The Old Library, Nashua, New Hampshire and the Richmond Court Apartments, Brookline, Massachusetts

Here are two building designed by the same American architect, Ralph Adams Cram. Nashua, New Hampshire is the town I live in. Most days I drive past the old library - the Hunt Memorial Library -  and always notice the proportions of its design. I am teaching a class at Thomas More College (which is in nearby Merrimack, NH) at the moment on traditional ideas of harmonious proportion and how they have been used (or ignored) in architecture over the centuries from ancient Greece up to the present day. We are studying original architectural sources such as the Roman architect, Vitruvius; and Alberti from the High Renaissance; and writings on proportion and harmony that influenced architecture such as De Musica and De Arithmetica by Boethius. As an exercise, we will take a walk down the main street of Nashua and consider how these shops, banks and offices incorporate proportion, or not. the main street is a mixture of late 19th century and early 20th century, where architects use traditional proportion in some way; and more recent where it is ignored. I am trying to train the students to be able to recognise and will challenge them to consider how those modern buildings might be improved by the addition of proportion.

As part of my research for this, I recently discovered that the old library is listed on the national register of buildings in the US and was designed by architect Ralph Adams Cram. The building was completed in 1903 and this style is neo-gothic described as 'Elizabethan Gothic'. Notice how Cram has used white stone, inlaid into the brickwork, to break up the verticals into different sized portions. This is most obvious in the corner tower in which there is a clear rhythmical progression as each successive layer gets smaller.

Cram was a very well known architect who designed much of the Princeton University campus, Rice Univerisity campus in Texas and the cathedral of St John the Divine in New York City. Here however I feature far less grand buildings - this town library and an apartment block in Brookline, a suburb of Boston. These demonstrate, I feel, that is possible to bring the same grace and beauty into the ordinary buildings of everyday living as it is the great showcase buildings of our cities and universities.

and now Richmond Court. This is earlier, dating from about 1890

The old library building ceased to be used as a library in 1971. Without further comment except to say that I include the following by way of contrast, here is the current Nashua library....

How the Domestic Church Preserved the Faith in Soviet Russia

And how it can do the same here...and be the foundation for evanglesation This is an interview with His Excellency Athanasius Schneider ORC, auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan and titular of Celerina. Bishop Schneider is a noted author and speaker. His best known work is Dominus Est – It is the Lord! – a defense of the traditional discipline of receiving communion.

This is a translation of an interview, first published in Polish after his recent visit to Poznan, Poland, and it first appeared in Polonia Christiana magazine. The interview was by Izabella Parowicz, whom I met at the Sacra Liturgia conference on the sacred liturgy in Rome last summer .

What I find particularly interesting is his description of growing up in the former Soviet Union when, at some periods, there was no possibility of attending Mass at all. He describes how the profound reverence for Our Lord he saw in his family members and for the Blessed Sacrament during adoration was transmitted to him and others around him. Ironically, irreverence in the Mass came to the former Soviet Union from missionary priests from the West once there was relaxation of political control. He talks, for example, of how even when the Novus Ordo was introduced in Kazakhstan, it was celebrated as a matter of course in Latin and ad orientem and with such reverence that it was not noticeably different to the celebration of the Extraordinary Form (as it is referred to now).

This highlights the power of the home, of the Domestic Church, in preserving and nurturing the Faith in a powerful way; and in inculturation. This story tells of how even the sense of the liturgy was preserved through right prayer at home. We could learn from this today and see it as part of our mission of evangelisation. If we focus on ourselves first and get that right, then the light will shine and draw people towards it despite ourselves!

I should mention that Izabella did the translation and asked me to correct any grammatical errors (Polish is her first language). I was reluctant to make too many changes for fear of inadvertently changing precise meanings, but did do so on some occasions nevertheless. So please be aware, that if there appears to be any confusing terminology or error, it is almost certainly due to my misunderstanding and ignorance!

Here is the interview (the photographs were taken at a Pontifical Mass celebrated by Bishop Schneider in Poznan):

Izabella Parowicz: Your Excellency is ethnically German but you were born and raised in the then Soviet Union. How has this come about? Bishop Athanasius Schneider: In the beginning of the 19th century (1809-1810) there was a great emigration of farmers from southwest Germany to the Black Sea region in the former Russian Empire. They emigrated from the regions such as Baden, Elsass, Lothringen, Pfalz. The Tsar granted to them gratis plots of very fertile land (“chernozem”, black earth). They were permitted to establish exclusively German speaking villages, and were separated also by their religious confession (pure Catholic and Lutheran villages) with German names, such as Strassburg, Elsass, Karlsruhe, Baden, Mannheim, Speyer etc. My ancestors emigrated from Alsace, near the town Seltz and Hagenau. They lived there until the Second World War. After the war the Stalinist regime deported them to several places in the Soviet Union for internment under hard labour. So my parents were deported to the Ural Mountains. After they were freed, they moved to central Asia, Kirghizstan, where I was born.

Your Excellency’s childhood must have been affected by the omnipresent persecutions of the Faith imposed by the Soviet regime. Under what conditions was it possible for Your Excellency and His family to practice their Faith? How did Your Excellency’s religious life develop and who played the most important role in it? The communist regime had the aim to establish a society without God. So every public religious sign of worship was forbidden. The faith was lived and handed on in the families, thanks to the Catholic family as domestic church. I had the great privilege and happiness to be born in a very Catholic family, and I received the Catholic faith, so to speak, with my mother’s milk. During the persecution and in the absence of a priest (which sometimes took some years), my parents celebrated and sanctified each Sunday with the children by common prayers in the morning. Later we moved to Estonia, where we had a church and a priest some 100 km away. So we traveled the 100 km to participate in the Holy Mass each Sunday. We liked these Sunday journeys to the Church, even though this demanded some sacrifice. Our family had the privilege of knowing personally two saintly priests: Blessed Father Alexij Zaritzki, a Ukrainian priest from Lviv, who died as a martyr in the Gulag in Karaganda in 1963 and who was beatified in 2001; and Father Janis Andreas Pavlovsky, a Latvian Capuchin, who suffered as confessor of the faith in the Gulag in Karaganda. He was my parish priest in Estonia and died in Riga in 2000.

As a teenager, in the 1970s, Your Excellency was allowed to return to Germany together with your family. Finally it became possible to practice the Faith freely. What were Your Excellency’s first experiences in this regard?

We are talking about the times in which many of the unfortunate, post- conciliar liturgical reforms had already been implemented. We, who lived the Catholic faith during the persecution, were thinking about Germany and the Western world like a “paradise”. In the persecuted church we lived a profound faith with a great reverence towards all sacred realities, the priest, the liturgy and especially Holy Communion. What shocked us so deeply now was the lack of reverence and sacredness in the liturgy of the Holy Mass. We observed for the first time in our life the unbelievable scene of the distribution of the Holy Communion on hand. It seemed to us so banal and so common - like the distribution of cakes. As we returned at home, we felt a silent pain in our souls. When my mother found that this was the situation in almost all other churches we visited, she suffered so deeply that she cried.

Your Excellency frequently emphasises that Holy Communion should be received in the mouth and in the kneeling position. What are the gravest risks and consequences of the widespread practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand (both in objective terms as well as for the faith of an individual)? The gravest risk and consequence of the practice of Communion on hand is the enormous loss of the Eucharistic fragments and the consequently the fact that these fragments are trampled under the feet of the people in our churches. The next serious risk is the great risk it creates for the stealing the sacred host. Clearly also this practice weakens the Faith because when the Holiest of Holies is treated like common food and without appropriate gestures of adoration, it undermines the conviction of the truth of the Real Presence and in the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Some Catholics who support (or simply are used to) receiving Holy Communion in the hand make the following arguments: they argue that a person’s hand tends to sin less than his mouth; they say that holding Our Lord in their hands gives them a beautiful opportunity to adore Him for a while; they also argue that kneeling would be against their human dignity and that the standing position is more appropriate and equally respectful. How would Your Excellency respond to these arguments? The organs of our body (hand, tongue etc.) are not guilty of the sin. The guilt is imputed to the human person. The organs used by the human person to commit a sin, remain always innocent. That lay people may hold the sacred Host in one’s hand in order to adore the Lord contradicts the entire tradition of the universal Church. This practice is a subjectivist, though pious, exaggeration. The right to touch the sacramental Body of Christ the Church was always reserved to the ordained ministers. Exceptions were made during the time of persecution or in the case of a very grave necessity for objective reasons, but not in order to satisfy individual piety. Even during the first centuries, the Blessed Sacrament was not touched by the lay people with their fingers, but they took the sacred host directly with their mouth from the palm of their hand, and the women would cover their hands with a white cloth. The standing position does have value at certain times. It is a typical Christian position, because the Christian is a person who is redeemed and lives a new life and believes in the resurrection of the body. But the kneeling position is a typical Christian position as well, and is used in the moments and acts of adoration of God, of Christ, the Incarnate God. It is used also to express the prayers of petition, penance and contrition. Our Lord Himself prayed kneeling, so also the Apostles, the women in the Easter morning of the Resurrection. The kneeling gesture is shown in the Heavenly Jerusalem, where the Angels and the redeemed mankind prostrate themselves on their knees and even on their face to adore Christ, the Lamb of God. Therefore the most biblical, the most appropriate and logical gesture is the kneeling position in the moment when the faithful greets and receives the Lamb of God under the veil of bread.

