Bland Churches in the West

[Augustinian]

If I were ever as rich as a Trump or a Bloomberg, I would love to live in a repurposed old church. I don’t want a condo converted one, I just want to live in the church.

You wouldn’t have to be as rich as Trump, just as rich as a successful hairdresser who bought and repurposed a local Serbian church here.

https://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/lifestyles/homegarden/s_122069.html

 

[Genesis315]

It was a trend starting in the 1950s and peaking in the 60s and 70s to have a very plain church. This was actually supposed to appeal to Protestants, among others, who supposedly didn’t want to go into a church and see all kinds of statues and Mary and saint representations. You were supposed to be able to focus more on God in a plain space.

The (illusory) Protestant appeal was actually a later, grafted on reason that wasn’t really part of the original reasoning for simplified churches.

The liturgical movement was accelerated by Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis which renewed focus on the Church as one body worshiping the one God by participating in the one sacrifice. To emphasize this, many liturgical reformers promoted an emphasis on unity in corporate worship–everyone was supposed to be uniformly focused as one body on what was happening on the altar. This meant getting rid of side altars, ornate reredos, statues, and even the reserved Sacrament–and also turning the priest around so everyone could see and focus on the sacrifice on the altar itself.

Of course, as the liturgical reform lost focus, different, often contradictory movements of reform were all thrust together, experimented with, etc. and so the changes often acquired different meanings. For example, the priest turning around is more often associated now the priest engaging with the people more, which is directly contrary to the original purpose it was given earlier on–it is now a distraction for the unity of focus. The appeal to Protestants is contrary to the original intention of increased focus on the sacrifice, which was then watered down to appeal to Protestants.

So we’re left with a simplified liturgy which works contrary to the purposes of simplified buildings. As result, modern liturgy in modern buildings comes off as bland or banal. In my experience, a TLM in a bland church gives the space a totally different and better feel (and honestly, I can see why there was a movement toward this, rather than have what’s going on on the altar kind of get lost in an immense, decorative church). Likewise, an image filled church gives the newer, simpler rite a better, totally different feel IMO, but placing it in a richer Catholic context.

 

[joeybaggz]

I do not know where you are from, but many modern churches borrow architectural styles from the area. In the United States, at least, that is mainly Protestant. I know in South Carolina, many Catholic Churches mirror the styles of the numerous Baptist churches in the area, simply because that is the cultural norm. One of the best examples of this is our Cathedral. Outside of the sanctuary and stations of the cross, it could easily be mistaken for another protestant church in the area, but it is still heavily reflective of the culture of South Carolinian Catholicism.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The reason the Catholic Church has such a rich tradition is because we enculturate, that is, we present the vibrancy of the Church and Faith within the context of the local culture. We don’t need certain types of art or architecture to feel at home because our Church is living and breathing in the Holy Spirit and He sustains us.

God Bless,
Br. Ben, CRM

Interesting that this photo is associated with “Baptist” church architecture. The style of this church shown in the above picture is called “Romanesque” and is the type architecture found in Catholic Churches and Cathedrals throughout Europe. In fact most of the Benedictine churches and Basilicas I have seen are all Romanesque. If this is a “Baptist” style, they took it from the Catholic Cathedrals in Europe.

 

[Augustinian]

Interesting that this photo is associated with “Baptist” church architecture. T

A lot of churches are built for one congregation and as the old congregation moves away, new immigrants take over.

Buildings do get repurposed

 

[babochka]

Actually there were Vatican II guidelines for church interiors that said in part to get rid of clutter.

While these guidelines were most certainly given at the local level in many places (“Art and Environment in Cathoilc Worship” comes to mind), they were not guidelines given by the council. They were very much “in the spirit of Vatican II”, which can mean pretty much anything we want it to mean.

 

[babochka]

Santo Stefano in Assisi is one of my favorite churches. Usually, my tastes favor something more ornate, but I was so moved by this beautiful church when I visited there more than 20 years ago.

There is a difference between ugly and simple.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Really now, I would think Europeans would be more comfortable thanks to a relatively generous social safety net

Have you been to Europe? The fact that they have some form of universal health care and perhaps other benefits does not mean everybody there is comfy and well off. The standard of living in many places (though not all) is below that of the USA. One might see it as “less materialistic” but one might also see it as “more broke”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

While these guidelines were most certainly given at the local level in many places (“Art and Environment in Cathoilc Worship” comes to mind), they were not guidelines given by the council. They were very much “in the spirit of Vatican II”, which can mean pretty much anything we want it to mean.

