Simplicity and a degree of austerity can be conducive to prayer, and a help in focussing on the liturgy. For some of us, a load of gaudy Tat has the opposite effect.
Musicians in the US tend to dislike carpeting churches because the carpet dampens sound, the singing of the congregation in particular. GIA Music, a Catholic publisher of liturgical music in the US, used to offer items that said “Carpet Bedrooms, Not Churches.”
Bear in mind that many if not most churches in the US tend to be newer constructions that lack the acoustic liveliness of many older churches in the UK.
Bear in mind that many if not most churches in the US tend to be newer constructions that lack the acoustic liveliness of many older churches in the UK.
A seven second reverberation time creates its own problems.
Bear in mind that many if not most churches in the US tend to be newer constructions that lack the acoustic liveliness of many older churches in the UK.
A seven second reverberation time creates its own problems.
There is, however, a place for beauty - unless the beautiful objects become themselves the objects of veneration and lead us away, rather than to, God.
There is, however, a place for beauty - unless the beautiful objects become themselves the objects of veneration and lead us away, rather than to, God.
Yes. I wouldn’t say churches should be “austere,” which Merriam-Webster defines as “stern and cold in appearance or manner; somber; grave.” That doesn’t sound consistent with what the church gathers to celebrate in the church building.
Rather than “austere,” I think what might be commended is “simplicity.” Simplicity can be quite warm and beautiful.
So does my wife. Loose rugs (over brasses etc) can also be trip hazards.
Nonconformist churches tend to be "functional" rather than beautiful, although some of the older ones (with carved woodwork, decorative plastered ceilings, ornate columns under the gallery and jolly paintwork) can be rather lovely. The oldest are austere and homespun: https://walpoleoldchapel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/architecture1-1.jpg
I like a multiplicity of styles, beauty of all kinds--though not in a single building, to be sure! That way everyone can find what helps them best. If my co-worshippers had their way, culturally, we'd be blinded by gold and every color in the rainbow. That's just how they roll--they think God deserves that much bling.
The common though not universal not practice in Episcopal churches, at least in my part of the US, is two candles on or next to the altar, and six, or possibly 14, candles on the retable/behind the altar. The six might be individual candles or two candelabras, while 14 will definitely be two candelabras. The two on/beside the altar are larger and are only lit when the Eucharist is celebrated. The others are “office candles” and are lit for all offices and for the Eucharist on Sunday or feast days.
We've got the Big Six on successively higher levels behind/above the altar mensa. Two smaller candles on either side of the centered tabernacle. Someone started calling the six candles "office lights" and lighting them for Evening Prayer; I didn't do that when I officiated, as I contended (in my own mind; I didn't raise a fuss about it) that the altar candles were all for Mass and the Office isn't Mass.
Somewhat related: When we found ourselves priestless for a daily Mass (due to a misunderstanding of the rota of celebrants) after Evening Prayer, I led a praying of the Liturgy of the Word per the rubrics but felt strongly that as it wasn't a Mass and I'm not a priest, I needed to officiate from the same place as for Evening Prayer, light no candles, and not use the sanctuary at all. I even surprised myself for how strongly I felt about that. (Didn't want to be "playing priest" in any way.)
At one time, we had daily Morning Prayer (Franciscan) in the Lady Chapel at Our Place.
The officiant - whether priest, or sometimes a lay person - simply sat in the front row of seats (the chapel holds about 14 IIRC), but the two candles on the altar were always lit. The lections were read from their seat by whoever it was who was volunteered for the duty!
There was no need for the candles, but for some odd reason, it would have felt wrong if they were left unlit. IYSWIM.
Comments
Cistercians. Quakers. Respected RC liturgists like the late Aidan Kavanagh. And me! But I am happy for others to disagree.
Bear in mind that many if not most churches in the US tend to be newer constructions that lack the acoustic liveliness of many older churches in the UK.
Austere is fine, but astringent suggests off-putting to me. Im not so happy with that.
And there no excuse for tat ever.
Rather than “austere,” I think what might be commended is “simplicity.” Simplicity can be quite warm and beautiful.
Nonconformist churches tend to be "functional" rather than beautiful, although some of the older ones (with carved woodwork, decorative plastered ceilings, ornate columns under the gallery and jolly paintwork) can be rather lovely. The oldest are austere and homespun: https://walpoleoldchapel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/architecture1-1.jpg
The officiant - whether priest, or sometimes a lay person - simply sat in the front row of seats (the chapel holds about 14 IIRC), but the two candles on the altar were always lit. The lections were read from their seat by whoever it was who was volunteered for the duty!
There was no need for the candles, but for some odd reason, it would have felt wrong if they were left unlit. IYSWIM.