We say we believe in God yet we do not know how to revere Him appropriately; we do it in our own, frequently lamentable ways. What may be the reasons for the diminishing of reverence shown to Jesus Christ Our Lord? What pastoral and catechetical solutions would Your Excellency recommend to restore this reverence?

The nature of human being consists of an invisible and of a visible part, that is of the union of the spiritual soul and the material body. Consequently, man has to act according to his nature, and that means in our case: he has to adore God simultaneously with an interior and with an exterior act. The interior act is the most important and animates the exterior act, but the exterior act must not to be neglected. To stress only the interior and neglect the exterior act, brings us to the inhuman attitudes of Platonism and Gnosticism. To stress only the exterior act, forgetting and neglecting the interior act, brings us to hypocrisy and lifeless formalism. Our Lord said: “These ought you to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Mt 23:23). In view of restoring the reverence it is indispensable to teach and preach faithfully and completely the truth of the Eucharistic Sacrament, especially the Real Presence and Transubstantiation; this has to be accompanied with the introduction of exterior reverent gestures.

Although the possibility of receiving Holy Communion in the hand was introduced in Poland in 2005, it is still, thanks be to God, not really widespread. There are, however, other sad novelties being introduced: the seat of the celebrant is being placed centrally between the altar and the Tabernacle (so that, while seated, he is showing his back to Our Lord), altar boys, when passing from one side of the presbytery to the other, bow reverently (but rather unreflectively) towards the empty altar table while having the Sanctissimum, the King of Kings, right behind them. We also observe a phenomenon of a “fraternization” of the faithful, especially youth, with Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ. This “fraternization” is accompanied by a trivialisation and infantilization of the way we worship God and it is often approved, if not promoted, by priests. When approached on these matters, parish priests usually plead newest liturgical or pastoral instructions as an excuse and generally, they do not wish to discuss such issues with the “troublesome” faithful. What arguments should we use to convince our shepherds that lex orandi does affect our lex credendi? Are we as laypeople at all entitled to admonish our priests (in the way that Our Lord Jesus commanded in the Gospel) whenever reverence towards Our Lord is at stake? The supernatural knowledge of the truth of the faith about the greatness of the Eucharistic mystery has to grow firstly in the clergy. Also the laws of the authentic Christian and Catholic worship have to be better known according to the immutable Tradition and the perennial teaching of the Magisterium (“perennis sensus ecclesiae”). The fundamental law of the Divine worship is this: God, Christ, the eternity is the center and all aspects and details of the worship have continuously be subordinated and be directed to Him (so spoke the II Vatican Council in “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 2). When the celebrating priest puts his chair in the center, he visibly stresses that in the liturgy man is in the center. This contradicts the teaching of the Church, especially the teaching of Vatican II already referred to. When instead the tabernacle and the Cross with the image of Christ remains in the center, with the chair of the priest on the side, this expresses the truth the Christ is the president, the leader and the head of each Eucharistic liturgy. Christ is the Head of His Mystical Body, and therefore Christ is also the Head of His “liturgical body”. Since Christ is incarnated and liturgy is sacramental, the truth that Christ is the center and the Head has to be also visible, that is: His Real Presence in the Tabernacle and His visible image on the Cross have to be in the center of the church and of the Eucharistic liturgy. The Second Vatican Council and Canon Law encourages the lay people to express to the clergy their concerns about the spiritual good of the church (cf. II Vatican Council “Lumen gentium”, 37; can. 212 and can. 213 CIC). Therefore each lay person has the right to ask the clergy to correct scandals and abuses which contradict the spiritual good of the souls and the rights of God Himself. The Church gives to the faithful such a right: “Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff” (“Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 184”).

Blessed John Paul II said in the year 1980 that “to touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hand is a privilege of the ordained”. What is Your Excellency’s opinion of the lay ministers distributing Holy Communion?

Although (at least in Poland) they are usually carefully selected, respected men, husbands and fathers, their ambiguous, growing role is somewhat disturbing. The fact that lay people distribute the Holy Communion during the Eucharistic Sacrifice contradicts the entire tradition of the universal Church (East and West) and was never practiced. It is an absolute “novum” and a real rupture with the Tradition. Holy Communion could be distributed to the faithful, in times of persecution and by the eremites in the desert, but always outside the Holy Mass. The introduction of lay ministers is justified by the argument that it saves time and lightens the burden of the priests in distributing Holy Communion to a very big crowd. When one considers and accepts the incomparable greatness and sacredness of the Holy Communion and that this moment of receiving the Eucharistic Lord is really the summit in the life of a Catholic, nobody - neither priest, nor other faithful - could justifiably look at their watches counting the minutes or lament tiring circumstances. The reality nowadays shows us the following: in churches where lay ministers are engaged in distributing Holy Communion, the priest after Holy Mass wastes time in chatting with people or engaged with internet and television. So in these cases the priest often wastes more time after Holy Mass than he would use when distributing Holy Communion alone and without lay ministers. The other justification in engaging lay ministers is this: to express the active participation of the lay people in the liturgy. This is a wrong understanding of active participation and contradicts the teaching of the Magisterium and the Tradition of the Church. To distribute Holy Communion is an essential part of the ordained ministry and was never in the Church a means of active participation of the laity. The Second Vatican Council teaches: “In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 28) and “To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence” (ibid., 30). There is no mention for lay ministers of Holy Communion as means of active participation, because such an understanding and such a measure contradict the perennial tradition of the Church and the following principle, taught by Vatican II: “There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (ibid., 23).

In Your beautiful book on Holy Communion entitled “Dominus Est”, Your Excellency described the role of the “Eucharistic women” in the Soviet Underground who, in the absence of priests, managed to preserve the flame of Faith by adoring Our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist so as to be able to receive Him at least spiritually. Your Excellency described a moving story of your mother, Maria Schneider, who was, exceptionally, allowed by a priest in hiding to administer Holy Communion to her sick mother, on condition that she would do it with greatest possible respect. Your Excellency’s mother put on new white gloves and with tweezers gave Holy Communion to her mother. Eventually she burned the envelope in which the consecrated Host had been kept. This is a description of women acting with profound respect and in extraordinary circumstances; in contrast, nowadays there is certain confusion with regard to the increasing involvement of women in all areas of the liturgical service (whether as altar girls, ministers of Holy Communion or even “pastoral assistants”). What should be the limits of such female activity and what arguments should be used to discourage women from getting involved in the altar service?

