Why do Catholics use elaborate architecture to build churches?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
YoungTradCath said:
One thing I appreciate about the East is their general constancy in insisting that architecture, iconography, music, liturgy, etc., are part of an integrated whole in a real and practical sense, not just hidden away in documents somewhere.

Whereas in the West we severely suffer from a certain choppiness, an un-integrated-ness, an inorganic-ness, not only in practice, but in the minds of people as well: “No, the way a liturgy is celebrated couldn’t possibly have anything whatsoever to do with what and how people believe, how absurd!” seems to be a favorite idea among many–strictly-speaking–orthodox Latins. I really do run into this.

Of course, I don’t think the East is some utopia, but at least in this topic, the East has preserved much of that pristine liturgical ethos, if only in their approach to it, as Pope Francis alluded to.

In the West we do get some of this, but it seems to be because of the sort of pastor you have, or the bishop you have who takes a fancy for liturgy; Latin culture, at least in the geographical West itself, does not inculcate that integrated-ness that I observe in the East between liturgy and the faith itself. It is there, but a different kind, and to a lesser degree, imo. It is more, “Yes, of course we believe that about the liturgy, see, it’s right here in this document!” never mind that “it” is rarely if ever seen in practice. Yet if we applied this principle–“lookey there it’s in that document so ;p”–to any other aspect of our religion it would be repudiated immediately.
Click to expand...
Have you read this recent article that likens East and West to the rods and cones in the eye?
The Theology of the Body Broken in Practice: The Great Schism (part 2 of 2)
How does this mirror the schism among Catholics and Orthodox more clearly than the lung? This is because the genius and converse weaknesses of the East and West are so often different. Many have commented that the West is strong in maintaining unity, but tragically at the expense of maintaining the beauty of the ancient faith. ‘The West’ is strong in differentiating matters of faith and morals, in that She has continued to hold councils that allow Her faithful to have clear answers to modern problems such as the technology which facilitates in vitro fertilization. But at the same time, many would say that She has suffered from a unity and clarity of message that does not have the ‘color’ of a beautiful liturgy, at least not commonly so in the United States. In that sense, the West is like a person who has defective cones but functioning rods. She can see clearly, but without color. It is as though the strength of scholastic, rational thinking is maintained, while a mystical and intuitive appreciation of the beauty of the world is lacking.
Click to expand...
At the opposite end of the spectrum, one could posit that the East in our day and age has lost nothing of Her liturgical beauty and traditional richness. Her prayer services and traditional ascetic practices are still fervently upheld, even if not well followed. However, She often comes to different conclusions about matters of faith and morals. Do non-Orthodox have a valid Eucharist? What are we to think of contraception? The fuzzy areas where clarity is needed are not so uniformly upheld. In that sense, the East without the West is like a person who is able to differentiate colors because the cones are fully functional, but the rods appear wounded, as making sense of what is happening in the ‘dark’ of this world is somewhat defective.
Click to expand...
 
Quick note, The National Cathedral is Episcopalian, not Catholic.
 
AdvanceAlways said:
Quick note, The National Cathedral is Episcopalian, not Catholic.
Click to expand...
Of course I should have made that clear. I was Episcopal before I converted. I just wanted to correct that previous poster that made Episcopal churches and Cathedrals look like barren puritan wastelands. Many Anglican/Episcopal churches do have statues and Icons.
 
I grew up and started going to Catholic and Episcopal churches during the post VatII craziness. The first time I heard altar chimes and smelled incense was in an Episcopal church.

At that time the Catholics thought things like that were hopelessly “old fashioned”. There are churches that still don’t use altar chimes and incense, pity.

If only there were a church in this diocese that used the Old Latin Mass I would be there in a second. But in this area of the USA the emphasis in mostly on Spanish.
 
andrewstx said:
I grew up and started going to Catholic and Episcopal churches during the post VatII craziness. The first time I heard altar chimes and smelled incense was in an Episcopal church.

At that time the Catholics thought things like that were hopelessly “old fashioned”. There are churches that still don’t use altar chimes and incense, pity.

If only there were a church in this diocese that used the Old Latin Mass I would be there in a second. But in this area of the USA the emphasis in mostly on Spanish.
Click to expand...
Yeah my parish didn’t have bells for a while, but now we have them back except it’s more like a little gong bell that our priest got from Asia.
 
CDB1718 said:
Have you read this recent article that likens East and West to the rods and cones in the eye?
The Theology of the Body Broken in Practice: The Great Schism (part 2 of 2)
Click to expand...
You know, I hadn’t thought of it like that before. I have always respected Easterners, but I suppose the lungs metaphor didn’t really do anything for me because it doesn’t answer how the East and West are complementary. It is easy enough to see that they are, in fact, but that doesn’t answer how they are complementary.

I appreciate the rationalism of the West greatly. It helps in sticky situations. But at times it can be grossly unhelpful, a filter to the color of things.
 
CDB1718 said:
Many Protestant groups are iconoclastic. They reject the use of imagery, saying it is idolatrous. They reject liturgy, so they have no use for liturgical space. They reject the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, so their space focuses on hearing the Word and on Christian fellowship, the only things they’re able to offer. They reject the communion of saints, thinking it is only the physical people present who are engaging in the prayer and community.

