Europos is the Earliest Christian Church found by the archaeologists[xxvi].

Floor plan of the Dura Europos Church (Source: Biblical Archaeology Society)

It also called the attention of archaeologists because of the paintings on the walls  of the baptistry with various themes of the New Testament: Christ and Peter walking on water, three women at the sepulcher, Christ the Good Shepherd- which was painted in the arch over the tub of baptism- and a painting of Adam and Eve, which shows the association of baptism with cleanse from the original sin.[xxvii]

Chapter 3: The Worship of Established Christendom – Domus Ecclesiae and Domus Dei

With the Edict of Milan in 311, Christianity gained legitimacy among the religions of the Roman Empire. Christians were given full freedom of cult, and in 380, the emperor Theodosius established Christianity as the empire’s official religion. Now they had therefore, with the financial support of the empire, the means to start constructing bigger and more sumptuous temples. Although, as seen in chapter 2, the theology of the Christian Temple is considerably different from the Jewish one, the fact that Christians started building Churches as such shows that there was a tendency to appreciate more showing the faith through material forms, expressed in art and architecture. The basilica, for instance, was a model common for public buildings and palaces in the Roman world and was the one Constantine used to build the first great Churches, being thus appropriated for the typical Christian temple instead of the one used for pagan temples as the pantheon, with the portico with columns. Many customs of pagan use were then Christianized and acquired theological meaning, especially in the rite and vests for the service. There were already, as seen before, a custom of depicting Christ, scenes of the Gospels and the saints through painting and mosaics. In the new Christian basilicas, these forms of art would evolve to their summit, as now there were wealthy patrons available to pay for better artists. Then arose the natural tendency of sacralizing the space of worship, which now was completely separated and built for such use.

 Some of the first Christian Churches built in the basilica form that are still preserved are among the Syrian churches. Being in the very place where Christianity started and influenced by a deeply Jewish environment, they were not quite different from a Jewish synagogue. Bouyer shows a scheme of one of them:

Floor plan of an early Syrian Church (Source: L. Bouyer)

 Boyer notes that, after perceiving the obvious similarities, one is drawn to the striking differences: the building is not directed towards the debir of the Temple of Jerusalem anymore, but towards the east. This feature of churches remained of paramount importance until the end of the Middle Ages. The second difference is that the apse does not contain the ark, but a table – the altar for the celebration of the Eucharist[xxviii]. Such differences are justified, according to Bouyer, by the fact that Christians see a whole new significance in the Messianic promises – which agrees with the position of Adolf Adam quoted in the previous chapter. He says:

“First, the earthly Jerusalem lost their meaning for Christians (…) For them, indeed as for the Jews, [the New Jerusalem] will appear at the coming of the Messiah. But in his second and final Parousia. (…) The heavenly city will be made of the gathering of the elect in His risen body, coming to its fulfillment in the Church of the last day. There will be no need of any Temple for the Lord Himself, in his union with them, will be the eternal temple (Rv 22,22). Thus, the orientation of the Christian Churches. The East, as the place of the rising sun for the early Christians, was the only fitting symbol of the last appearance of Christ in His Parousia, as the Sun of justice sung of already in the canticle of Zechariah.” (L. Bouyer, Liturgy and Architecture, pg. 28-29)

Beyond the orientation and the altar, there was a chancel that divided the Church in half. Such a division was made so that women, now also actively part of the people of God, could be close to the bema to listen to the preaching and at the same time be separated from men and clergy. Women, nevertheless, approached the altar to receive communion. The altar itself was veiled, just as the ark in the synagogue, to indicate the sacrality of what was celebrated over the holy table[xxix]. The ark on the bema contained the book of the Gospels and Holy Scriptures[xxx], which were considered parallel to the tables of the law in the Mosaic ark. There was no Eucharistic reserve; tabernacles came into existence only by the end of the millennium.

