I have little sympathy for weckivations of perfectly good traditionally built churches but this wasn't a Catholic Church in it's inception now was it?
It's a former Reformed Church made entirely out of glass. Putting in a few icons, some statues and an Altar that contains the Divine Life Giving Blessed Sacrament is an order of magnitude improvement.
That's a bit like trying to dress up and baptize a temple of narcissist self-worship and call it an order of magnitude improvement.
A point that Protestants and protestantized Catholics often forget is that our Catholic religion isn't merely a collection of propositions. It's a tradition. And it's a tradition that incarnates itself in culture, the arts, and architecture.
The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC, has inscribed upon it a self-description as a "hymn in stone." That could be a motto for Catholic church architecture. Just as liturgy communicates theology, so hymns communicate theology, so architecture communicates theology, etc.
What was formerly Robert Schuller's "Chrystal Cathedral" is a magnificent piece of architecture, no question. There's nothing about it that is remotely Catholic, anymore than Cardinal Mahoney's Our Lady of Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles.
These are cases where wreckovations might well be justified, for once.
It was a delightful video explanation. Deadpan humor should always be delivered with such a straight face. Reminds me a bit of A Modest Proposal: those who recognize it as satire get to enjoy themselves, and those who don't have to live with the results
What makes it Catholic is the presence of the Sacrament celebrated by a Priest in the Apostolic Succession in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
The Sacrament is by definition an order of magnitude above mere bread and grape juice that was present when the so called Reformed ran that church.
Why is this concept hard?
>A point that Protestants and protestantized Catholics often forget is that our Catholic religion isn't merely a collection of propositions. It's a tradition. And it's a tradition that incarnates itself in culture, the arts, and architecture.
High Church Anglicans have all that without any divine power in their sacraments.
Thus even this Church with it's "non-traditional" architecture is infinity more then them.
I didn't take the time to read your remarks above, which appear to be a response to A.B., but since this is a topic dear to my heart, permit me a word.
I have been privileged to serve as sponsor to twenty-some converts to the Catholic Faith. Of these, a couple of the best have reverted, and I've often wondered why.
In one case, I think it's because the individual formally converted, was a Catholic in good standing, received the sacraments, but never really became substantially Catholic in his habits, but remained materially Protestant while formally Catholic. He had (formally) the fullness of the Faith at his disposal, but (materially) languished in the shallow puddle of etiolated contemporary Catholic "spirituality."
If I could take A.B.'s argument here and make it my own, I would say two things: (1) There's nothing at all "hard" about grasping the concept that having the Real Presence in the Sacrament and a priest in true Apostolic Succession sets apart even the sanctuary of the crappiest-looking church. (2) Just as those who inhabit wreckovated suburban AmChurch parishes today may be often described as "sacramentalized pagans," so the theology proclaimed by the architecture of such "churches" can often "speak" completely contrary to the message of the true Faith, even demeaning the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament by drawing the focus of the parishioner elsewhere. Just a thought.
Unconscious self-parody, as seen in this clip, is truly an art form.
I suppose it's possible to take the video as a serious attempt to expound on the Catholic faith in the diocese of Orange, but I don't like nightmares. Sleepless nights strike me as a bad idea. Imagining the Church as merely a place of welcome(like, say, a bar in the French Quarter of New Orleans) seems to avoid the sacramental economy, or the seriousness of the Catholic intellectual life.
Those are interesting points & I don't doubt they are valid.
Still chicken and the Egg. Do they acquire a love for the smells and bells of traditional architecture because they have faith or do they acquire faith assisted by the smells and bells of Traditional architecture?
Divine Providence can work either way.
I've been to Charismatic Catholic Churches with modern architecture that are going strong in the teaching of the Faith and doctrines of the Faith.
OTOH I've been to a few classic built Churches with a shrinking population of elderly parishioners.
It depends on wither or not the people are being taught the fundamentals of the Faith.
In my experience I was taught doctrine by the Catholic Apologists. Merely going to Mass really taught me little since my religious education stopped at 13 and I didn't know really what was going on other then a notion at the end of the ceremony I received Jesus in the bread( of course looking back I realized I had a Lutheran view of the Eucharist and didn't know it. Time and reading Karl Keating cured me of that).
Cheers.
PS I would like to ask for prayers for my upstairs tenant. He got really sick and is in pain.
