I have no idea what your obsession led you to predict. I don't anticipate converting to Orthodoxy, but that's largely because my family isn't there yet. I can assure you since you seem obsessively concerned with what church I attend, that I won't be chrismated (I may have the wrong term) by October. I've not hidden my growing interest in Eastern Orthodoxy, which was sparked largely by the Orthodox posters here and how they engage, as well as the depth of their knowledge. It's a stark difference from what I have seen throughout my life in Protestantism.Martin Q. Blank said:We have a deaf ministry too.PacifistAg said:
Didn't know you need to see in order to hear.
btw...I'm glad to see your family trying out new churches. I believe I predicted your conversion for this October, no?
Cathedrals and Modern Christianity
5,545 Views |
122 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by FTACo88-FDT24dad
Indeed it is.k2aggie07 said:
I know this is your schtick
Quote:
Hi Diehard. I like talking to you, because you don't troll and youre thoughtful.
I think framing it as utility vs aesthetics isn't a good way to look at it. For one, they're not naturally opposed. I mean, even outside of my faith this is an important philosophical truth for me. One thing I strongly believe is that things should be both functional and beautiful. I reject an art-craft distinction, so I think anything a human creates is a unique expression of that human... whether its a church or a sandwich. And that anyone who interacts with that thing has a measure of a kind of communion with the person who made it, which is a personal, intimate interaction. It is unavoidable.
I think a lot of people don't like this, and sometimes I think that's because it comes with a whole heap of responsibility for what we make.
It's difficult for me, then, to accept a dichotomy between utility and aesthetics. I might even go so far as to say that something that is ugly has lost a kind of utility.
As another odd thought, I think my church is extremely utilitarian. It has really only one purpose, and that is to serve as a liturgical space for my parish. It's a highly specialized tool for that end.
Thank you for the kind words. I, too, have enjoyed our conversations.
I think it's just a semantics issue with this and we are talking about different things. I mean utility in the non-worship/adoration sense - feeding the poor, etc. With your usage, I think we are in agreement - I don't see a separation between the aesthetic and the utility...and that a bad aesthetic takes away from the utility.
To circle back to the OP, I don't have a problem persay with large churches...it just personal preference of mine that they aren't just spaces to bring out worship but that they have a larger serving component to them.
Disclaimer: Yes, I understand and acknowledge that these cathedrals have other buildings and methods to serve this function...so I am not criticizing.
'WHY GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IS IMPORTANT'
https://dwightlongenecker.com/why-gothic-architecture-is-important/?fbclid=IwAR1-ad8rzrM-GfNaffbT613l3bRPhBHsPw6wEA8HpH1YcwXAHKkLZKYhBE0
https://dwightlongenecker.com/why-gothic-architecture-is-important/?fbclid=IwAR1-ad8rzrM-GfNaffbT613l3bRPhBHsPw6wEA8HpH1YcwXAHKkLZKYhBE0
Should It Matter to Christians When Churches Burn?
Excellent piece from Ancient Faith. I hadn't ever heard this perspective before.
Excellent piece from Ancient Faith. I hadn't ever heard this perspective before.
I love this:
Also, it connects to my point on page 2 - "this is because modernism has a problem with the glorification or sanctification of material things, because of a recession into neopagan ideas of dualism" - and expands from a confessional point why this is wrong. Because of the Incarnation.
This is precisely the theology that informs my personal philosophy on rejecting the art-craft distinction that I wrote about above. Only he said it a lot better.Quote:
God became man. And when God became man, because He became fully man, He took on a human body. He did not merely wear it as a kind of clothing but actually took it as his own. It became His own flesh and His own blood. God Himself became material for our sake, even while remaining fully God.
This means that the presence of holiness of divinity, even! is possible in materiality.
The denial of the importance of materiality in Christian spirituality betrays a kind of gnostic dualism, suggesting that man's real identity is merely "spiritual," by which is meant non-material. But man is himself both body and soul, and because Jesus Christ is both God and man, that means that He also, while remaining God, is body and soul. A genuine Christian spirituality envelops and transforms the material. It does not ignore or discard it.
And further, because mankind is created in the image of his Creator, man is also himself a sub-creator, called to engage the creation with his own creativity, in imitation of the creative Creator.
Also, it connects to my point on page 2 - "this is because modernism has a problem with the glorification or sanctification of material things, because of a recession into neopagan ideas of dualism" - and expands from a confessional point why this is wrong. Because of the Incarnation.
length of construction is also a reason. The National Cathedral took 83 years to complete, Notre Dame took 200 years, the Cathederal of the Sacred Heart in downtown Houston only took three years, but while inspired by Italian Romanticism its modern and not ornate, which shortened the construction.
What do you boys want for breakfast BBQ ?.....OK Chili.
Cost.
txaggie79 said:
Cost.
Was it cheap to build originally?
Yes, proportionally it was. The skilled labor required was still less than 20% of the total cost. Today it would probably be 80% of the cost. Not saying cost is the ONLY factor, but it is probably the single biggest factor.
txaggie79 said:
Yes, proportionally it was. The skilled labor required was still less than 20% of the total cost. Today it would probably be 80% of the cost. Not saying cost is the ONLY factor, but it is probably the single biggest factor.
Interesting if true.
The european french who built Notre Dame did it as a show of glory to God.
I kinda made that up. :-)
txaggie79 said:
I kinda made that up. :-)
Nicely done
txaggie79 said:
I kinda made that up. :-)
Awesome
" I estimate that over this 150-year period, on average, 21.5 percent of the regional economy was devoted to the construction of these Gothic churches, 1.5 percent of which is directly related to the implicit cost of labor."
https://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A1433/datastream/OBJ/view/How_much_did_Gothic_churches_cost_.pdf
https://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A1433/datastream/OBJ/view/How_much_did_Gothic_churches_cost_.pdf
But seriously if I remember correctly the materials and time were donated for Notre Dame.
This thread reminds me about churches that split over the color of the carpet.
Frok said:
This thread reminds me about churches that split over the color of the carpet.
And that's what's wrong with modern churches. They shouldn't have carpet. They should have stone floors like cathedrals in the olden days.
Beauty is truth by another name.
But $$$ is the reason modern churches don't look like they should.
But $$$ is the reason modern churches don't look like they should.
rca21978
ATM Softball - the lady dancing in the stands and the backstory
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4