The order of the liturgy of this time did not change in comparison to the one in early Christianity, but the solemnity increased. Deacons, Priests, and Bishops were given distinctive clothing for the service, and the ceremonial evolved in complexity. First there was the liturgy of the word, with preaching. Afterwards, the Eucharistic one properly speaking. An important part of the liturgy was the transition between both with the clerical procession from the bema to the altar, symbolizing the people of God on the way to the eternal banquet in heaven, which was followed by the presentation of the offerings. Such procession became progressively less emphasized in the West, as we will see later. In the East, nevertheless, the procession remained. Now we will focus on the differences between the West and the East in such developments.

The Western (Roman) Church

The Church in the West was based in Rome from apostolic times since it was the capital of the Empire and the local of the Martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul. Rome therefore was unquestionably a reference for the Churches in the West.

Due to the official use that Roman Basilicas had before it was adopted for Christian use, the Roman Church has remarkably interesting features. The first one that is noticeable is that the episcopal seat is elevated and is a throne, surrounded with seats for his clergy. It is in the center of the apse, just as the seat of the emperor would be in the senate building[xxxi]. This was most likely because the bishop of Rome – and later all bishop with him – acquired, with the officialization of Christianity, preeminence in public life equal to the high offices of the empire. Another cause was the compulsory conversion of many people who did not went to any sort of interior renewal to become a Christian. The Assembly became full of uninterested people, who did not – and could not – appreciate the value of the liturgy. This, according to Bouyer, is the beginning of clericalism both in the public life of the church and in the liturgy, that is, distinction and separation between clergy and laity[xxxii]. As at least the clergy had the prior knowledge and the full understanding of what was happening, a barrier was slowly built up around them, as a mechanism of protection of the sacrality of the sacrament.

The altar was, at the beginning, in the center of the church and the equivalent to the Bema became the schola, that is, a place for the choir and for the readers. The procession of the Clergy to the altar thus still happens in a natural way. Another difference is that the side facing the east is now the side of the Entrance, towards which the clergy and the whole assembly turned during the service. Later, Saint Gregory would bring the altar of St. Peters to be exactly over the tomb of the apostle, following the ancient custom of celebrating the Eucharist over the tomb of the martyrs, and to facilitate the gathering of the clergy. As the Church entrance is in the face towards the east, the priest obviously would have to celebrate the liturgy facing the people. This was one of the reasons why, in the liturgical renewal, there was a strong claim for the mass versus populum. That said, it is important to know that mass versus populum was never a concern in the liturgical tradition of the church. As Bouyer notices, “Never and nowhere (…) have we any indication that any importance or even attention was given to whether the priest celebrated with the people before him or behind him”[xxxiii] .

This, in the time of St. Gregory, made the clergy even more isolated and basically unmoved during the whole liturgy in St. Peter’s, and this model, without the foreseeing or intention in the part of St. Gregory, became the reference when other Churches started to be built in the West. The separation of clergy and laity – and, afterwards, the clericalization of the Eucharist – was now just a natural consequence[xxxiv]. Eventually, the nave would return to the orientation that it had before, that is, with the apse towards the east. The Choir and the sanctuary, nevertheless, would remain together. As a long-term consequence, the laity in the west would become virtually ignorant of the full significance and meaning of the liturgy, accepting it as something that the clergy should do for them, instead of actively participating in it as a part of the Mystical Body of Christ, even later, when the Presence of Christin the Eucharist became focal in the devotion of the Middle Ages.

Floor Plans of the Roman Basilica type church, with changes in the position of the altar (source: Bouyer)

It is important to notice that eventually the chancel in front of the choir would become true wall in many churches- a parallel feature in eastern churches is called iconostasis, but for a completely different reason- that separated the laity from the sanctuary. Such separation was so literal that, later, an altar for the laity was put in front of it so two masses- the laity’s and the clergy’s – could be happening at the same time[xxxv]. The referred wall would eventually disappear in the west, but the altar would remain behind the choir. This Scheme of churches would be the model adopted across Western Europe and would remain fairly unchanged until the rise of the Liturgical Movement and the reform of the Liturgy, in the Second Vatican Council.