The role of the woman in the Church is determined by God Himself and corresponds to the laws which God in His wisdom and love has written in regard to the role of women. The order of the creation of the human nature in two sexes reflects beauty and complementarity rather than rivalry. In the supernatural order of the life of the Church the supreme and most beautiful model for a Christian woman is Mary, the Mother of God. The most profound and most beautiful characteristic of a woman is her maternity. Christ, the Incarnate God and Eternal High Priest assumed the human nature in the male sex and in His wisdom He linked irrevocably the ministerial priesthood in all degrees and services with the male sex, for it represents the spiritual paternity of Christ Himself. The degrees of Christ’s priesthood are the episcopacy and the presbyterate and these represent the highest level of the serving on the altar. The diaconate in its services of the altar and of the word represents this episcopal and presbyterial service in a concrete and sacramental form. All the other orders and services beneath the diaconate (sub- deacon, acolyte, lector, altar boy) are exercises of the diaconate in a non-sacramental form like an unfolding of the diaconate and ultimately also of the presbyterate and the episcopacy. Accordingly, the universal and perennial tradition of the Church is never to admit women to the service of the altar or of the word during the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the liturgy of the ministerial priesthood. During the liturgy of the hours, which is not a priestly and sacrificial liturgy in the strict ministerial sense, lay people and women, however, could accomplish the service of lectors. The ultimate model of the sacrificial liturgy in the strict ministerial sense is the liturgy of the Last Supper, where there were only the twelve Apostles and even not Mary, the Mother of God. The Cenacle of the Last Supper corresponds to the altar space or to the “presbyterium” nowadays in our churches. Therefore during the Eucharistic Liturgy women were never acting within the altar space, but within the nave of the church, because the nave symbolizes the common priesthood and together with the altar space, the “presbyterium”, shapes the entire church, or the entire priesthood of Christ, consisting in the ministerial and the common priesthood as one body, but with essential different functions (cf. II Vatican Council, “Lumen gentium, 10”).

I would like to touch upon the hygienic aspect of receiving Holy Communion in the mouth. I find it simply impossible that any disease might be spread through Our Lord Who is substantially present in the consecrated Host and, to my knowledge, the Church has never in history been accused of causing or spreading any epidemics. Nevertheless, there was recently a case that the receiving of Holy Communion in the mouth was temporarily banned and distribution of Holy Communion in the hand was instead introduced by a national Conference of Bishops due to the fear of swine flu. As one could expect, this has resulted in a drastic diminishing of the respect for the Blessed Sacrament and even after the ban was lifted, almost no one in that country has been receiving Holy Communion in the mouth ever since in view of the “hygienic concerns” which sadly seem to outweigh the belief in the Real Presence. I would like to ask Your Excellency if such instances of epidemics should be at all considered valid reasons for introducing distribution of Holy Communion in the hand? Would an episcopal recommendation for making a Spiritual Communion be a viable alternative for such situations of epidemics? Indeed in the two thousand years of Christian liturgy it was not heard, that through the Holy Communion there were transmitted deceases and epidemics. It is demonstrated that the palm of the hand contains more bacteria than the tongue. Everybody uses the saliva to make the first disinfection on a wound, but will never use the fingers of the hand for this purpose. The hand of a person who receives Holy Communion in the hand has usually previously touched many objects which are full of bacteria and dirt: the door-handles in the public places and in the church, but especially coins and paper money. With such unwashed fingers these persons touch the sacred host, leaving upon it the imprints of a huge quantity of bacteria which is then placed in their own mouth. Indeed it is Communion in the hand that is unhygienic. When a diocesan authority has sincerely “hygienic concerns” he has firstly to forbid the Communion on hand. In some rare cases of a dangerous epidemic a recommendation for making spiritual Communion would be a viable alternative. We have indeed to rediscover and esteem the fruitful practice of spiritual Communion.

My next question concerns the possible ways of avoiding the risk of sacrilege during Holy Masses which are celebrated for large crowds and which may be (partly) frequented by people who are not baptised Catholics (or not even Christians), who came for a Holy Mass out of curiosity and who, however, do not refrain from receiving Holy Communion. While the practice of distributing Holy Communion in the mouth as requested by our beloved Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and maintained by our Holy Father Francis seems to be a natural “filter” which can prevent non- Catholics from receiving it, what other means could be implemented by priests in situations in which the risk of committing a sacrilege is too high? The Church from the beginning of her historical journey always protected the Holiest of Holies, the “sanctissimum”, the Body of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrament, according to the admonition of the Lord: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine” (Mt 7:6). In the Eucharistic liturgy during the first centuries after the liturgy of the word all catechumens and all unbaptized were dismissed. The deacon proclaimed: “Catechumen go away. That no catechumen may remain”. These words the Byzantine Liturgy uses still nowadays. The Church had a special liturgical service that of the “porter” (ostiarius), who vigilantly had to watch that no unbaptized would receive Holy Communion and no person with bad intentions would disturb or profane the liturgy and the sacred place. It is a real pastoral demand to restore universally in the Church the order and the service of such a porter. In the Byzantine Liturgy the person who receives Holy Communion has to say his name, has to identify himself to the priest who distributed Holy Communion. This manner makes the rite of Holy Communion more personal, giving an atmosphere of a family and in the same time provides more security against profanations. This could be also adopted by the Church of the Latin Rite.

When going to the church in the Western European countries, Catholics who wish to receive Holy Communion in the kneeling position and in the mouth are sometimes treated by priests with aversion. Once (with the tears in my eyes) I had to beg a priest to give me Holy Communion in the mouth as he kept refusing to do so. Eventually, he gave it to me with an evident disgust. What, according to Your Excellency, is better: to persist and to be ready for a reprimand or even a verbal conflict with the priest in the moment in which one should be solely focusing on reception of Our Blessed Lord? Or should one rather decide to make in such instances the Spiritual Communion so as to avoid any heart- or conscience-breaking situations? Is there perhaps another alternative? The Church law is very clear: no priest or bishop has the right to refuse to the faithful Holy Communion only because the of wish to receive it kneeling and on the tongue. This right of the faithful is laid down in the Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, n. 91. The violation of this norm the Church considers as “grave matter”: see the mentioned Instruction, n. 173. The Church admonishes the sacred ministers with these grave words: “Let each one of the sacred ministers ask himself, even with severity, whether he has respected the rights of the lay members of Christ’s faithful, who confidently entrust themselves and their children to him, relying on him to fulfill for the faithful those sacred functions that the Church intends to carry out in celebrating the sacred Liturgy at Christ’s command. For each one should always remember that he is a servant of the Sacred Liturgy” (“Redemptionis Sacramentum”, n. 186). To refuse a faithful Holy Communion only because of a wish to receive it kneeling or on the tongue, constitutes an unbearable clericalism and clerical despotism.

For about 15 years Your Excellency has been performing His priestly and episcopal ministry in Kazakhstan. For many dozens of years the faithful in the former Soviet Union had not been allowed to hear Holy Mass, they had been deprived of priests and sacraments. The missionary priests who went there in 1990s must have naturally introduced Novus Ordo Missae and a number of new, formerly unknown liturgical or pastoral practices which were as such less reverent towards the Sanctissimum. What was the reception of these novelties by those Catholics who still remembered the old Mass and whose religious formation was much more traditional? The Novus Ordo had already been introduced into the former Soviet Union in the early 1970s. But it was celebrated with the spirit of the Vetus Ordo, with deep faith and reverence. In my own parish, to which I belonged from 1969-1973 in Tartu/Estonia, the Holy Mass was celebrated according to the Novus Ordo, but “versus Deum” at the High Altar, in Latin, Communion on the Communion Rails kneeling and on the tongue. So for my parents and me there was almost no perceptible difference between the two “ordo”. The celebration “versus populum” was introduced in Kazakhstan still in the time of Soviet Union, but the manner of celebration was very reverent. It was introduced out of devout obedience towards the indications of the Holy See. After the downfall and disintegration of Soviet Union there came many missionary priests from different countries. Some of these priests introduced liturgical practices which are not according to the life of devotion of the faithful inherited from the time of persecution. Such practices were for example receiving Holy Communion standing, the use of guitars and clapping hands during Holy Mass, sentimental songs and songs with worldly melodies during the liturgy. But thanks be to God the Conference of the Catholic Bishops of Kazakhstan established the norm, that the only admitted manner to receive Holy Communion is kneeling and on the tongue, except in the case of persons who physically are impeded to kneel.

How would Your Excellency describe the faith of His flock? Are they still more reverent towards the Sanctissimum than the Western Catholics or was their piety too much affected by the state atheism? The Catholics in Kazakhstan conserved the precious heritage from the times of persecution, it means: a deep faith; great reverence towards the liturgy and especially towards the Holy Eucharist; a clear conscience of sin, therefore the faithful receive frequently the sacrament of penance; a great love for prayer and especially for Eucharistic adoration; love and reverence towards the priests and the bishops; a general clear sense and reverence of the sacred.

