Catholic priest’s traditionalist changes face resistance from progressive parish in Cincinnati, Ohio. Media report,

[PaulinVA]

I think that some people, in some parishes, have sorta created their own “church”.

Yeah, It’s cool, it’s hip (in a 60’s kinda way), and it talks to some people. But, it’s not Catholic in the sense it follows the GIRM and “looks” Catholic.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Archdiocese when Archbishop Pilarczyk was the one in charge. “Progressive” parishes were the norm.

Pilarczyk was a centrist as were pretty much all of his predecessors. It’s Archbishop Schnurr that is different. If there are any parishes that you think are “progressive” that’s your opinion. But parishes generally stay the way there are. And most of them around the Cincinnati area would be best described as centrist.

If anything has changed recently it’s because Pope Benedict appointed conservative bishops. Most people I know in Cincinnati do not want a conservative bishop. They want a centrist one. Despite Archbishop Shnurr, Cincinnati is still centrist, and hopefully will stay that way because that’s the way it’s always been, and that’s what people want.

Awful architecture. Totally “progressive” in every way.

Well I don’t know what you’re used to but there is all kinds of church architecture in the archdiocese of Cincinnati. Pretty much everything built after WWll (not Vll) looks different from traditional church architecture. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Maybe it’s your opinion that the parish you went to was progressive in every way. But that is not how the city is as a whole. As I’ve already said, Cincinnati is very much centrist.

Cincinnati probably would have been considered as being ahead of the curve after WWll. Things in the Church changed considerably after the war and Cincinnati was an important city in those days as were most Great Lakes State’s cities. I can see how some areas of the country would consider a diocese like Cincinnati to be “progressive”. The reality is that it was ahead of most diocese in changing. For example, most people attribute architectural changes to be a post Vll thing, but it is more accurately described as a post war thing, before Vll.

 

[Anesti33]

For example, most people attribute architectural changes to be a post Vll thing, but it is more accurately described as a post war thing, before Vll.

I guess Hitler came through and tore out high altars, communion rails, and statues?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Pretty much everything built after WWll (not Vll) looks different from traditional church architecture.

You’re probably right about that, except for fairly recently.

There’s nothing wrong with that.

Other than ugliness, you’re right.

It does appear that “traditional themes” are coming back, but in new ways. Some of those “new traditional” churches and chapels do incorporate those themes, but are not simply copies of pre-WWII churches. Duncan Stroik’s work is an example. I had a friend who is now passed away, and I don’t think his work is online anymore. He specialized in “retrofitting” churches to incorporate traditional themes. Stroik also does “retrofits”.

https://www.stroik.com/portfolio

 

[whatistrue]

There is a big difference between architecture and interior design.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

1Lord1Faith:

Pretty much everything built after WWll (not Vll) looks different from traditional church architecture.

You’re probably right about that, except for fairly recently.

I’d say the most recent changes in architecture in my area are due to cost effective construction methods than anything else. Simple, easy too add on to if necessary…like a box. Some of the post war architecture in my area is quite complex and was probably costly to build. But the parishes in the 1950’s and 60’s had the money. Not so much anymore.

 

[MikeInVA]

One of the churches near me is a “half-round” design from 1962, so yes, the Church was already heading off the rails before V2.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it depends on the parish. I do know that some of the Duncan Stroik type architecture is no more expensive than more stripped-down architecture. It’s a matter of using new materials that look like old, more expensive stuff and using colors in innovative ways. I remember talking to one architect who told me he went to Italy just to figure out how to mix a particular shade of green that was used in the Renaissance without using the same (and expensive) ingredients they used.

I will agree that a lot of parishes don’t have the money they once had.

 

[PeterT]

One of the churches near me is a “half-round” design from 1962, so yes, the Church was already heading off the rails before V2.

Personally, I don’t mind those “half-round” modern Catholic churches where the interior, especially the sanctuary, altar, ambo and tabernacle were tastefully done. Those semi-round churches tend to be more intimate where everyone sits closer to the sanctuary, which I consider a good thing.

What I detest and abhor (and unfortunately was very common in the Catholic churches built in my area from the late 1960s through the 1990s) are those Catholic churches that simply looked like large auditoriums with chairs instead of pews and a movable altar so when the church is not being used as a church in can easily be used as an auditorium for movies, dances, etc…

When I’m in one of those churches, a thought that always runs through my mind is “is anything in here sacred?” I’m so happy that those type of “churches” are no longer being built with such frequency.

 

[MikeInVA]

This one is more of an amphitheater, including a balcony level and sloped floors. I suppose it’s better than a church in the round!