The Eastern (Byzantine) Church

The Eastern Churches developed in a more organic way from the early Syrian Churches. They were better architectonically speaking, when compared with the oblong nave of the western basilicas, at least in Bouyer’s point of view[xxxvi]. In his opinion, the byzantine development adopted the basilica form too but excluded from it any element that hindered the celebration of the Liturgy.

Floor plan of an early Byzantine Church, with the centralized bema

 (Source: Bouyer)

The rectangular shape and enormous size of the Roman basilica demanded too many columns inside, making the central nave, near the transept, the only place possible for the community gathering to enjoy properly the liturgy in the apse[xxxvii]. In the Byzantine Church, however, this problem was solved by adopting a square building, with no columns inside. The bema was kept in the center of the Church, and the altar remained in the apse towards the East. This shape was assumed in the construction of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and it never compromised the participation of the faithful in the liturgy as the rectangular shape did, even when clericalization was present[xxxviii]– after all, it was in its time the cathedral of the Byzantine empire’s capital.

In the Byzantine Liturgy, the way architectonic features – especially the iconography, that was developed carefully and later standardized- are disposed affects deeply the environment of the Liturgy in a positive way. Over the bema there is usually a dome, in which is always painted a Christ Pantocrator – Christ Almighty. He holds the books of the Gospels and stays above, encompassing the whole assembly- the church- from above, and in them, the whole cosmos. Above the altar, in the apse, an image of the blessed mother the Panagia and theotokos- the all-holy and mother of God. All the smaller domes of the church are painted following a hierarchy of saints. In front of the altar stands the already mentioned iconostasis. In this case, it is really an organic development of the curtain of the early Syrian churches, which evoked the separation of the debir. The iconostasis, as the name suggests, is a wall where icons stand, separating the nave from the sanctuary itself, where the altar is laid. In the middle of the iconostasis there are doors or curtains which lead to the sanctuary, and that are kept open during the anaphora. The people participate actively, as the choir is singing from all sides and even from behind them.

The result is that the people feel really part of something greater, understanding not only their role in the Liturgy, but also engaging in the reality of what the Liturgy really is. It is said that when Russians ambassadors described to their Chiefs the liturgy celebrated in Constantinople, they said “In Constantinople, we have seen the heavens on earth,” which was enough for them to adopt the Orthodox Christianity instead of the Roman one. Whether this is true or not, Bouyer’s opinion is that what matters is that the Eastern Church succeeded the best in ‘making the invisible visible in Christian Worship”[xxxix].

Conclusion

The Liturgy is, ultimately, a mystery, that is, a visible manifestation of the invisible realities, by which we are able to give glory to God, and not by our own merits. As the Holy Father Pope Francis said:

“The Liturgy gives glory to God not because we can add something to the beauty of the inaccessible light within which God dwells (cf. 1Ti 6:16). Nor can we add to the perfection of the angelic song which resounds eternally through the heavenly places. The Liturgy gives glory to God because it allows us — here, on earth — to see God in the celebration of the mysteries, and in seeing Him to draw life from his Passover.” (Pope Francis, Desiderium Desideravi, 43)

It would be overly simplistic- to say the least- to say that historically the Roman Church was rash in its understanding of Liturgical space and its implications on the Liturgy celebrated. Neither was the intention of this work to bring a final closure to the dilemma of whether we should or not adopt modern architecture features in catholic churches, because many aspects covered here are ignored or overlooked by both sides. Many aspects of the Liturgical development in Christianity were not covered because they were too many and would exceed the scope of this brief work, but these were mentioned to point at least a way to the real comprehension of what was, from the beginning, the understanding of Christians regarding their own liturgy and their own sacred space. Nevertheless, this work was able to gather some valuable information, as follows.

