Church Architecture

[jwinch2]

i_am_a_Catholic:

You didn’t specify otherwise when you talked about “choosing a spirituality that works for oneself”. So I just made sure we are on the same page.

Yes he did. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

OraLabora:

But I have a right to seek out within the Church a spirituality that draws me closer to God and helps my inner conversion, which is precisely what I have done.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

I think this thread is a good example of what happens when we place too much stock in one man or woman’ teaching. We really need to be careful.

The truth of a claim is independent of the proponents. So I think what we need to be careful about is that we follow reason at all times.

I am a convert to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism, and I saw this kind of thing all the time. Church members would get caught up in the teachings of a teacher and try to convince everyone that this teacher had everything right.

Well, to be frank here, Protestantism is based on an illogical premise. One of the fundamental flaws of Protestantism is that it does not give any valid reason to believe Scripture itself. From this point on, there really is no reason to think whose interpretation of Scripture is valid or who should be trusted anyway.

So you are equating a faith that revolves around abandoning reason with someone who makes reasonable conclusions. That is not fair, is it?

One example is Bill Gothard, whose adherents were (and still are) called “Gothardites.” There were people in my childhood church who were convinced that this man was Jesus’ personal best pal, and they were constantly bringing up his teachings and contradicting our pastor. Some of Gothard’s teachings are quite controversial; e.g., the “Chain of Command.”

Eventually the Gothardites went too far and confronted a teenaged girl (one of my best friends), causing a huge conflict in her family which led the girls’ parents to distrust the church and try to pull their daughter out of it. (I’m greatly simplifying this.) Our pastor stepped in and told them to knock it off, stop being divisive, or leave the church.

Once again, the real problem here is that there is no way to evaluate whether Gothard is actually correct or incorrect. In a system where everything is up to personal inspiration, this is the by product.

In fact, one could argue that this is what happens when we follow what you are advocating i.e. subjectivity. Once we say that something is just their personal preference or taste, or must cater to ones personal needs, we start betraying the truth.

I think that the OP’s heart is in the right place and I appreciate his enthusiasm about the subject, but I hope that he will take a step back and read many different writings about Catholic church architecture by many different teachers, and strive to seek out the guidance of his own pastor and bishop in this subject. The teacher that he is promoting is just ONE teacher, and although he is very interesting, he is certainly not infallible.

I do not know why there is such a stress on infallibility here. Infallibility is necessary when we speak of matters of faith. As long as the conclusions logically follow from what is already infallibly defined or from things outside of faith (like sciences, history, mathematics), it is as true as any infallible statement.

It is so important to stay balanced and not go off on a tangent. A good clue is when everyone (Christians) disagrees with you–that should tell you that perhaps the problem is with you, not everyone else. Occasionally, one lone person is right and everyone else is wrong (e.g., St. Catherine of Sienna). But more often that not, the ayes have it, and the one lone “nay” is out in left field somewhere and needs to come home and get some coaching.

Rather, everyone must evaluate the logic behind their position. If ones position is not backed by reason, then they must abandon it. It doesn’t matter if that is what they NEED.

The biggest issue on this thread is that people want the church to be something according to their need. One person wants it to be a place to rest (maybe we should put beds in there). Another person wants it to be a bland so that its not distracting etc etc. You are all saying what you WANT.

Perhaps it is time to take a step back and ask what should IT BE. Because the definition of a church is NOT “what people want it to be for their spiritual life”.

It’s also very important to be careful not to create a division in your parish and in your circle of Catholic friends and acquaintances. The Bible tells us to avoid “factiousness.”

If someone is denying the truth to hold on to their own belief that is not backed by reason, then that person is responsible for causing the break. Not the person who is proclaiming the truth, correct?

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

Yes he did. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

Well, seems like you are a bit angry here. It was ‘pointed out once’. Not repeatedly.

But I actually didn’t think that statement is specific either. I saw it as “while being within the church I can pursue any spirituality I like”. So I can say I am Catholic but I like to pray in new age fashion etc. But in any case, I only made sure we are on the same page in my reply to her. I also made a point through it about how things need to express the TRUTH of what it is.

So you and Ora are both taking this too personally and missing what is being said.

I also think that Ora can defend herself here. No need for you to barge in to the conversation, right?

 

[TimothyH]

Look at that!

The used all they had, and probably build the whole thing by hand. They probably chopped the trees and sawed them into plankings to make the pewes, and lifted the stones and mortar by hand.

I actually think about the great Cathedrals of the middle ages, how some guy climbed up 150 feet in the cold and rain to carve an angel at the top of some buttress that no one but God would ever see. Nobody would see that angel, but there that guy was, doing it for God.