In the Eastern Churches no drastic liturgical reforms were introduced in the 20th century. Has, according to Your Excellency’s observations, the reverence for the Eucharistic Christ been preserved in these churches or was it rooted out by the influence of the Soviet atheism? The Eastern churches, either Catholic or Orthodox, conserved still a great reverence towards the liturgical tradition. To change the liturgy means for them to change the faith. They are profoundly rooted in the fidelity to the faith and to the liturgical tradition. The liturgy is something that they consider a sacred treasure, which the Church has carefully to conserve and to hand over to the following generations. Such an attitude of the Eastern, and of the Orthodox churches is a value which can and should enrich the Latin Church in these days of a great doctrinal and liturgical crisis. This is my experience from my contacts with the clergy and the faithful of the Orthodox church. To learn and to accept the liturgical spirit and fidelity of the Orthodox churches would be one of the best ecumenical gestures on the part of the Catholics.

We can never show enough reverence for our Blessed Lord. How can we train ourselves in continuously improving it? Could Your Excellency offer us some practical advice in this regard? First we have to know better the fullness of the Catholic faith about the Eucharist, especially the very rich documents of the Magisterium. Then it will be also helpful to read the lives and examples of the Eucharistic Saints and Martyrs. Then we have to express our faith with clear gestures of reverence, adoration and devotion towards the Eucharistic Lord. The practice of Eucharistic adoration is spiritually fruitful. We have to promote the Eucharistic adoration there, where we live and even establish groups or fraternities of Eucharistic adorers. We have also to console Our Lord because of the enormous and numerous acts of sacrilege and irreverence and offer in the spirit of penance through the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Eucharistic Woman, acts of expiation and reparation according to the example of the Angel, who appeared to the children of Fatima.

In conclusion, I would like to ask what is Your Excellency’s definition of a saintly priest? A saintly priest is that priest who is conscience of what he is, objectively and ontologically: “alter Christus”, and who tries with the grace of God to become each day more “alter Christus” also in his mind, his intentions, his words and deeds according to the spirit and the example of Christ, the Eternal High Priest, the good Shepherd, who lays down his life for the eternal salvation of the immortal human souls, who does not seek his own profit, but entirely the glory of God and the spiritual good of the souls. And the greatest help in this process is then, when he every day celebrates with deeper faith and deeper love the sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

+ Athanasius Schneider, Titular Bishop of Celerina and Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan 01.08.2013

Learn Traditional English Style of the 13th Century - Sacred Art Painting Class to Take Place at TMC in March

I will be offering a four-day sacred art class at Thomas More College from Monday to Thursday during the Spring Break, March 10-13. This is offered free to students from Thomas More College and is also open to adults from outside the college. The hope is that the others will help subsidize the places for the students (who nevertheless will have to pay for room and board in the dorms during this week). The cost to those from outside the college is $525 for the four days, and includes all materials (for egg tempera painting), tuition, lunch, and a lecture in the evening. For and additional $15 per day dinner can be included. Because this is during the academic year, we cannot offer those from outside rooms in the dormitaries so they will have to arrange. There is a local hotel that offers favourable rates to those connected to TMC and has a free shuttle to and from the campus. We will be studying the English gothic style that is often described as the school of St Albans. Its leading artist in the 13th century was a monk called Matthew Paris. Typical images would be those that you see in Westminster Psalter (if you google image this you will see some). We see some of his work here, above, /St Christopher, and then students' work below.

Contact me through this site if you are interested.

And below we have a the original Visitation and then my version of it.

At Work in My Parents' Garden in Cheshire, England

As an antidote to the gloom of ever shortening days I am posting some photos taken in England in the summer. I was back there in August and took these photos of my parents' garden. Some will remember that I showed photos of this garden just a year ago, in an article here called A Gardon is a Lovesome Thing, God Wot. when just in its second season. Fifteen months later and it is maturing so that the herbacious borders look packed out! I was immediately put to work doing some dead-heading and weeding. I can't claim much credit for the beauty of it, though. What is remarkable given that my Dad and Mum haven't been able to do much work on it this year, is how beautiful it is when for long periods it has just left to grow on its own. The look of it is down to careful planning in the design and planting. My parents winter in Spain and the Spanish influence is obvious with the removal of the lawn and courtyard type layout with large terracotta plants (also another labour saver as there is no lawn mowing to be done).

Has Pope Francis Saved Western Culture?

One small change to the wording of the mission of the Anglican Ordinariate, instituted by Pope Francis might have a profound effect on how it participates in the Church's mission of evangelisation; and on English speaking culture. When I was at the Sacra Liturgia Conference this past summer, speaker after speaker emphasised the importance of Latin as the norm in the Roman rite. Nevertheless, a warm welcome was given also to several priests from the Anglican Ordinariate, which will rarely offer Mass in Latin, and it was offered the platform when Mgr Keith Newton gave a talk in which he described progress in establishing the precise form of the Ordinariate liturgy. I heard no one say that they saw any contradiction in this. Similarly, the developments in the Ordinariate Use liturgy are, apparently enthusiastically, reported on this site as they occur and have been ever since it was created. The fact that the Ordinariate Use is taken seriously by all these traditionally minded Latin-orientated Catholics seems to me to indicate a recognition of the general point, that the vernacular does have an important place in the liturgy; and more particularly that English has a privileged position amongst vernaculars. Where might this be going in the future, I wondered?

Then shortly after returning from Rome I read in Damian Thompson's blog in the Telegraph an article that was headed Pope Francis Embraces the Ordinariate and Increases Its Power to Evangelise. In it he said: 'Francis has widened the remit of the Ordinariates in Britain, America and Australia. Until now, only ex-Anglicans and their family members could join the new body. But, thanks to a new paragraph inserted into the Ordinariate's constitution by Francis, nominal Catholics who were baptised but not confirmed can join the structure. Indeed, the Holy Father wants the Ordinariates to go out and evangelise such people.'

The paragraph he referred to was Complementary Norms, Article 5 §2: 'A person who has been baptised in the Catholic Church but who has not completed the Sacraments of Initiation, and subsequently returns to the faith and practice of the Church as a result of the evangelising mission of the Ordinariate, may be admitted to membership in the Ordinariate and receive the Sacrament of Confirmation or the Sacrament of the Eucharist or both. This confirms the place of the Personal Ordinariates within the mission of the wider Catholic Church, not simply as a jurisdiction for those from the Anglican tradition, but as a contributor to the urgent work of the New Evangelisation. As noted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, enrolment into a Personal Ordinariate remains linked to an objective criterion of incomplete initiation (i.e. baptism, eucharist, or confirmation are lacking), meaning that Catholics may not become members of a Personal Ordinariate for purely subjective motives or personal preference.’

I have no special inside knowledge on the Ordinariate or the intentions for it. But I am struck by the potential for a profound affect on the wider culture globally for the good of what has happened recently. This is because of the relationship between liturgy and culture. Again, at Sacra Liturgia 2013, many speakers echoing Pope Benedict in the Spirit of the Liturgy, emphasised the connection between liturgy and culture. We were told for example, that an education in art, architecture, music and literature was necessary for the development of one's 'liturgical instincts'. The forms of the culture that we should study, therefore, are those that point us to liturgical forms (Catholic educators take note!); and those liturgical forms ought to be a 'liturgical high culture' - elevated cultural forms that draw us upwards but are nevertheless accessible and easily grasped.

The connection between the liturgy and culture is profound. Man is made to worship God; his worship is what establishes and shapes that relationship with God; and this, in turn influences all our human interactions and is the most significant factor in contributing to the grace and beauty of our actions and interactions. The culture might be viewed as the aggregate, the vector sum of these and is a reflection of - or incarnation of - our core values, priorities and beliefs.

While this connection can be conceived as a symbiotic dynamic, with each - liturgy and culture -simultaneously reflecting and nourishing the other, the relationship between the two is not a partnership of equals. The liturgy is a more powerful influence on the culture than the culture is on the liturgy. So in consideration of a reform of the culture, we should always look to ourselves first and strive for liturgical orthodoxy and purity. Accordingly we should strive to have liturgical culture high culture that is noble and naturally accessible. This is a culture that it makes high demands of those who create these forms - the writers, artists, composers and architects - but never of those who see it and hear it. It should touch people and then draw them upwards through the beauty of its forms, in harmony with worship. This accessible divine beauty can touch the soul in a way 'beyond words' (I'm thinking of St Augustine here).

