Church Symbolism

I work in a library, and I found this great one:

Church Symbolism

An Explanation of the More Important Symbols of the Old and New Testament, The Primitive, The Mediaeval and the Modern Church.
By F. R. Webber.

First printed in 1927, but I found the 1938 revision.

While it mentions Chartres and some English churches, it seems most of the churches are here in the U.S.A. The back of this 1938 even features ads for organ makers and stained glass studios. You can find old library copies on bookfinder.com, but it apparently was reprinted in the 90’s and newer printings are available on amazon.

A few gems:

From the introduction by Ralph Adams Cram:

“….The abandonment of ceremonial in the affairs of life that, for some inexplicable reason, accompanied by the spread of democracy and was held to be of its esse; the renunciation of ritual and liturgics as well as all forms of art and beauty that was equally held to be (and probably was) a part of Protestantism, were not only a fatal weakening of the causes themselves, but a clear evidence of an internal and essential lack for which no substitute was possible, or even imaginable. Man lives by symbols, and if those that are just and veracious are taken from him he will invent others, but these are always thin, poor, ugly and without significance, in that they are made to order by ingenious though ignorant mechanicians, and do not lay hold on ultimate things…."

From the author’s preface:

“…There is a close analogy between the correct use of symbolism and the use of church music. Any thoughtful musician will say that church music is not to be used as an end in itself. It is only a means to an end. Its purpose is to express beautifully certain religious truths. To do this, it must be impersonal. When music becomes so ornate or so assertive that we are led to admire the melody itself, and lose sight of the truths it seeks to proclaim, it has failed in its purpose. It has become mere performance, to exhibit the skill of the singers, rather than a vehicle used to express profound thoughts. So it is with symbolism. Like music, it must be subordinated to the truths it seeks to set forth. Too much of our modern symbolism has attracted attention to itself, rather than to the meaning back of it. …'

Finally, this bit of irony:

“…When a Philadelphia lawyer undertakes to sell a tract of land, he does not simply sell it. He states in an imposing document that he has “granted, bargained, sold, alienated, enfoeffed, released and confirmed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, aliene, enfoeff, release and confirm” the following parcel of land as described hereafter to wit. No attorney, however matter-of-fact in other things, would think of discarding the traditional verbiage of his profession. The same may be said of the physician, the chemist,the scientist, the architect, and of all the trades and crafts.

Such technical language serves an important purpose.It may sound absurd to the uninitiated, but it is of highest value to the specialist, for it enables him to express exact shades of meaning. The title to one’s property, or his very life, may depend upon the ability of one’s attorney or his physician to express his intentions accurately.

In all branches of Christian art, whether it be architecture, painting, sculpture, music, ceremonial or symbolism, there are certain technical terms employed by all writers, regardless of their theological views. To disregard such traditional expressions would cause a person to seem as ridiculous as a seminarian of some years ago who had an hour of extreme practicality, and translated the stately language of the old Church Year Collects into very pithy, modern, Anglo-Saxon terms. He was utterly sincere, but his efforts resulted in furtive merriment rather than the edification of those who heard him..”

I'm looking forward to reading the whole book, and learning to learn from church architecture.

That's what I'm talkin' about

I haven't checked out Feminine Genius in a long time, but when
I did, I saw this post about a priest teaching the people in a homily.

Doce me, Domine

This is my first blog, and my first blog post. The name of it is Latin for "Teach me, Lord".

"Teach me" are the two words I often want to shout from the pews when I hear a "We have to love one another" or "We have to listen to God" sermon. I'm often tempted to go up to the priest after Mass and say "We gotta love one another? Wow, thanks for the tip!" But usually I just say "Thank you, Fr.", or I might wait around after and ask a question. After all, nobody's perfect, and the man did dedicate his life to serving me and others, even if imperfectly. I wonder how many people thank their priests after Mass, and how often the priests know I'm thanking them for answering the call and living out their vocation, rathter than thanking them for saying "Good morning".

I know the congregation is a diverse group of people, and homilies should be understood by the schoolkids, the grandmas, and the Ph.D s, but I think the homilies should teach, and let people know what the faith has to say to them today. I think they should get to the deeper meaning of readings, and not settle for the superficial (though important) meaning. If it is a "We must love one another" sermon, the full true meaning of love must be communicated - love when you don't get that warm fuzzy sentiment found in greeting cards, love when you know it isn't reciprocated, love when you have to do something difficult. I want the homilist to let God teach me through him in his ministry.

In one homily I remember, the priest made a wonderful contrast. The Gospel recounted the story of Zaccheus, who climbed a tree to get a better look at Jesus. The Red Sox had just won the World Series, and the news had been showing thousands of people, many college kids, flooding Kenmore Square to celebrate. There was this one moron who climbed a tree all of 10 feet tall, (You know, the kind that need stakes to keep them straight), and he was shaking it, probably trying to pull it down. Anyway, the priest made the contrast between Zaccheus, who climbed the tree to see Jesus better in the crowd, and this moron, who climbed the tree to be seen by the crowd. I hope people were listening. I hope it hit them how much of a "look at me" society we've become. This was years before MySpace became popular, before Time declared You to be the Person of the Year.

I also picked the name as an attempt at maintaining humility. In the blogosphere, and in the Catholic blogosphere, the tone can too easily and harmfully shift to arrogance and vitriol. "Teach me, Lord" is a reminder to me that I don't know it all, and that when there is something that bothers me about a Mass or parish event, God is providing me with a learning opportunity. I'm prodded to explore why it bothers me, seek the correct understanding, and think about how I would explain it to others. If anybody reading this notices my failure in humility, your admonitions would be welcome.