To me the beauty goes deeper than what my eyes see. Anyone can start a trust, raise funds, hire a prestigious architect and have an amazing structure built. Don’t get me wrong - there are many beautiful Churches built that way. But there is something to be said about those who put love into it, and that to me adds unspeakable beauty to a structure.

That some guy walked through the hills in that picture, picking out the stones and carrying them to the worksite, and that someone probably mixed mortar by hand for all those stones, all for the glory of God, adds tremendous beauty to it.

To me that Church is just as beatiful as La Sagrada Familia, in its own way.

-Tim-

@i_am_a_catholic: An architect could follow all the rules that McNamara lays out and still come up with an ugly kitschy building with vapid statues and lurid soppy art on the walls.

I’ve seen more than my fair share of horrible Catholic art and statues since a lot of the churches in England were built in the late Victorian era and then in the 1950’s (a kind of Pius XII brutalism).

A paint by numbers picture is not a work of art!

Not Catholic (Scottish protestant) but beautiful.

http://www.trossachs.co.za/images/Trossachs-Stone-Chapel-1.jpg

This is the outside:
http://www.trossachs.co.za/images/Trossachs-Stone-Chapel.jpg

 

[TimothyH]

Speaking of La Sagrada…

http://www.sagradafamilia.cat/imgs/imgs_inst/galeria/instit1.jpg

More…

-Tim-

 

[jwinch2]

Well, seems like you are a bit angry here. It was ‘pointed out once’. Not repeatedly.

No, it was pointed out three separate times.

But I actually didn’t think that statement is specific either. I saw it as “while being within the church I can pursue any spirituality I like”. So I can say I am Catholic but I like to pray in new age fashion etc. But in any case, I only made sure we are on the same page in my reply to her. I also made a point through it about how things need to express the TRUTH of what it is.

That is not what it says at all. It says that one is free to seek out spiritualities within the Church. Even if you were unsure, the polite thing to do would have been to ask for clarification instead of making assumptions.

So you and Ora are both taking this too personally and missing what is being said.

No one is missing what is said. What is missing is the fact that people do not agree with you. You have been asked more than once to provide evidence of authoritative teaching which gives us a set of objective criteria to judge whether or not a church building is or is not acceptable for its purpose. You have not done so. What you have done instead is prop up one theologian’s opinion, which you happen to like, as some sort of gold standard and, in the process, you have disparaged other people to include consecrated religious with a 1500 year old Tradition in the Catholic Church.

I also think that Ora can defend herself here. No need for you to barge in to the conversation, right?

If you want to have a private conversation, I suggest employing the use of PM’s or e-mails. However, you chose to make your comments in public. As such, you are going to get a public response, particularly when you make uncharitable and inaccurate statements regarding one of the forums long time and well respected members.

 

[clem456]

Once again, the real problem here is that there is no way to evaluate whether Gothard is actually correct or incorrect. In a system where everything is up to personal inspiration, this is the by product.

The irony is just killing me.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

No, it was pointed out three separate times.

Right. So when did this become a discussion on that topic anyway? I only mentioned it to explain a point. Is it possible that you did not even consider that?

That is not what it says at all. It says that one is free to seek out spiritualities within the Church. Even if you were unsure, the polite thing to do would have been to ask for clarification instead of making assumptions.

Well read again. I think I made it very clear why I was bringing up the case of spiritualities. Now if it wasnt clear for you, you should have asked

No one is missing what is said. What is missing is the fact that people do not agree with you. You have been asked more than once to provide evidence of authoritative teaching which gives us a set of objective criteria to judge whether or not a church building is or is not acceptable for its purpose. You have not done so. What you have done instead is prop up one theologian’s opinion, which you happen to like, as some sort of gold standard and, in the process, you have disparaged other people to include consecrated religious with a 1500 year old Tradition in the Catholic Church.
If you want to have a private conversation, I suggest employing the use of PM’s or e-mails. However, you chose to make your comments in public. As such, you are going to get a public response, particularly when you make uncharitable and inaccurate statements regarding one of the forums long time and well respected members.

I showed you why not everything needs to be an infallible statement. There is something known as Reason in this world and we would all do well to remember that in a discussion. If someones position is unreasonable, it doesn’t take an infallible statement to prove that.

I think you need to understand that first my friend. One cannot simply rely on unreasonable positions just because they find it useful/satisfies their need/ or is historical. Things must make sense.

If a certain tradition is two millenniums old but doesn’t express what a church should look like, then it is a failure as a Church. You can call it meditation hall or something like that instead. This is an objective statement.

What you and some people on this forum want to have is a church that matches their needs. That is not what a Church is. There is a specific ontology behind what a church should be. If it is not met, then that is not a church. If it is not met adequately, then it is not as beautiful. This is just how it works in the world of reason.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

The irony is just killing me.