In his book on the liturgy published first in 1918, the Spirit of the Liturgy, Romano Guardini tells us that liturgical forms are necessarily reflective of a high culture: 'Culture enables religion to express itself and helps distinguish the essential from the non-essential...as a rule, the spiritual life should be impregnated with a genuine and lofty culture... If the cultural element of prayer declines, the ideas become impoverished, the language coarse, the imagery clumsy and monotonous and the emotional paltry and artificial.' (p34)

He also describes the influence in the other direction, that the appropriate forms in the liturgy inspire and sustain a vibrant and beautiful contemporary culture: "The liturgy possesses a tremendously compelling form of expression, which is a school of religious training and development to the Catholic who rightly understands it and which is bound to appear to the impartial observer as a cultural formation of the most lofty and elevated kind." (p47; pub Herder and Herder).

Historically, if we look at the art, music and architecture we can see how the liturgical forms have influenced the culture. The baroque of the 17th century, for example, started off as part of the renewal of the Catholic counter-reformation and then the liturgical forms became the models in style for the profane (as in not explicitly sacred) forms as well.. So powerfully striking and beautiful was the wider culture created by this, that it became the standard throughout Europe, even in the protestant lands, for example, the Netherlands and England. The public buildings, the portraits and landscapes of their artists and even the music took inspiration from the Catholic liturgical culture.

The effect can be negative as well. If the liturgy is not beautiful and the cultural forms that are associated with it are deliberately made to take their inspiration from the wider secular culture that is not derived from liturgical forms, then a downward spiral is created in which the culture of faith and contemporary culture in turn cause the decline of the other. This is what we have seen most strikingly in modern times, accelerating in the 20th century (although the signs were there before that).

Catholics cannot ignore this question of contemporary culture. Even if we imagine a situation in which you have healthy and beautiful liturgical culture and that is also somehow disconnected from the wider culture and stable (a situation I can't imagine would ever be the case) we would still have a duty to try to transform the contemporary culture into one that reflected this liturgical culture. This is because those who do not go to church will not see the liturgy, which is our most powerful tool in evangelisation. But they do see the wider contemporary culture every day of their lives. If the wider culture reflects the beauty of the cosmos nourished by the liturgy, then its power will draw people to God and to His Church and provoke a curiosity and receptivity to the Word. This is the message of recent Popes in emphasising the power of beauty (for example Pope Benedict in his discussion of the via pulchritundinis). This is why incidentally, on a blog about liturgy, I consider it relevant to consider how this connects with secular culture - in my opinion we must not separate the two.

And what of the Ordinariate Use liturgy? Latin liturgy can stimulate a beautiful Catholic culture in any language of course but, I believe, the opening up of the traditional Anglican forms adapted for use in the Ordinariate supports this in a new and powerful way. The Anglican Ordinariate has elevated liturgical forms that do not look to modern secular culture for inspiration (unlike many of those in other vernacular liturgies), but rather, to the authentic Roman Church tradition and English high culture of the past. Therefore it can act powerfully to evangelise the culture of English speakers.

Why the special focus on English? I suggest that the influence of English in the world is great and is steadily increasing and hand in hand with this is English speaking culture, for good or ill. One might say that English is the lingua vulgata - the common language - of our age, and who knows for how long afterwards, perhaps centuries. It is the second most spoken (after Mandarin) as a first language and if you take second languages into account the gap is narrowed and getting narrower, for English is the international language of business and technology. This was emphasised to me recently when listening to Venezuelan radio and a discussion in Spanish (translated by my wife) about the fact that English is beginning to influence the way that Spanish is spoken by the general population as it incorporates its vocabulary and idioms.

It therefore becomes vital that we evangelise Western culture which is spreading globally, and a liturgy rooted in English language is a powerful means of doing this. Now that the Ordinariate Use is free to reach out beyond former Anglicans this can be at the centre of this. It might not be only through direct effect - one could envisage the situation where it's forms might also have an impact on the Roman Rite in English which is the not Ordinariate Use. At Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, where I teach, we regularly have the Extraordinary Form, and the Ordinary Form in English and Latin. We also sing the Liturgy of the Hours daily, with the psalms most commonly sung in English. For our vernacular liturgies we look to these Anglican forms of music and prayer in our vernacular liturgy for inspiration, even though it is not Ordinariate Use.

Incidentally I have heard some argue openly that they do not like to see a well done vernacular, or even Latin Novus Ordo, because they feel that the worse the alternatives are, the more likely it is that the Extraordinary Form will dominate. I do not accept this approach at all. In my mind, we should strive to make our participation in all liturgy (vernacular or not, Ordinariate Use of not) dignified and beautiful; in my mind this supports rather than diminishes the re-establishment of Latin in the liturgy in such a way that participation is active (in the proper sense of the word).

If we are to evangelise the English speaking world, which increasingly means the whole world, in a powerful way it could be a through a contemporary culture of the English. This contemporary culture could develop powerfully out of a beautiful English language liturgy that points to that of Shakespeare and Donne; and musical forms that are derived from the pre-reformation Sarum Liturgy. I would hope to see a flourishing of creativity inspired by this in which noble and accessible forms of both liturgical and contemporary culture are produced (in the way the Shakespeare was the popular culture of his day). It seems possible to me that the Anglican Ordinariate could be a force the good in this area.

Wonderful Exhibition of Sargent Watercolours at the Boston MFA

I have just visited an exhibition at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. This is a must-see. The watercolours by John Singer Sargent display such skill and mastery directed towards such a beautiful and delightful end that I find it difficult to see how anyone could fail to marvel at them. I always think of Sargent as the last great artist in the naturalistic tradition. He was classically trained and died in 1925. Although he knew and was influenced by the Impressionists, he never reflected their excesses in his work. He always maintained the perfect balance of looseness with close, precise focus that one would have seen in the baroque Masters 300 years earlier and was so rare even in the 19th century; and similarly difficult to find even in the atelier trained artists of today.

Sargent was an American who was born in Florence and trained in Paris, but had strong connections throughout his life with Boston and London. He made his name as a portrait artist but around the turn of the last century abandoned portraiture because he did not enjoy it and no longer needed to paint them for financial reasons. He went on tours of Europe and North Africa and painted watercolours of what he saw. A number of these were later worked up into oil paintings, but most were not. An exhibition of his watercolours in Boston in 1908 was so well received that the MFA bought the whole show! Spurred on by this he continued to paint them with enthusiasm. In this show we see many from that first 1908 exhibition but also many from later tours. There is even an example from his paintings of the English troops ('Tommies') during the First World War - he was employed by British War Office to record scenes of combat. Seeing this reminded me of a visit to the Imperial War Museum in London where, hanging on the wall close to guns, Spitfires and Hurricanes on display there is a huge oil painting, (8ft x 20ft) of gassed and blinded troops being lead, hand in hand in a line, from the field of combat.

At this exhibition we were allowed, in accordance with the modern trend in exhibitions which is so heartening, to take photographs. Below I show the photos I took with my cell phone. I have produced a series of photos where you can see the whole painting, and then details, so you can get a sense of how he combines loose and expressive brushwork with more tightly controlled use so expertly. The details were taken separately with the phone just a few inches from the surface of the painting. I suggest that you just marvel at how the image pops out of what appears (deceptively) to be such casually applied paint.

Is My Taste in Art Reliable?...and Is Yours?

No doubt many who read this I imagine will offer a sharp No! But suppose you disagree with my judgment when I say that I think a work of art is good - can we say who is right and who is wrong? If we look to Church for guidance here it doesn't seem very helpful at first. The Church doesn't set out, to my knowledge, any hard and fast rules for what is appropriate style of imagery for our worship. This is a frustration to some, who wish that there were some so we could get rid of all the ugliness and sentimentalism. While to others it is their cue to allow just about anything into our churches and create the disaster of the last 50 years. If we lived in a time when the tradition of painting sacred art was still strong and living, then there probably wouldn't be any question in most people's minds, we would just happily and unquestioningly follow the current trend that and get on with it.

But we don't, and therefore in choosing images for the liturgy or for the 'domestic church' or prayer corner, there will be an element of personal taste involved. The fact that the Church does not stipulate a cannon of approved style leaves room both within existing traditions for personal responses and tastes, the flourishing of local variations and the possibility development of new styles that nevertheless sit within the bounds of what defines that tradition; and beyond that it also gives room for the development of styles that are so distinct that they would represent the establishment of a whole new tradition. I anticipate that any new style, perhaps one that marks our era, will start with one maverick artist who goes against the grain and who, it turns out, produces something that is recognised by those who choose art for our churches and other artists as capturing something that speaks to a particular need of the time.