>I've been to Charismatic Catholic Churches with modern architecture that are going strong in the teaching of the Faith and doctrines of the Faith.
Charismatics may mean well, and they can be "on fire" etc, but there's nothing "Catholic" about being "Charismatic." There's no precedent for it in church history outside Prot Pentecostalism. And a lot of them end up veering off into their own weird interpretations of the Bible at odds with church tradition.
>Charismatics may mean well, and they can be "on fire" etc, but there's nothing "Catholic" about being "Charismatic."
Some trads it seems see Catholic Charismatics as rivals instead of brothers.
Typical of them they war against everyone who is not a Trad. Then they look surprised and act all hurt that nobody likes or trusts them.
>There's no precedent for it in church history outside Prot Pentecostalism. And a lot of them end up veering off into their own weird interpretations of the Bible at odds with church tradition.
Yet the term "traditionalist" originally in the 19th century once referred to heretics who held to the Fideist heresy condemned by Vatican One. What is the ancient precedence for redefining it to mean a certain species of Catholic who prefer an earlier version of the Latin Rite Mass?
I mean even Charismatic Catholics don't call themselves Protestant Catholics.
Of course Trads never veer off into their own weird interpretations.
They never develop sedeprivationism, Feeneyism, weird anti-Francis theories & novelties that say Benedict is still the Pope or half infallible.
Please don't think I'm ignoring your comments in the combox if I don't comment on them. Perhaps I'm just getting old, but I'm having a difficult time following you. I'm not sure if it's insufficient context, or what, but your remarks seem like a series of unconnected lines that are intended as "zingers" even when it isn't clear what they're "zinging" at. Be patient with me. Maybe I'll catch on in time.
13 comments:
What are you people complaining about?
I have little sympathy for weckivations of perfectly good traditionally built churches but this wasn't a Catholic Church in it's inception now was it?
It's a former Reformed Church made entirely out of glass. Putting in a few icons, some statues and an Altar that contains the Divine Life Giving Blessed Sacrament is an order of magnitude improvement.
That's a bit like trying to dress up and baptize a temple of narcissist self-worship and call it an order of magnitude improvement.
A point that Protestants and protestantized Catholics often forget is that our Catholic religion isn't merely a collection of propositions. It's a tradition. And it's a tradition that incarnates itself in culture, the arts, and architecture.
The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC, has inscribed upon it a self-description as a "hymn in stone." That could be a motto for Catholic church architecture. Just as liturgy communicates theology, so hymns communicate theology, so architecture communicates theology, etc.
What was formerly Robert Schuller's "Chrystal Cathedral" is a magnificent piece of architecture, no question. There's nothing about it that is remotely Catholic, anymore than Cardinal Mahoney's Our Lady of Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles.
These are cases where wreckovations might well be justified, for once.
It was a delightful video explanation. Deadpan humor should always be delivered with such a straight face. Reminds me a bit of A Modest Proposal: those who recognize it as satire get to enjoy themselves, and those who don't have to live with the results
What makes it Catholic is the presence of the Sacrament celebrated by a Priest in the Apostolic Succession in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
The Sacrament is by definition an order of magnitude above mere bread and grape juice that was present when the so called Reformed ran that church.
Why is this concept hard?
>A point that Protestants and protestantized Catholics often forget is that our Catholic religion isn't merely a collection of propositions. It's a tradition. And it's a tradition that incarnates itself in culture, the arts, and architecture.
High Church Anglicans have all that without any divine power in their sacraments.
Thus even this Church with it's "non-traditional" architecture is infinity more then them.
Chris,
Thanks so much for your comment. If anyone could discern the humor, it would be you!
Ben,
I didn't take the time to read your remarks above, which appear to be a response to A.B., but since this is a topic dear to my heart, permit me a word.
I have been privileged to serve as sponsor to twenty-some converts to the Catholic Faith. Of these, a couple of the best have reverted, and I've often wondered why.
In one case, I think it's because the individual formally converted, was a Catholic in good standing, received the sacraments, but never really became substantially Catholic in his habits, but remained materially Protestant while formally Catholic. He had (formally) the fullness of the Faith at his disposal, but (materially) languished in the shallow puddle of etiolated contemporary Catholic "spirituality."
