Bringing back beauty: The new traditional Catholic churches of the U.S

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can believe it. Fritella’s was my favorite, and of course, it’s Italian.
 
giuseppe96 said:
I refer to these post-modern nightmares. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
This photo I recognize as the Cathedral of our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, CA.

I must admit that when I first saw the photos, I made a comment similar to yours.

But then CAF member @christofirst, who lives in the Los Angeles area, pointed out that this cathedral offers something desperately needed in that congested area – space.

I was in Los Angeles this past June and slowly passed by the cathedral in bumper-to-bumper traffic. It sits high above one side of the highway, and my son and I could see the glass etchings of angels in the glass breezeway on one side of the cathedral courtyard. I must admit, my heart was moved by the sight of those angels while stuck on the highway.

A couple days later, my mom and I visited the cathedral, and received a tour of that holy place from someone who appreciates its beauty. After fighting traffic to get there, it was indeed a respite to be in an open and airy space, with so few visual distractions.

And what most people never see when doing a google search for “post-modern nightmare” churches, is the extremely traditional mausoleum beneath the cathedral. Silent, with stain glass windows and white marble, a perfect place to walk while praying the rosary (so I’ve been told by one who knows) – and blessed be God, they have the relics of St Vibiana down there!

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

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
While we were visiting, we saw the long line of people waiting for mid-day confession. 😇

Honestly, I ate a large slice of humble pie in my experience of this “post-modern nightmare.” The space may not be to everyone’s liking, but believe it or not, there are some people who don’t particularly care for baroque architecture. Personally, even with tour groups coming and going, I could’ve spent an hour just sitting in that space conversing with Our Lord.

I think what’s most important is not what the space looks like, but the holy sacraments that take place in these spaces, and the piety of the people who frequent the sacraments.

Just my two cents.
 
They could’ve made a church that was both beautiful and spacious. New York is WAY more congested than LA, and they didn’t turn St Patrick’s into a mausoleum. If they wanted a more ‘modern and spacious’ church, they could’ve used inspiration from the Metropolitan Cathedral in Liverpool England, or the National Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, MI. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
giuseppe96 said:
They could’ve made a church that was both beautiful and spacious.
Click to expand...
🤨 Actually, I found the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels to be both beautiful and spacious.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
 
giuseppe96 said:
They could’ve made a church that was both beautiful and spacious. New York is WAY more congested than LA, and they didn’t turn St Patrick’s into a mausoleum
Click to expand...
St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City was built in the country, 3 miles out of town when construction started.
 
There sure is a variety of tastes in architecture. I guess in Heaven we can ask Jesus which he liked best, if we still care.
 
I just wish it were recognizable as a church. If it didn’t have the organ and altar, I’d think it was a concert hall or a public building.
 
That’s the problem.

Get the book Ugly As Sin or take a look on amazon.
 
giuseppe96 said:
I just wish it were recognizable as a church. If it didn’t have the organ and altar, I’d think it was a concert hall or a public building.
Click to expand...
Point taken, as most people in the US expect churches to have a certain look to them.

But the crosses on the outside of the building, the rows of bells, the angel etchings – they do give a slight clue, I think, that this building might be a church.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Beauty is subjective. There are few more spiritually beautiful places than the Santuario de Chimayo in New Mexico. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
No, it’s not. Beauty has certain standards. As an artist, I know how images can affect people. The pre-1970s Churches were designed to raise the mind and spirit toward worship. The ugly Churches distort that. Human beings haven’t change much in 2,000 years. The standards are there for a reason.

“Not content to limit himself to theory, Rose in Ugly as Sin takes you on a revealing tour through a traditional church and a modern church. He shows conclusively how the traditional church communicates the Faith, while the modern one simply doesn t. In the process, he ll give you a renewed love and gratitude for the gift of faith that is your traditional church – plus a keener sense of just what s wrong with modern churches that look like anything but churches. Rose provides you with solid arguments (as easy to explain as they are hard to refute!) and practical tools that you can use to reverse the dangerous trend toward desacralized churches – and to make our churches once again into magnificent Houses of God!”
 
edwest said:
No, it’s not. Beauty has certain standards. As an artist, I know how images can affect people. The pre-1970s Churches were designed to raise the mind and spirit toward worship. The ugly Churches distort that. Human beings haven’t change much in 2,000 years. The standards are there for a reason.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I’ve read Rose’s book. Aesthetics actually affect how people worship. I also tend to view time as being a good measuring stick. Baroque, Neo Classical, Byzantine, or even the old missions out west don’t all look the same, but they stand the test of time and people still come to see them for their beauty. People come to see the older churches here in Europe. The newer churches are sterile and depressing. People have no interest preserving them when they need renovating, why would they? They end up looking dated and in need of replacing. There is nothing timeless about them.
 
Last edited:
Hubby does not care for “modern” style churches. He refers to the “renovations” carried out on many traditional churches as “wreckovations” 😄

We live in Canada but have visited Europe in the past (Hubby is actually a British ex-pat and emigrated from England as an adult). In his hometown there is a church that was built in the 12th century. Sadly it is now an Anglican church but it’s very beautiful.
 
I’m going to repost another quote I put on a related thread.
Do you think beautiful and ornate buildings still inspire people, Europe has many yet it seems their churches are reduced to becoming virtual museums and remnants of what once was. If it doesn’t work in Europe (where less than 10% (if even that) practice regularly, how is it to be trusted to work elsewhere or am I extrapolating wildly and not taking into account other factors?
Click to expand...
And this is for you? No offense but wouldn’t your requirement make it difficult for Roman Catholic Churches to be built with cultural aesthetics and nuances such as incorporating local traditional styles like this convent incorporating Japanese/Asian influences? Or could you see this as an opportunity for integration?
 
a recently remodeled (at great cost) catholic parish church near me;

i won’t express my opinion of what the church “used to look like” because that would be disrespectful
 
This is true inculturation–we don’t think of inculturation as something for the long Christian west, but it is important. Let me explain.

Many cultures had or have customs, architecture, vestments, and objects associated with the sacred and holy that were deeply ingrained in the consciousness of the culture–when these these things were present, the people immediately recognized sacredness.

To help such cultures recognize sacredness in Christianity, the Church in the past often adapted such architecture, vestements, and other things that said to the culture loud and clear “this is sacred” (as far as was possible without falling into superstition or syncretism).

On the other hand, the opposite happened in the West in recent decades–we replaced things the culture has long held to signify sacredness and Catholicism generally with things from the culture that do not have such significance. We engaged in unculturation instead of inculturation.

Whether we subjectively like these traditional architectural styles or not, the fact remains that they are instantly recognizeable to all as a Catholic space where something special, and sacred happens.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top