We could see that significant part of such Christian understanding, if not most of it, came from the Jewish roots of Christianity, without which it would be impossible to even start giving its definition. The Christian Liturgy is the culmination of the liturgy of the tabernacle, of the temple, and of the synagogue.

It is the Christian belief that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob married humanity, and by His own initiative, became one flesh with it in the Incarnation of His Word. The Church, by her union with the Incarnate Word, became the abode of God. The built space of the Christian temple is secondary to Christians as expression of their faith but becomes extremely important as a place of gathering of the baptized, the people of God, from which it takes it dignity of sacred place, as the people – individually and as a whole – manifest the real Temple, Christ himself in his mystical body, the Church. Therefore, as Christ indeed wanted to be truly present in the built temple both in the assembly and through the Real Presence in the Eucharist – the fact that the initiative is God’s must never be neglected – the Christian temple is definitely a House of God, with its inherent sacrality, without any detriment to its reality as a House of the Church.

Architecture therefore plays a pivotal role in enhancing the purpose of the Liturgy. History shows that decisions made on the positioning of the furnishings and artistic features in the nave and sanctuary of a church have affected – both positively and negatively – the understanding of liturgical realities in the people of God. It is a task therefore that cannot be treated banally and cannot be left to people who do not know or appreciate the true significance of Christian Worship. The propriety of the church building must therefore only be measured as far as it fits with the rite celebrated as understood by the authority of the Church, based on its Magisterium, its Tradition and, of course, on Scripture. More than that, as the Church is called in Lumen Gentium as Sacrament of Salvation[xl], the building of a Church must be understood as a sacrament of the Church itself, embracing its whole reality as mystical body of Christ, built in stone .

The current situation of sacred architecture is in a moment of transition, in which the laity is starting to access the conciliar documents and understand it in a more integral way, after 50 years of effort on the part of the magisterium. More people are acquainted with Sacrosanctum Concilium, and the last three popes left extensive material as guideline for how to interpret it. There is more clarity in this regard nowadays than in the times of Bouyer and Adam. The dichotomy mentioned in this paper’s introduction is a sign of different groups trying to find a solution going in two opposite directions. The problem has already been identified and solutions are at least being proposed.

Some other questions to be answered in further research is how contemporary architects can recover the tradition of building churches that are truly Christian according to the tradition without necessarily turning back to remaking of prior architectonic styles.  Another question is which are the next steps form and catechize further the laity of the significance of the sacred space, so that the demands of Christian expression in a Church can come from the whole people of God and not only by the ‘intellectual elite’ of the Clergy.

[i] Cf. Oxford English Dictionary  “2. a. A form of public worship, esp. in the Christian Church; a collection of formularies for the conduct of Divine service.”

[ii] N. Lewis, “Leitourgia and related terms”, Greek, Roman and Bizantine Studies 3 (1960:175–84) and 6 (1965:226–30)

[iii] JOSEPH RATZINGER, The Spirit of the Liturgy, pag. 159. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000.

[iv] VITRUVIUS. De Architectura, II, 1

[v] J. RATZINGER, The Spirit of the Liturgy, pag.. 43, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000

[vi] Ibid., pag. 45

[vii] A. PARROT. The Temple of Jerusalem. Pg. 22. SCM press ltd. London, 1957.

[viii] Ibid. Pag. 26.

[ix] Ibid. Pag. 35.

[x] J. RATZINGER, The Spirit of the Liturgy, pag.. 37, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000

[xi] L. BOUYER, Liturgy and Architecture, pg. 8, University of Notre Dame Press, 1967

[xii] L. BOUYER. Liturgy and Architecture, pg. 19, University of Notre Dame Press, 1967

[xiii] There is no stretch in seeing in this a parallel to the Eucharistic prayer in the Christian Mass, the Memorial of Christ’s Passion.