When they reject these things, the art and architecture changes to meet their values. As we embrace them, Christ’s incarnation and transfiguration compel our art and architecture to tell these truths and create a space in which we can encounter and engage them.

This short video series has great content about art, architecture, and sacred imagery.
Dr. Denis McNamara, faculty member at the Liturgical Institute in Mundelein, Illinois, speaks on church architecture and its relation to beauty, theologically understood.
Catholic Church Architecture Part 1 of 10: Architectural Theology
Catholic Church Architecture Part 2 of 10: True Beauty
Catholic Church Architecture Part 3 of 10: Jewish Roots
Catholic Church Architecture Part 4 of 10: The Classical Tradition
Catholic Church Architecture Part 5 of 10: Decoration and Ornamentation
Catholic Church Architecture Part 6 of 10: Columns
Catholic Church Architecture Part 7 of 10: Sacred Images
Catholic Church Architecture Part 8 of 10: Rediscovering Liturgical Images
Catholic Church Architecture Part 9 of 10: Heaven and Architecture
Catholic Church Architecture Part 10 of 10: Vatican II

Or here’s the same general content in one long video.
Full Talk
Dr. Denis McNamara; Assistant Director, The Liturgical Institute, University of St. Mary of the Lake
Supper of the Lamb: Mass as Heaven on Earth Conference, Franciscan University of Steubenville
New Heaven & New Earth: Church Architecture as Sacramental Participation in the Heavenly Banquet
Click to expand...
Thanks for this! I haven’t watched all of it yet, but this is probably my favorite topic. I honed in on the “Jewish Roots” part, since that’s specifically what I’m interested in. Coming from an LDS/Mormon perspective, the concept of a temple is very important, and one of the things we see in Catholicism is, as Dr. McNamara says, the synagogue and the temple realized in Catholic churches. Not just in the architecture, but in what goes on there. The sacrificial priesthood offering sacrifice to the Father clearly points to the Biblical temple. Definitely something I’m always interested in reading/learning about.
 
My soul seems to draw closer to Him when surrounded by the beauty inspired by Him, created by Him.

I recently had the pleasure and blessing to attend the Cathedral Basilica in St. Louis, MO (and just a few days before the feast day of St. Louis); I was moved to tears during the weekday noon Mass. To be surrounded by such inspirational beauty in praise of our Lord…it’s beyond words for me.

There are a few local churches that are also nice, and more that are ‘modern’. I grew up in a ‘modern’/plain church due to small rural town/lack of funds. I can appreciate both.

(I do love the bells and incense!!)
 
It’s so true that quite a bit of modern churches are bland.

szst.hr/galerije/sv_petar/sv_petar-5.JPG

This is the st. Peter’s concathedral which I always go to (like 50 meters from me 😃 ) and unfortunately it doesn’t look like a (con)cathedral. 😦

destinacije.com/Slike/Hrvatska/CrkveiKatedrale/Konkatedrala_Sv_Petra.JPG

This is the outside (on this picture you are only looking at the monastery (although the outside of the concathedral looks just like this).

However we have a BEAUTIFUL cathedral of st. Domnius which is really small inside (it’s really a bell tower) and is also one of the oldest cathedrals in the world (4th century).

ifimages.com/photos/DtxvX4n6huuc2exkvzMODBfMziI/author-611/Interior-cathedral-Duje-old-town.jpg
nadbiskupija-split.com/katehetski/vijjesti/katehetska_2009/osnovna/vjeroucitelji_strucni_skup_sveta_misa_sveti_duje.jpg
 
Well in India, the Hindu temples are built with a fantastic architectural structures. Especially in the southern part of India, all temples have a marvelous architecture.
In India much importance is given to the inner space rather than the architectural beauty because of the financial constraints.
 
janeway529 said:
“One of the big problems for an architect in our time is that for a 150 years men have been building churches as if a church has to look as if it were left over from some other age. I think that such an assumption is based on an implicit confession of atheism – as if God did not belong to all ages.” -Thomas Merton
Click to expand...
But it cannot be blindly assumed that just because one architectural style follows another that it is therefore necessarily okay or good for building churches.
 
It is so unfortunate that we became modern in terms of architecture. I personally prefer the “Dark Ages” Cathedrals.

It is the house of God, the King of kings. she need to reflect his importance.
 
janeway529 said:
“One of the big problems for an architect in our time is that for a 150 years men have been building churches as if a church has to look as if it were left over from some other age. I think that such an assumption is based on an implicit confession of atheism – as if God did not belong to all ages.” -Thomas Merton
Click to expand...
Wow, that’s a beauty of a statement. “…big problems for an architect…” “… left over from some other age …” and then straight to “… implicit confession of atheism” and then a non-sequitur " … as if God did not belong to all ages".

A church is a symbol in itself. It has a purpose. The “spaceship sauna” school of architecture does not suit it, in terms of the connotations it evokes. Unless those who make them want to send a different message than our forefathers.

One thing I’ve realised: modern churches are very much of their time. They’ll date very quickly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top