Yes, you’re correct that it was varyingly and often overzealously interpreted locally. I believe there was some other document by the US bishops that I can’t find right now that had more specific guidelines.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I read somewhere about a former monastery being converted into a maternity home, while bittersweet in the dissolution of a monastery, at least there was an opportunity to create beautiful space for those in need of it.

There seems to be rather a trend in this area to convert some of the churches (Catholic and mainline Protestant) that are very large or have large campuses into senior housing. While I think this is a nice idea, I wonder a bit about the logistics of incorporating everything that seniors need, including safety equipment like sprinklers, etc. into a 100-year-old building. We just had a pretty major fire at a newer built old age home in my neighborhood, so that sort of thing is on my mind.

The churches with large campuses could probably just build a new building for the seniors and use the church for a gathering space, but there is another church (not Catholic) that is trying to repurpose the building itself in order to save it. I’m not sure how that is going to fly.

 

[Roguish]

Can someone clarify why our religion of rich tradition has done this to itself? How do we fix it?

The sad truth is that the RCC is infested with modernism, and the architecture (and interior) of many of its church buildings is one thing that makes this clear.

How did this happen? We can investigate the Church’s history, and it is obvious that it is something that happened in the 20th century. But how it could happen remains incomprehensible. No similar development has occurred in other religions, nor is it about to happen. The RCC has been the only religion to attempt to “embrace” modernism – and it’s been a disaster.

How do we fix it? My take on it is that it can’t be fixed anymore, though valiant attempts have been made and are still being made. But same as when a tree catches blight, you can only cure an infestation if if you catch it early on: you prune the leaves or branches that are affected. But if the blight has infested the entire tree including its trunk and its roots, you can lament the situation all you like but there’s no fixing it anymore. You give up on it, you thank God that He provides new seeds, and you lovingly grow a new tree.

 

[CRM_Brother]

I think you may be confused. Romanesque architecture is characterized by thick walls, small windows and rounded arches. This is a form of neo-gothic architecture which is characterized by large windows, ribbed vaults, pointed arches and flying buttresses (which aren’t pictured but can be seen on the outside supporting the central vault). This style specifically is called Southern Neo-Gothic. It came to prominence in protestant churches after the revolutionary war when ministers journeyed to Europe for further theological study. They viewed the intricate decoration of the Gothic cathedrals of Europe with extreme distaste, but brought back basic architectural elements to the South in an attempt to bring the air of European culture to their congregations. After the Great Fire of Charleston burnt down many of the city’s churches (including the original Cathedral, St. Finbar’s) during the Civil War, Southern Neo-Gothic was the style of choice for rebuilding most of the churches. While employed on a much smaller scale, I have seen many baptist churches built after this period which have strong elements of this Southern Neo-Gothic, albeit on a smaller scale. There have been multiple times when tourists on a church tour of the city walk into St. John the Baptist’s and think it was baptist until they either noticed the altar, stations of the cross, or the confessionals.

As to the Benedictines, they aren’t mendicant and had already developed a style of church which suited their needs. The Franciscans and Dominicans, however, quickly evolved into a mixed attitude about churches. Some wished to keep the mendicant style as shown in @babochka 's post (which is truly late romanesque architecture), but others saw the vast amounts of money which were being given to the Orders and wished to spend it on glorifying God by building him beautiful and lavish Churches. This latter mindset would again resurface in the Jesuit order.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

This style specifically is called Southern Neo-Gothic. It came to prominence in protestant churches after the revolutionary war when ministers journeyed to Europe for further theological study. They viewed the intricate decoration of the Gothic cathedrals of Europe with extreme distaste, but brought back basic architectural elements to the South in an attempt to bring the air of European culture to their congregations.

So, then, it is fair to say that these neo-gothic buildings are also suitable for Catholic Churches since the style is based on the gothic architecture found in European Catholic Churches?

 

[OraLabora]

Yes, you’re correct that it was varyingly and often overzealously interpreted locally. I believe there was some other document by the US bishops that I can’t find right now that had more specific guidelines.

