Posted on 06/08/2010 5:02:05 PM PDT by Desdemona
I have recently struck up a very enjoyable correspondence with Prof. Peter Kwasniewski, of the excellent Wyoming Catholic College, and read with great interest an article he recently wrote for the next edition of Latin Mass Magazine on the philosophy and theology of church architecture. (More information can be found at the magazine's website here.) Particularly interesting for me is his innovative but sound idea of linking the built structure of the church to the four marks of the institutional Church--One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. This is the first time I have seen such an idea advanced and I find it elegant and eloquent. Prof. Kwasniewski has been kind enough to secure permission for us to publish his article at The New Liturgical Movement, and you can find it below. Some highlights, with my comments and expansions:
We identify her four “notes” or essential characteristics when we say that she is “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.” Almost in the same breath, we then link the Church to her life-giving Sacraments and the ultimate goal to which our membership in her carries us: “we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” An entire understanding of church architecture is sketched out in these few words of the Creed.
[...] “One.” We are talking about one and the same Church across all the ages. [...] So the church building and its furnishings ought to convey a sense of something one, visibly and tangibly one, that is greater than all of our differences. [One is reminded of Ninian Comper's synthetic unitive eclecticism: "All generations shall call me blessed." I would also remark that the "oneness" of the church building should also be manifest in a clarity of liturgical form and focus. --MGA] We concretely express this mystery by an architecture that remains in continuity with ecclesiastical Tradition. [...]
“Apostolic.” I jump ahead to this note of the Church because it clarifies that the unity or oneness just spoken of consists in belonging to the Church founded by Christ on the Apostles, especially on Peter, the Rock. Our Lord Jesus gave to the Apostles the Deposit of Faith, what we call Apostolic Tradition. [...] The church building, for its part, passes down that same Tradition in artistic form, in a kind of silent visual preaching.
“Holy.” This characteristic is arguably the most important of all when it comes to architecture. A church should represent and reflect and remind us of the holiness of God, the holiness to which we have been called and in which we share. Hence, verticality—the upward thrust of architectural and decorative elements—is crucial in a sanctuary. When we enter a well-designed church, our mind, our feelings, are immediately drawn upwards to God, the Holy One of Israel; to the Divine, the Transcendent, the Infinite.
[I'd also remark that there are various ways of expressing this verticality, this exchange between God and man exemplified in the Incarnation--in Gothic it goes up, while in Byzantine architecture domes recall God's enclosing movement downwards to man while retaining a sense of loftiness. Baroque creates a sort of aerial, spiralling ballet that has elements of both upward and downward verticality to it. --MGA].
Anyway, have a read through the article: it is excellent work, and innovative while being firmly grounded in tradition. It is good to see, in this article, and in other works (like Dr. McNamara's new book) that we are now examining in great detail and with great theological seriousness what a church should look like, as well as what it should not look like. I hope to hear more in this vein from the good professor in the future.
What is a Church Supposed to Look Like? Peter Kwasniewski
So it's not that the money could be better spent on the poor? I thought that was your reason.
Instead, you approve of church buildings for churches that agree with your theology.
That is one of the lamest posts I have ever read. You are much like Barney Fife, puffing yourself up with NOTHING> Please find a more adult argument if you want to continue this. Otherwise, give yourself a high-five. You’re brilliant only in your own mind.
Do you ever find beauty in nature or in art? If so, what is its source?
I’m only applying your own logic. Yes, I arrive at the same opinion of it - lame.
You wrote:
“What a crock!”
No, it is true. History makes that obvious: literally millions of acts of Protestant iconclasm, Puritan dourness and the Puritan confusion of plainnes with simpleness, the barrenness of most Protestant churches, the blandness of most modern Protestant music (which has unfortunately crept into the Catholic parish in the last 45 years), etc.
I happen to be a Lutheran - Missouri Synod and was raised an Episcopalian. You are painting with an awfully large brush! The Episcopal Churches I have belonged to or visited have been every bit as beautiful if not more so than the Catholic Churches. And the services are more beautiful (And tradtitional - Rite 1). And the Lutheran Church - MS can hold it’s own.
And the music is infinitely better.