This was recognised by Pius XII in Mediator Dei: 195. "Recent works of art which lend themselves to the materials of modern composition, should not be universally despised and rejected through prejudice. Modern art should be given free scope in the due and reverent service of the church and the sacred rites, provided that they preserve a correct balance between styles tending neither to extreme realism nor to excessive "symbolism," and that the needs of the Christian community are taken into consideration rather than the particular taste or talent of the individual artist. Thus modern art will be able to join its voice to that wonderful choir of praise to which have contributed, in honor of the Catholic faith, the greatest artists throughout the centuries. Nevertheless, in keeping with the duty of Our office, We cannot help deploring and condemning those works of art, recently introduced by some, which seem to be a distortion and perversion of true art and which at times openly shock Christian taste, modesty and devotion, and shamefully offend the true religious sense. These must be entirely excluded and banished from our churches, like "anything else that is not in keeping with the sanctity of the place."

Clearly from the latter part of the quote above, he is not saying 'anything goes' either. But how can we discern the difference? Freedom can be misused and so if we are going to look outside the traditions forms, we should be cautious. For the further we stray from traditional forms, the greater the chance of us mistakenly choosing the ugly, the superficial, the sentimental and the kitsch even if we can't see it ourselves. It is always worth taking into account that none of us should trust our taste absolutely - I therefore use the principle that in choosing art for public consumption, I will not stray outside the forms of the liturgical traditions of the Church. As NLM readers will know I accept the authority of Pope Emeritus Benedict when he states that there are three - the iconographic, the gothic and the baroque 'at its best' (the 17th century and extending further for some artists). In following this guidance therefore, we should not only be careful in accepting modern forms, but also those of the High Renaissance and naturalistic tradition of the 19th century (and artists such as Bougeureaux) which he does not include in his list of liturgical forms. Nevertheless, no one can rule out all artists from any particular era for even in the worst of times, there are likely to be individuals who are inspired and worthy of attention.

Let us suppose for a moment, though, that despite all of this I am drawn to something that is non-traditional and which, I am convinced, is good, true and beautiful nevertheless. How do I know I'm right and that this is an exception to the general guidelines given above? Every single one of us must be prepared to consider the possibility that to some degree at least, the judgments we are making are flawed. How can I tell? First of all I regardless of how much I like something I do my best to avoid anything that looks, very distorted and ultra modern in style - the chances are that these are not good for prayer. Similarly even if things seem skillfully drawn, if there is a sugary sentimentalism to the image or it looks 'kitsch' then avoid it. Then I find that asking the questions such as the following will help:

Does it reflect truth? Here I am considering if the content is reflective of what I know to be true. Does it conform to the gospel account of a scene, for example?

Is this beautiful? It might seem a statement of the obvious to put this in here, but it is surprising how often I might decide that I am drawn to something which I can't actually say that I think that it is beautiful.

Would I like to spend eternity with this? I got this question from a book by the architect Christopher Alexander who found that if you asked people for their preferences based upon different ways of asking the same question you got different answers. He found that because people have differing ideas of what constitutes beauty, you get less conformity of response than if you ask people to consider the same thing but by thinking about what the properties of beauty are. I thought this one was ingenious.

Do I like it? We don't want to eliminate personal taste altogether. Once I have got past the first set of questions then while these will not infallibly lead me to what is good and true and beautiful, it will at least increase the chances. Then I will choose something that I like. The good is, after all, the desirability of being and so at some level I have to think about how desirable something is if I am considering how good it is.

Bad or good? Bougeureau, Leonardo and Botticelli from the 19th century and the Renaissance; and the 20th century artist Marc Chagall. What do you think? I'll tell you my thoughts at the bottom....

 

I would consider none of these true liturgical art, which may be surprising to some readers. None conform to the established norms of the iconographic, the gothic or the baroque.

Pictures of a Newly Consecrated Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Montenegro

Thanks to reader Walter who gave me a link through to an article in the Orthodox Arts Journal, I am able to show you some photos of a brand new cathedral. You do have to say that the Orthodox know how to do this! Construction of the cathedral in Podgorica, capital of Montenegro began in 1993 and it was consecrated earlier this month. In these photos, which come from the article referred to above, we see wonderful relief carvings in stone on the exterior and wall paintings on the interior.

Some Upcoming Speaking Engagements - Vermont, New Hampshire and NYC

For any who might be interested, I have three speaking engagements coming up in the next few weeks; in Vermont, New Hampshire and New York City. The first is at Vermont Catholic Conference which is an all-day event taking place at St Monica's Church in Barre, VT on Saturday November 2nd. The broad theme is 'Rebuild My Church', evoking the call of evangelisation of both Pope Francis and St Francis of Assisi. I will be speaking about how the style and beauty of liturgical art communicates the truths of the Faith with a special focus on the artistic liturgical traditions as described by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, with a particular focus on his book, the Spirit of the Liturgy. I am one of a number of speakers supporting the keynote speaker, Sheila Liaugminas, who will be speaking on the Faith and the Family in the modern world. Follow the link above for more information and to register for the conference.

The second is at St Raphael's Church in Manchester, NH on Tuesday, November 5th at 7pm. I have been asked to talk about the role of the artist in the Church today and it will involve a short presentation, about half and hour and then discussion chaired by pastor Fr Jerome. This is one of a series of three, the first is today, in which professionals discuss their work in the context of the Faith. For information follow the link here.

The third is on Saturday, November 14th, 7.30pm at the Catholic Center at New York University, 238 Thomson Street, NY, NY. This is one of a series called the Art of the Beautiful sponsored by the Thomistic Institute, which has as series of monthly lectures running through to February next year. Their promotional poster is below.

Astonishing Geometric Patterned Art by Russian Icon Painters

Recently I featured carved icons by Russian Rashid and Inessa Azbuhanov. Also on their website, here, there is a section entitled Avante Garde 21st Century Art (I am assuming that the Google translator is accurate here). I imagine that the artists describe them in this way because they do not think of them as works of sacred art at all. I think that these are worth looking at in the context of sacred art. What I find on their site are some geometric patterns that I would happily see as the basis for tiled floors, for example, in churches. The artists have given each one a title which assigns an allegorical meaning to them. I don't understand the basis of these and without wishing to undermine any significance that they see in them, we are entitled to see them in the light of traditional numerical symbolism and use them in the light of this. So any shapes with octagonal symmetry, for example, could be used in a sanctuary floor given the symbolism of Christ as the 'eighth day' of Creation. In some ways they remind me of traditional Romanesque, western patterns, but there are also elements that I have not seen elsewhere before.

Lea Mills - An 18th century Factory...and It's Still Open

John Smedley founded his clothing manufacturer in 1784  and was originally a spinning mill deriving power from the stream that runs through the Derbyshire village where the factory is sited. It is still manufacturing quality clothing from the same site and is, I have been told, the oldest factory still in operation in the world. If you want to investigate their products go to the website above and I have posted an add (in suitable 18th century industrial setting) with models wearing some examples.

I like this story because it shows to me that manufacturing needn't be something that conflicts visually with the environment around, or that makes ugly and low quality produce. Their workers cottages have classic three-storey musical proportions. It is sited in the village of Lea Bridge, just outside Matlock in Derbyshire in the north midlands of England. As an interesting aside, a co-founder with John Smedley of the company was a Peter Nightingale, who was a relative of Florence Nightingale - this is the source in part of the family fortune that allowed Florence to devote herself to nursing. It is a story that seems to have everything - an elegant factory and products, care for the workers and their accomodation, philanthropy and through God's grace longevity!

I have been teaching a course in harmony and proportion in architecture at Thomas More College recently and one of my students asked me about early industrial buildings, so this has prompted me to make this the first a few such features.

\

Carved and Coloured Icons - Beautiful but Why Bother to Carve Them?