[xiv] L. BOUYER. Liturgy and Architecture, pg. 22, University of Notre Dame Press, 1967

[xv]  Ibid. pag.. 23

[xvi] A. ADAM. Foundations of Liturgy: An introduction to Its History and Practice, pg. 12-17, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1992

[xvii] O. KNOCH, “ jeder trage etwas bei…” “(1Kor14,26,) in Gemeinde in Herrenmahl  66, quoted in A. ADAM. Foundations of Liturgy: An introduction to Its History and Practice, pg. 15, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1992

[xviii] Didaché, Ch.9

[xix] A. ADAM. Foundations of Liturgy: An introduction to Its History and Practice, pg. 15, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1992

[xx] Pliny the Younger, Letter on Christians, 10. 96-97

[xxi] Justin, First Apology, Ch. 65-67

[xxii] A. ADAM. Foundations of Liturgy: An introduction to Its History and Practice, pg. 321-322, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1992

[xxiii] L. BOUYER, Liturgy and Architecture, pg. 28, University of Notre Dame Press, 1967

[xxiv] Ibid. pg. 322-323.

 ^[xxv] It is the understanding of the author that Adolf Adam is right but must be understood in his time and context. In the years after the Council Vatican II, there was a lot of theological divergence on how to interpret Sacrossantum Concilium, the document on Liturgy and on Sacred Art and Architecture, and at that moment, there was no way of predicting the outcome of fostering more progressive ideas. Many progressive liturgists would raise points similar to Adam’s opinions, to affirm the need of making churches more focused on the welfare of the assembly, many times to the detriment of the sacrality of the sanctuary and the liturgy itself. It is not possible, however, to affirm from his opinion whether Adam would agree or not with the outcome of the liturgical renewal of his time.

[xxvi] R. KRAUTHEIMER. Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, pg. 27, 4^th edition.  Yale University Press, 1986

[xxvii] Ibid. pag. 27.

[xxviii] L. BOUYER. Liturgy and Architecture, pg. 27-28, Notre Dame University Press, 1967

[xxix] Ibid., pag.. 31.

[xxx] ibid., pag.. 28.

[xxxi] L. BOUYER, Liturgy and Architecture, pg.43-44, University of Notre Dame Press, 1967

[xxxii] Ibid., pag.. 44.

[xxxiii] Ibid. Pag. 55.

[xxxiv] Ibid. Pag.. 48.

[xxxv] A. Adam. Foundations of Liturgy: An Introduction to Its History and Practice. The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1992

[xxxvi] L. BOUYER, Liturgy and Architecture, pg.60-61, University of Notre Dame Press, 1967

[xxxvii] Ibid. Pag. 61-62

[xxxviii] Ibid. Pag. 65.

[xxxix] Ibid. Pag. 70.

[xl] Pope Paul VI. “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church – Lumen Gentium.” Vatican: the Holy See. Rome, 21 Nov. 1965.

How do you respond to the criticism that aspects of your paper have a dismissive tone toward “both sides”? One might point to this passage and others like it as evidence. Do you think this accusation is justified? Is that, for example, how you felt about the two sides as you wrote this? No need to answer about your feelings; just think about it.  [KT1]

You might want to just say here that what you are doing is bringing together a lot of threads related to these questions and performing a status quaestionis to set up a more detailed later project. That way, you would be clear up front that you are not necessarily going to “prove” a conclusion.  [KT2]

Well, that’s not really true. I think you mean that this is no longer the center. But it continues to play a key role, Acts 15, Jerusalem Patriarch, etc. etc.  [KT3]

The paper is good in general, if we understand it as I proposed up front: a status quaestionis. I recommend you add that above. And here you can just reiterate it. BUT you should also say here what that status really is, give a summary of where things stand on what motivated your initial overview of this question, and then pose what you think the deepest question(s) for the next stage of research really are, especially ones that you do not feel you already have good answers to. (I actually liked the details and thought they worked well in this kind of paper. You could have mainly done “secondary” sources, but that’s usually not that interesting or enjoyable to read; and it all presume you already have mastered the details you are giving here. So, I think your effort to systematise those details is good and will pay off in later study.) [KT4]