Justification again. Rears its ugly head on a regular basis here. Enjoy your beautiful surroundings. Be impressed with yourselves. Think God is impressed. Praise the building funds. Make your church the biggest, best and prettiest it can be. Come together and rejoice in your building. Declare it worthy of God. Feel holy. Eat, drink and be merry.
I believe that post violates more than a few of the forum’s guidelines.
For us Church is different - I think even Beauty is different, at least Beauty in Church.
I wonder if Jesus came to your house, would you bring out your best? If you believed in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, would you take it to Denny’s?
You do not understand the differences in our view of Church. So you inferred motives stand in stark error to us.
You wrote:
“I happen to be a Lutheran - Missouri Synod and was raised an Episcopalian.”
I don’t care.
“You are painting with an awfully large brush!”
If it’s accurate - and it is - it doesn’t matter how big the brush is.
“The Episcopal Churches I have belonged to or visited have been every bit as beautiful if not more so than the Catholic Churches.”
Irrelevant. “Many” does not mean “all”. You can find many beautiful Episcopal churches - all of them are copies of Catholic churches, but still, they exist.
“And the services are more beautiful (And tradtitional - Rite 1). And the Lutheran Church - MS can hold it’s own.
And the music is infinitely better.”
Not really. When Protestants get it right they are only imitating Catholics. And still many Protestants have historically hated beauty. I can’t help the fact that that is true and that even Protestant art experts like Cram said so.
I’m going to agree with you on the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches.
However, it is quite different in other Protestant Churches. Around here, the goal seems to be to make it look like either a shed (sometimes one with very high ceilings and a steeple) or a federal court house.
I’m going to repeat an earlier point that I, at least, think applies.
It may be relevant that both the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches believe in the real presence.
Beauty is found in the simplicity that is in Christ.Mother Teresa of Calcutta said (and I'm paraphrasing), "I could not get through even one day, with the work that I do, without first receiving my Jesus [in the Eucharist!]."
And still many Protestants have historically hated beauty.
Well, at least you’ve gone from “Protestants” to “many Protestants”.
VIOLATIONS?!? how about God’s violations? this is nothing but circular arguing. I am arguing with someone who believes a wafer becomes the literal Body of Christ. It is a waste of time and frankly, little is to be gained by either of us. One thing IS certain, we can’t both be right. God will decide. He is faithful.
If so it was a waste of time from the beginning, yet you began.
As my post indicated, I know you disagree with the Church and the Apostles and Christians up until Zwingli on the real presence.
My point was that if you did not, you might understand more about our Church structures and with that understanding not attribute false motives.
Regardless, attributing motives and mind reading are the violations of the forum, we all lapse into them when we get emotional or passionate.
Then I shall wish you the best, every happiness that is to be found in Christ, and energy for the long journey ahead. Maranatha
Thank you. And may God bless you and yours as well.
I am not choosing blinders in reference to the visible things of God. I fully that God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen in the things which He created. I am fully in awe with God’s creative powers in this earth and the entire universe.
Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him frecognizerom the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
My point was only to conclude that the visible things are not religious building made by men’s hands in order for us to adore or be inspired. Christ expects me to be inspired by His Words without seeing anything. The natural creation which Christ created in 6 literal days is awe inspiring. And I recognize that in our physical bodies, we can deem something formulated by man as beautiful, but man’s “creation” pales in comparison to God’s creation. Therefore, the Catholic Church can make a building beautiful, but I’m not interested in buildings, Christ is not interested in buildings, except that building which is the Body of Christ; of which we are fitter together.
Therefore, I simply focus my spiritual efforts on ADORING Christ, not anything that man creates or fashions.
Well, the Lutherans believe in a sort of real presence, the Episcopalians not so much (Although the Anglo-Catholic faction does even though it’s not official Church Doctrine).
Officially, the Church believes in a “Spiritual” not a “Real” Presence.
okay, this one I've never heard. And the way we all use that passage is Tradition.
Good for you. Crazy person that I am, enjoying using my senses in conjunction with my brain, I like the visual aids. And the rich music. And the colors. And the majesty. And the formality of worship. And the bells. Incense - depends on the brand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.