All,

Are stained glass windows of Eastern or Western origin?

The literaure I read seems to indicate that stained glass originated in the West, but there is evidence that stained glass was used in the East during the first centuries of Christianity.

Any one have the answer and a link to a website that tells the history of stained glass in the Eastern Church?

Thanks!

Paul

While stained or tinted glass windows were used in some churches in the East, making images in glass was developed in the West, AFAIK.

Dave

Not certain if this link helps you:

http://www.stainedglass.org/main_pages/sgaa/historySG.html

Gaudior, fascinated by Church architecture

Thanks Dave!

In support of your statement, I see in photos that the Great Church Hagia Sophia has opaque windows. I see colored glass windows (without images)in photos of Saint John Chrysostom Byzantine Catholic Church in Columbus.

On another track: Is there a relationship between Byzantine mosaic icons and Byzantine icongraphic stained glass? (if there is such a thing)

Paul

Byzantine iconographic stained glass windows exist, but they are a modern invention/innovation (say, within the last 100 to 150 years).

I don't think there is any relationship, though. Byzantine mosaics were made to reflect bright, natural light; stained glass was made to change the light.

It might be good to consider the difference between Byzantine church decoration and Gothic church decoration (since stained glass really came to prominence with Gothic architecture). Generally, Byzantine churches were covered in mosaics or frescos, or simply had a lot of icons. Stained glass windows depicting images would conflict or add additional conflicting colors. In general, Gothic churches were made precisely for stained glass windows, so they were not covered in painted images (though statues and bas reliefs might be included). Colored light may have enhanced such a church.

So, simply put, mosaics and dark stained glass just don't go well together, and neither do frescos and stained glass. Whether the Byzantines would have used "stained glass icons" if they had the technology (did they? I don't know) is another issue.

Dave

Stained glass was developed during the Middle ages, used mostly in Gothic churches. Very few Romanesque churches have them. I visited some very old churches in Italy. (4th cent.). They had opaque windows.

I sometimes visit a Latin web site. One poster has posted a thread entitled "How to tell if your Parish is a faithful (to Rome) parish.

2 things he seems to think that are essential to a faithful parish is 1) kneelers, 2) and stained glass windows. Where he found this criteria I don't know. But I pointed out that St. Peter's in the Vatican does not have either. Some of the early churches I visited don't have statues either.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

With present-day methods and technology it is quite possible to make some excellent icons using stained glass. There is certainly nothing in the canons against the idea. If we can put up with machine-made reproductions of icons, we should be able to tolerate stained glass.

Incognitus

I look for a Communion rail, myself - to me that is a necessary item in a Roman Catholic church. It is my custom to go up to pray there after Mass when I am in a Roman Catholic church and not having one makes me feel uncomfortable. I won't just stand in front of the Altar and Tabernacle because, well, that's not what you do "in Rome." I also look for a prominently displayed and tasteful Crucifix and I think that the Tabernacle should be in a central place where the people are praying and paying attention.

I'm fine with kneeling on the floor, which I have done in churches where there are no kneelers, and I am so-so on stained glass and statues. I tend to be distracted by tacky banners that say cheerful things. One of my theology professors, an old Jesuit who was delightfully intellectual AND conservative, once quipped that he had a "severe distate for banner theology." Me, too. He used to suggest more dire bits of Scripture and say, "Put THAT on a banner, why don't ya?" Although a conservative, I could care less about whether women choose to wear those little veils or not, but it drives me nuts when people of both sexes arrive in church looking like they are ready to catch some rays on the beach. Church is still a formal place - you don't have to dress great, but you should be dressed.


I'm actually a real grumpus for a person who grew up entirely post-Vatican II. Part of this may because I grew up with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism and tended toward the more solemn and ancient rituals in both, particularly in Orthodoxy. Tacky banners, altar girls, and what I generally refer to (hope not to offend anyone, truly) "feel good nonsense" doesn't endear me to any church. I don't go to church to feel good. I go to church for the Holy Sacrament, for the fellowship in reverent worship of God and to hear His Word in community, for spiritual health and happiness, and to hopefully learn something about how to live a better life.

Oh, and several old cathedrals and churches I visited while living in England were decidedly kneeler free. I had been told, but am not 100% sure, that it was the custom in at least the early Middle Ages to stand in church (when not kneeling on the floor). There weren't a lot of statues, just the occasional wood carving, which I guess is along the same lines as a statue. Beauty in simplicity - some of the depictions of the Virgin and Child in the "Lady Chapels" were quite striking.