There have been a number of articles published recently, following a show in Moscow, of carved icons of a Russian couple Rashid and Inessa Azbuhanov (their website is here and h/t Deacon Paul Iacono of the Fra Angelico Institute for bring these to my attention). These are exquisite works and are of interest to me particularly because I have to admit I have never seen anything quite like them. I am told that they are re-establishing the tradition of carved icons. These portray form through a combination of color and relief and in this sense are a halfway house between pure relief carving, which uses shadow to describe form; and the painted icon that we are used to. This presentation of course would be easily used for Western styles and I can see it very quickly adapted gothic style imagery and for the Western variants of the iconographic tradition, such as the Celtic. I would love to see some Catholic artists somewhere taking up the idea. This does raise the question in my mind (playing devils advocate here, as to why they bother? Is there any need for such a medium? I don't think that we should do something just for the sake of being different; but on the other hand should there be a compelling reason for in order to justify it? Isn't this just gilding the lily, so to speak? I think that the answer is that provided the image is beautiful and works within the limits that define the tradition, then the greater the variety the better. Each tradition must contain within it the principles that allow the creation of new works, even new variants on the style, so that artists speak afresh to each new generation. Any tradition that relies only on reworking or reproduction of the past will dies. It seems to me that it would be like asking why, given the idea that we have trees in the natural world, did God create so many varieties? For me, it is the fact that so many varieties, beyond counting, can exist and participate in unique ways the same order that makes all things beautiful and direct us to the Creator. If this is so, then it does mean that we should be open to new materials and media as much as a variety of traditional ones, so that would include, for example artificial pigments as much as natural ones (other things being equal). This latter point, incidentally, is not a new one in his book on architecture from the 1st century AD the Roman architect Vitruvius has a section devoted to a comparison of the relative merits of natural and artificial pigments! So here are some images: St Michael the Archangel, Kazan Mother of God, St John the Forerunner (the Baptist).

Icon. Kazan Mother of God

Icon. John the Baptist

David Clayton to Speak at Conference in Barre, Vermont, November 2nd along with Sheila Liaugminas

I have been invited to speak at the annual Vermont Catholic Conference at St Monca's Church in Barre, Vermont on November 2nd called 'Rebuild My Church' which is entitled in honour of Pope Francis. I will be speaking about Truth in Sacred Art and discussing how the styles of the liturgical traditions of art reveal truth. This is a big annual event and the keynote presentations on "Christianity in the Modern World" and "The Family Today" will be presented by Sheila Liaugminas, Emmy Award winning journalist and host of the daily radio interview show: "A Closer Look". The website is here, and Facebook is VT Catholic Conference 2013.

I would be pleased to see and talk to any who are able to make it on that day, it promises to be a great event!

Buckfast Abbey - 20th Century Geometric Patterned Art and Architecture Using Traditional Principles

I spent a few days at Buckfast Abbey in Devon, England recently (I was part of the Maryvale Institute's residential summer school Art, Beauty and Inspiration from a Catholic Perspective). There seem to be good things going on there liturgically - the Sunday Mass I attended (in the Ordinary Form) all the Ordinaries and Propers were chanted in Latin and there is a Mass for the Anglican Ordinariate offered there each Sunday too. The abbot there, as I understand it, is keen to promote the abbey as a focus of Catholic learning for the southeast of England and clearly, if he is hosting the Maryvale Institute, is interested in an orthodox presentation of the Faith. It has been said that historically the Benedictine monasteries of the post-classical period of Christianity preserved and developed learning, this The abbey was reestablished on an ancient abbey site at the end of the 19th century and the church and buildings were erected in the first years or so of the 20th century. The design of both shows an awareness of ancient traditions in proportion that have their roots in pre-Christian classical culture. The facilities for hosting this sort of residential course are excellent and they are being developed further. There is much new building going on at Buckfast in order to help it develop the vision that the abbot has for the community.

It is interesting that as recently as most of the main abbey buildings were built, how much of the tradition is in evident (it also highlights how much was lost and when we think that within twenty years you are seeing modernist churches being built). In the main body of the church there is an opus sectile work on the floors and the traditional designs that would be seen, for example, in the floors of many gothic period churches in Rome. Over the main entrance we see a stone carving of Christ in Majesty in the mandorla (created by the intersection of two circles, with the centre of each on the circumference on the other). We see the quincunx (where four circles spin out of a central shape - a geometric representation of the four Evangelists taking the Word out to the four corners of the world); and the guilloche (a chain of connected circles and squares down). Also, I have shown a view of the outside of the guest house in which one can see the classical harmonic proportions (as described by Boethius for example in his De Arithmetica) indicated by three uneven storeys moving upwards in a rhythmical progression such that the first relates to the second as the second relates to the third.

Photos of Completed Chalice and Paten Commissioned by New Anglican Ordinariate Parish in Beverly Farms, MA

Earlier in the summer I mentioned, here, that the newly created parish of St Gregory the Great in Beverly Farms, Massachusetts had commissioned a chalice and paten in a traditional English design. I am please to report that the vessels have been completed and were consecrated this past weekend. The artist, Vincent Hawley sent me these photographs of the completed works. He tells me that both the chalice and paten are solid Sterling silver and the inside of the chalice is gilded in 24K gold. The chalice is 7'' high with bowl diameter of 6'' and the paten is 9.5'' in diameter. It took 4 sq. feet of silver sheet, around 1mm thick, to create them. The chalice has two engraved insriptions and three medallions, a chi-rho, Christ and St Gregory. The paten has an engraved dedication on the back. The technique used to create them is 'hand-raising'.The chalice bears two inscriptions: 'This is my blood shed for you and for many', and the second is 'Holy Gregory pray that all may drink of this cup'. The paten carries the dedicatory inscription engraved around the underside of its rim: 'These vessels were given to the greater Glory of God in thankfulness for the establishment of St Gregory the Great parish and the ordination of its first pastor, Jurgen Liias, through the generosity of its people in September MMXIII. Exodus XXV:I-IX'. The scripture cited is 'The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the people of Israel that they take for me an offering; from every man whose heart makes him willing you shall receive from them...let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst. According to all that I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle and of its furniture, so shall you make it.'' Vincent can be contacted through his website vwhjewelry.com or directly on email info@vwhjewelry.com. The parish website describing the original commission is here.

Exhibition of Litany of Loreto Embroideries at Hampton Court in London

Anne Gomes, a reader of this blog brought to my attention an exhibition put on by the Royal College of Needlework of fine turn of the century embroidery of vestments which is taking place at Hampton Court and runs through to December. She tells me that 'the set of 12 is on display right now. They look to me to be turn of 20th century in Art Nouveau style. Using a very limited color palette (very baroque!), they are hand embroidered on silk in silk and gold threads. No one is sure of the makers but at one time they belonged to the Convent of the Holy Child which gave them to the Royal College of Needlework when it closed.' Those interested in reading more can follow the link here. I am no expert in the technique of embroidery but looking at the photographs my reaction is that the quality of work on display looks very high. Certainly quality of draughtsmanship is in the design is high.

Two More British Walks - Farmland in England and Wales and a 12th century Welsh castle

Here are some photographs of two more walks in the British Isles. The first is walking from my parents' house in a village called Willaston in Cheshire. This is in the north of England, close to the Welsh border and the area where I grew up. This is just a short jaunt from my parents' place through gentle, flat agricultural land viewed from a disused railway line. As with all of the British countryside, there are footpaths that you can take off this public land onto privately owned farmland. As you can see in the photographs, this is agricultural land and when I was there, the farmer was harvesting wheat. The second is rural north Wales. This is sheep pasture land and a rugged terrain in Snowdonia, and mountainous region of Wales. The highest hills are 3,000-3,500ft above sea level. The village is called Dolwyddelan (pronounced Dol-with-ellen - double ds are pronounced 'th' in Welsh).

These two places are about 60 miles apart.

First Willaston:

This little diversion took us to a pasture in which just a month ago the field was full of orchids and the dog rose was in bloom too. The following photographs were taken by my dad.

And here we have the rugged sheep country of Snowdonia...

It was a rainy day in August...well this is North Wales. We climbed out of the village into the hills along a farm track, the views opened up behind us and then we approached the ridge

Here we are close to the ridge above the village, about 2,500ft high

Flora and fauna along the way - sheep, yellow gorse and purple heather

And the cairn on the top for lunch.

And back down through the windy and rugged sheep pasture. Most of the sheep we saw were sheltering from the wind on one side of the ridge

Our return route took us via a castle that was built by the Welsh of the principality of Gwyneth. The Welsh in this part of the country resisted the Normans for two-hundred years longer than the English Saxons and were conquered by the English until the late 13th century (under Edward I). It was not used for defence but as a garrison for soldiers to help the security of travel routes for trade within the principality.