If I could take A.B.'s argument here and make it my own, I would say two things: (1) There's nothing at all "hard" about grasping the concept that having the Real Presence in the Sacrament and a priest in true Apostolic Succession sets apart even the sanctuary of the crappiest-looking church. (2) Just as those who inhabit wreckovated suburban AmChurch parishes today may be often described as "sacramentalized pagans," so the theology proclaimed by the architecture of such "churches" can often "speak" completely contrary to the message of the true Faith, even demeaning the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament by drawing the focus of the parishioner elsewhere. Just a thought.
Best wishes, +PP
Philip,
Unconscious self-parody, as seen in this clip, is truly an art form.
I suppose it's possible to take the video as a serious attempt to expound on the Catholic faith in the diocese of Orange, but I don't like nightmares. Sleepless nights strike me as a bad idea. Imagining the Church as merely a place of welcome(like, say, a bar in the French Quarter of New Orleans) seems to avoid the sacramental economy, or the seriousness of the Catholic intellectual life.
Dr. B,
Those are interesting points & I don't doubt they are valid.
Still chicken and the Egg. Do they acquire a love for the smells and bells of traditional architecture because they have faith or do they acquire faith assisted by the smells and bells of Traditional architecture?
Divine Providence can work either way.
I've been to Charismatic Catholic Churches with modern architecture that are going strong in the teaching of the Faith and doctrines of the Faith.
OTOH I've been to a few classic built Churches with a shrinking population of elderly parishioners.
It depends on wither or not the people are being taught the fundamentals of the Faith.
In my experience I was taught doctrine by the Catholic Apologists. Merely going to Mass really taught me little since my religious education stopped at 13 and I didn't know really what was going on other then a notion at the end of the ceremony I received Jesus in the bread( of course looking back I realized I had a Lutheran view of the Eucharist and didn't know it. Time and reading Karl Keating cured me of that).
Cheers.
PS I would like to ask for prayers for my upstairs tenant. He got really sick and is in pain.
His name is Tony.
Cheers again.
>I've been to Charismatic Catholic Churches with modern architecture that are going strong in the teaching of the Faith and doctrines of the Faith.
Charismatics may mean well, and they can be "on fire" etc, but there's nothing "Catholic" about being "Charismatic." There's no precedent for it in church history outside Prot Pentecostalism. And a lot of them end up veering off into their own weird interpretations of the Bible at odds with church tradition.
>Charismatics may mean well, and they can be "on fire" etc, but there's nothing "Catholic" about being "Charismatic."
Some trads it seems see Catholic Charismatics as rivals instead of brothers.
Typical of them they war against everyone who is not a Trad. Then they look surprised and act all hurt that nobody likes or trusts them.
>There's no precedent for it in church history outside Prot Pentecostalism. And a lot of them end up veering off into their own weird interpretations of the Bible at odds with church tradition.
Yet the term "traditionalist" originally in the 19th century once referred to heretics who held to the Fideist heresy condemned by Vatican One.
What is the ancient precedence for redefining it to mean a certain species of Catholic who prefer an earlier version of the Latin Rite Mass?
I mean even Charismatic Catholics don't call themselves Protestant Catholics.
Of course Trads never veer off into their own weird interpretations.
They never develop sedeprivationism, Feeneyism, weird anti-Francis theories & novelties that say Benedict is still the Pope or half infallible.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/774-in-a-papal-diarchy-which-half-is-infallible
But I guess some "novelty" is Ok as long as a "Neo-Cath" doesn't do it eh?;-)
Ben,
Please don't think I'm ignoring your comments in the combox if I don't comment on them. Perhaps I'm just getting old, but I'm having a difficult time following you. I'm not sure if it's insufficient context, or what, but your remarks seem like a series of unconnected lines that are intended as "zingers" even when it isn't clear what they're "zinging" at. Be patient with me. Maybe I'll catch on in time.
@Dr B
You are getting old(but so am I). I was obviously zinging Charles' smack against Charismatics and not you with my last post.
In fact I recall reading on your blog a Charismatic sponsored you for conversion to the church?
Also why would you assume you have to talk to me all the time? Do your other commenters have the same expectation?
Cheers.
Oh are you talking about post "1:31 AM"?
Yeh those are a bit "unconnected" (it was late & I was preoccupied) but I didn't put in any "Zings".
Post a Comment