Vatican II did issue “guidelines” in Sacrosanctum Concilium, in particular in Chapter VII. Such words as

1. Ordinaries, by the encouragement and favor they show to art which is truly sacred, should strive after noble beauty rather than mere sumptuous display. This principle is to apply also in the matter of sacred vestments and ornaments."

or

1. The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they may be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise they may create confusion among the Christian people and foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy.

(my emphasis)

According to the norm of Art. 22 of this Constitution, the territorial bodies of bishops are empowered to adapt such things to the needs and customs of their different regions; this applies especially to the materials and form of sacred furnishings and vestments.

So words like “moderate” and “noble beauty instead of sumptuous display” do give a flavour to the expectations of Vatican II. We are neither Orthodox nor Protestant and our liturgy is known for its simplicity and beauty when carefully done (yes even the EF is simpler than Orthodox liturgy).

With that there are also different traditions within the Church such as Monastic or Franciscan which have emphasized simplicity. We are not necessarily copying the Protestants with simple churches!!! the Benedictines have existed since 1000 years before the Reformation, and the Franciscans some 300 years. Many Benedictine churches I’ve visited have sparse adornments, but make beautiful use of natural light, in particular the one I myself attend weekly.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[CRM_Brother]

It would be suitable, but in all honesty, I would say that any style of cultural architecture could be suitable for Catholic Churches if done respectfully, due to the enculturation called for in the missionary spirit of the Church. Here in the Philippines, I have seen numerous churches based off of the kubo style of architecture (a traditional architectural style using bamboo and palm fronds). I have seen churches imitating the native american tepee and longhouse. I would even say that the ultra-modern churches which we may call airports or libraries would even have a place if done reverently, despite whether or not they appeal to our own sense of liturgical beauty. This enculturation of architecture is meant to call the people into something familiar as a tool to reveal to them the wonder of Christ, whatever the context.

National Shrine of St. Padre Pio, Sto. Tomas, Philipines
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

St. Kateri Tekawitha Catholic Church, Gesgapegiag, Quebec, Canada
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Church of the North American Martyrs, Oregon Corners, New York, USA
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[joeybaggz]

This style specifically is called Southern Neo-Gothic. It came to prominence in protestant churches after the revolutionary war when ministers journeyed to Europe for further theological study. They viewed the intricate decoration of the Gothic cathedrals of Europe with extreme distaste, but brought back basic architectural elements to the South in an attempt to bring the air of European culture to their congregations.

Interesting. I’m evidently not the church architecture expert you are. Kudos. But looking at the picture in light of your above quote, I can see where the Romanesque architecture of Europe influenced those people.

 

[DarkLight]

Even in american styles you can see how there’s different influences from the european ones. Our newest parish is built in what’s called “mission revival” style, which has a southwestern influence that was in turn influenced by both native and spanish styles. It’s a very clean look, with white walls and bare wood supports. You can also note that many american styles have historically been influenced by the greater abundance of local timber compared to stone.

 

[ShopRite]

What is the purpose of modern whitewashed parishes that have no color or flavor in them?

To receive the Eucharist and the other Sacraments. What did you think they were for?

 

[TexasLoneStar]

They were an attempt to make the Catholic Church seem more “humble” by destroying all traces of beauty.

In the Council of Trent the Council Fathers wrote in Canon 7

“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema.”

This faux-humility has taken a toll on the faith. Luckily the trend seems to be reversing itself, and many new churches being built are being built in a more in a style of a church and not an office cubicle.

But we also must keep in mind a lot of churches simply don’t have much money. Not every church can be a great European cathedral. So with this in mind, despite their ugliness, we must still realize that the primary role of a church is a place to offer the liturgies, sacraments, rites, and other devotions of the Catholic Christian faith. That’s what matters first and foremost… that said all these cubicle office looking churches could have been built to look like an actual church for the exact same price.

 

[Spyridon]

Can someone clarify why our religion of rich tradition has done this to itself? How do we fix it?

A misguided sense of wanting to “simplify” Churches. I think we fix it by bringing in people who are homeless, prostitutes, addicts, sinners, and don’t look good on the outside and packing beautiful ornate Churches full of them. Showing that sinners are welcome in beautiful and ornate buildings.