We had to climb the stairs, above, to get into the main hall inside.

And from there, we climbed up a dark stone stairway up to the top, and here's the veiw. The mountian by the way is called Moel Siabod (pronounced Moe-ell Shab-odd)

Below us, a shepherd was training his two sheep dogs

The Renovation of a 19th Century Rose Window in Austin, Texas...almost

Here are some photographs of the restored Rose Window at St Mary's Cathedral in Austin, Texas...well, almost. The window has been removed and part by part restored. All that remains is for it to be put back together in the church. In an article the Rose Window shown is a composite of many photographs of the individual parts put together with Photoshop.

I include some photos of the each part. The Cathedral was made in the 1850s and from the photos is beautiful. The design on the central part, by the way is a version of the quincunx - in which four spin out of one. Regular readers of my column will know immediately that this can be seen as a geometric representation of the four evangelists carrying the Word to the four corners of the world. You can see an old photo the window from the exterior and pictures of the separated parts. There is also on of the window viewed from the inside before the restoration started.

 There is an article about the renovation here

A Walk in Central London: Public Gardens and Public Art (Good and Bad)

In my summer trip to London I spent a day walking around just looking at the sights. A great way to do this is to walk the parks - so we spent a day walking along the Embankment park, through to Trafalgar Square to St James Park, then Green Park and then Hyde Park. Along the way could see so many of the sights - the Thames, the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Pall Mall, Hyde Park Corner for example.  We stopped regularly for a cup of tea bought at the kiosks in the park and enjoyed the gardens and public art as well as the more famous buildings. I am convinced that gardens are the height of man's interaction of with creation in which its beauty is raised up to something beyond the wilderness. The importance of public gardens in cities cannot be overemphasized, in my opinion, for it is through them that those living in cities can have direct contact with the cultivated land, which is I believe a fundamental need of man. I do not think that this need necessarily means that man ought to be able to cultivate his own food, so do not subscribe to the lan-reformers' slogan of 'three acres and a cow'. I personally have little interest in animal husbandry, aviculture, apiculture or agriculture and am very happy for others who are specialists to do this and supply supermarkets where I can buy their produce. I do believe in as much access to land as is possible, whether gardens or fields and so like the common European model of right to roam in which people have access to private property provided they respect it.

City parks and gardens derive their beauty as much from the public art as they do from the plants grown. Public art, of course has a greater impact also in those areas where there is no cultivation and Trafalgar Square in London is made by the Lions and Nelson's column as well as the beauty of the buildings on it. There is a plinth on in the corner of Trafalgar Square and that is always given to a piece of contemporary art which changes regularly. The latest fiasco to occupy this spot is time a giant purple cockerel that looks as though its made out of resin. What an absurdity! The scale of a piece of art speaks of its importance - the huge size of this, and its garish unnatural colour make it dominate the whole square, clashing with the otherwise harmonious arrangement of the other works in the square and working contrary to the natural hierarchy, in which cockerels come below man.

The one positive is the new memorial to the members of the RAF who died during the war which was dedicated withing the last 12 months at Hyde Park corner. In contrast to the previous piece, this was set in a columned arcade and was something worthy of public attention. the style of the sculpture was traditional and accessible, and was aiming to make a statement about those who died and not the artist. I think that public art should be making a statement that has relevance at a public level. This does, the giant cockerel...well if it is, it isn't communicating it to me.

So we'll start with the new war memorial and then show pictures of the gardens.

The Greek columns support the roof over the sculpture of the bombers

 And here's another modern piece next to it...who knows what this is about. It might be important, but nothing about it makes you want to care.

And now the gardens: the park on the Embankment is a thin slither of land that lines the river, with high buildings on the other side. It is barely any wider than what you can see here.

St James park. below  next few, has an ornate entrance from Pall Mall and even the path up to the public toilets is beautifully tended beds on either side.

 

Next is Hyde Park. Within this there is a rose garden that has charming groves with a benches focussing on a fountain or statue. I am not usually a fan of rose gardens. While the blooms can be lovely they are usually rather dull rectangular borders with heavily pruned rose bushes surrounded by bare ground. This rose garden consistedof lots of rambling and shrub roses and no bare ground at all. I much prefer this.

And here is a nearby but different floral alcove:

And finally here is the boathouse on the Serpentine in Hyde Park. I'm guessing that this was built in the 1920s. Notice how even this faux Elizabethan, half-timbered look has an elegance given to it by the three tiered division of unequal size the design in the walls. This is classic harmonious proportion. So the first layer is brick, the second is larger and then finally at the top, just below the eaves you have the smallest division (broken up into squares)

Just How Bad Were Working Conditions in the 19th Century?

If is commonly held that  working conditions in 19th century cities were much worse than those who lived and worked in the countryside at the time or earlier; similarly you will regularly hear that the creation of factories split up families because the father had to go to work for so many hours every day whereas previously they had seen much more of him. When I questioned the basis of this once with some, the answer I got was that 'Charles Dickens proved it'. This was not a satisfactory answer to me - even if his picture portrayed in his novels is accurate it represents at best anecdotal evidence. It would be foolish, I suggest, to draw any conclusions about the general situation at this period only by consideration of works of fiction written for popular consumption. It does not give us facts and figures that might indicate what living standards were actually like during the 19th century; how conditions in the cities compared to those in the country; and how those conditions compared to the those of the previous century. For an alternative view i looked to Capitalism and the Historians. This is a series of essays by economic historians who conclude that under capitalism in the 19th century, despite long hours and other hardships of factory life, people were in fact better off financially, had more opportunities to better themselves financially, had better living conditions and lived a life more supportive of the family life than those who lived in the country.

The five historians each describe first the life of the workers in the country, which were far worse for the most part than those in the cities. As a result, many people chose to leave the country and work in the city. This caused a problem for the the the landowners, who could not find the labour they needed to work the land and so they created a propaganda campaign highlighting the evils of the factories in order to dissuade their workers from leaving. The irony is that this propaganda was used by Marx and Engels who uncritically accepted much of it in their analysis of the factory system in Manchester. It is the Marxist propagandists who, harnessing envy of the vast riches for the industrialists, succeeded in making this the received wisdom. Furthermore, where there was injustice or dangerous working conditions, laws protecting workers were introduced quite quickly and without any input from Marx or Engels.

It is not true, either, if these are to be believed, that, as a general rule, industrialists thought that anything that any result of market forces was morally justified. There were some of course, but these were as likely to be landowners employing agricultural workers as factory owners in the cities. In fact, those who employed agricultural workers were much more successful in paying low wages because there wasn't the same scrutiny of them due to the success of their propoganda campaign. So for example, WH Hutt tells us that,  'Lord Shaftesbury, when asked by Therod Rogers why he had not sought to extend protective legislation to children in the fields when he knew that their work was ''to the full as physically injurious'' as premature labour in the factories, replied that it was a question of practical politics and that, if he had sought the emancipation of all, he would have obtained the support of no party at all'

A lot of the problems that did exist were created by the success of the industrial age and the developing capitalist system. Improved diet and better housing conditions lead to improved health and mortality rates. The huge growth in the population that ensued overloaded the infrastructure and in turn to huge problems in the cities because the sewage systems could not cope and this lead to disease as the River Thames, in London, for example, became an open sewer. And again, because we are dealing with a population that is larger than ever before, the scale of the problems is greater than ever before. But this in itself does not point to a problem that is inherently worse in industrialisation than in the agricultural economy.  The response was not immediate, but when, quite fairly it was dealt with by the society of the time. So in London in 1856 work on a sewers began, for example. This was so successful a project that much of it is still in use today, 150 years later. The story of the building of this system is one of engineers with great civic pride and dedication driven by genuine concern for the common good.

The contributors to this book by no means paint a picture of perfection but make the point that generally conditions were better than those of agricultural works and were steadily improving throughout the period. Everything I read here about 19th century England supports the assertion that where there is an economy that corresponds to John Paul II's 'free economy' we move towards a better society. Where it departs from it, for example where you have capitalists colluding with government to restrict competition, then problems do occur that will not be solved by the system itself, and the injustices that occur need to be addressed by increasing and protecting personal freedom.