L
lak611
Guest
This is a great thread, Caesar! I love the pictures that you have posted and your explanations. You definitely know your Church history. 
There is much talk nowadays about restoring selected liturgical practices of the primitive Church so as to uncover an original purity, obscured by centuries, it is claimed, almost millenia, of extraneous accretions. So far as the Church’s building program is concerned, this is also true. Typically the archi-liturgical reform program is marked by an appeal to evoke the domestic setting of the early Church’s liturgy. As Christians were either persecuted or, at best, de facto tolerated until Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D., they were indeed forced to meet secretly. However, there is still heated debate, fueled by comparatively little evidence, as to precisely what were the physical arrangements. We know that some churches were built before the end of the persecutions; however, none have survived so we know next to nothing about them. We do have evidence that Christians gathered in the tituli, or private properties donated to the Christian community by sympathetic patricians. But, again, very little is known about the architectural modifications that were made to accommodate religious services. For all we know, these places were used in such a way as to imitate as much as possible the Temple and synagogal forms of the Jews. Indeed, what would one expect of the early Church, which grew directly from the Hebrew tradition. In any case, we should not be surprised at the lack of evidence as the primitive Church was convinced of the imminence of the Second Coming, a significant disincentive to investment in lasting church buildings.
Despite the paucity of remains, however, there is a suggestion in the liturgical reform program that a domestic setting per se is most fitting for the liturgy. Hence contemporary churches ought somehow to imitate this domestic intimacy, principally by designing horizontally proportioned spaces, and arranging the seating “in-the-round” in order to focus attention on the assembly. The proposed imitation of the ancient liturgical setting ends there, however, as the program for archi-liturgical reform, broadly speaking, also promotes the adoption of architectural forms which are decidedly untraditional, namely those modernist forms which are currently the fashion in the architectural profession today. In support, one often hears the phrase from Sacrosanctum Concilium “The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her very own” (123) repeated with a depressing lack of finesse, as though the Church were obliged to adopt every trend without distinction.
There is every reason to believe, however, that an examination of the early basilicas built under Constantine and soon after would be very instructive regarding the primitive Church’s attitude toward the architectural setting for the liturgy, for a serious argument could be made that there was no radical shift in the Christian mentality regarding building after 313. It must be remembered that the construction of these early basilicas was a delicate political affair. Most of the aristocracy and the general population were still pagan, and would have been offended had Constantine pursued a triumphalist Christian building program ordered to the purposes of the state, possibly provoking an unstable political situation. For this reason, he proceeded very cautiously. The early basilicas were all constructed on private land on the outskirts of town, most outside the city walls (fuori le mura), and their exteriors were highly austere, even plain, so as not to attract attention. Only the interiors were richly decorated, and those would only be seen by the faithful. With this in mind one would expect these new church buildings to have been designed in organic continuity with the more secretive architectural settings which preceded them. Whatever was novel (permanent altars, elaborate decorations, etc.) represented the release of a longing that had been growing for generations, and the faithful who lived through the construction of the churches would not have been surprised, much less offended, by anything built.

Thank youI can’t add much of a scholarly contribution, but I can add a prayer for Ceasar’s discernment![]()
I will keep you in prayers, too! You are very knowledgeable and faithful. You will be an excellent priest.Thank you![]()

Caesar, this is a wonderful link!That great liturgical website,SanctaMissa.org, has a new section called From Sacristy to Altar which describes all the features of the Catholic sanctuary, including vestments, sacred vessels, and architectural features.
Papal choir dress. Watered-silk cassock, rochet (though this can’t be seen), red satin mozzetta, and a stole, with the pectoral cross on a gold cord.Caesar, this is a wonderful link!One question: what is the vestment that Pope Benedict XVI is wearing in this picture?