Good

 

[OraLabora]

The truth of a claim is independent of the proponents. So I think what we need to be careful about is that we follow reason at all times.

Well, to be frank here, Protestantism is based on an illogical premise. One of the fundamental flaws of Protestantism is that it does not give any valid reason to believe Scripture itself. From this point on, there really is no reason to think whose interpretation of Scripture is valid or who should be trusted anyway.

So you are equating a faith that revolves around abandoning reason with someone who makes reasonable conclusions. That is not fair, is it?

Once again, the real problem here is that there is no way to evaluate whether Gothard is actually correct or incorrect. In a system where everything is up to personal inspiration, this is the by product.

In fact, one could argue that this is what happens when we follow what you are advocating i.e. subjectivity. Once we say that something is just their personal preference or taste, or must cater to ones personal needs, we start betraying the truth.

I do not know why there is such a stress on infallibility here. Infallibility is necessary when we speak of matters of faith. As long as the conclusions logically follow from what is already infallibly defined or from things outside of faith (like sciences, history, mathematics), it is as true as any infallible statement.

Rather, everyone must evaluate the logic behind their position. If ones position is not backed by reason, then they must abandon it. It doesn’t matter if that is what they NEED.

The biggest issue on this thread is that people want the church to be something according to their need. One person wants it to be a place to rest (maybe we should put beds in there). Another person wants it to be a bland so that its not distracting etc etc. You are all saying what you WANT.

Perhaps it is time to take a step back and ask what should IT BE. Because the definition of a church is NOT “what people want it to be for their spiritual life”.

If someone is denying the truth to hold on to their own belief that is not backed by reason, then that person is responsible for causing the break. Not the person who is proclaiming the truth, correct?

None of these quotes you attributed to me were posted by me. For the record I am a cradle Catholic.

I only made sure we are on the same page in my reply to her.

I am not a “her”, I am a male.

I think I made it very clear why these churches you presented like in the OP are inferior to what a true chrurch should look like. NOTE: I did not say they are unacceptable. Just inferior in beauty.

As I have repeated countless times, a church must express spiritual realities, including that of heaven. The churches, like in the OP, are simply bland places. There is not much expression of spiritual truths in those churches. That is an objective assessment.

For the Nth time, it is a MONASTIC church. A bare church is part of the MONASTIC tradition. The bareness of a monastic church is an integral part of its BEAUTY. It has been that way for 1500 years.

That expresses a TRUTH, the truth of stripping away all of the essentials necessary to assent to giving your life to God, living under a monastic rule and under an abbot.

Beauty is not just in intricate details.

If that’s your only criteria for slamming the lack of “beauty” of a monastic chapel, then you are 100% ignorant of monastic tradition, the beauty of that tradition, its contribution to the Church, and its architecture designed to strip us down to our essentials.

Instead of blathering on with this nonsense, try to study a bit more about monastic tradition and its contribution to art and architecture in the spirit of its charism.

It might broaden your outlook a bit.

There’s a word for people who attach far too much importance to what an individual says (including in the Church), it’s called turning him into a sort of guru. It is a very dangerous tendency, I have seen it play havoc in monastic communities and elsewhere.

 

[jwinch2]

None of these quotes you attributed to me were posted by me. For the record I am a cradle Catholic.

I am not a “her”, I am a male.

Not to mention, there is a significant difference between teaching authoritatively and teaching infallibly. At no time, have I suggested that I am asking for an infallible statement. What I am asking for is an authoritative statement. Meaning, someone besides Dr. McNamara or a person no one knows on a forum stating that a Church must meet certain criteria to be an “acceptable” Church. My Bishop can teach authoritatively within my diocese because he has been given that level of authority. However, he cannot teach authoritatively outside of his diocese nor can he teach infallibly, and has little influence and even less real authority over the actions of exempt religious communities.

Dr. McNamara holds no authority to teach in any sort of binding capacity at all. Even were his bishop inclined to accept his ideas and promulgate them, they would only be authoritative within his specific diocese. What would be unreasonable would be for me or anyone else to assign weight to a position that it does not warrant.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

When other posters tell you to back down, that you’re being rude, that you’re over doing it, that you’re derailing a thread, that you’re not paying attention, the polite thing to do is what we would do if we were having a conversation in person. One steps back and drops the subject.

 

[Stylites]

The New Camaldoli Hermitage in Big Sur . . .



http://blog.michellekaufmann.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/monks.jpg

 

[OraLabora]

I think everyone agrees that there is a place for all architecture, both modern or ancient, eastern or Western.

The important point here is that there are certain unchanging aspects about what it means for a Church to be a Church. That cannot change with time and these standards must be adhered to in all generations, times and places. The same standards would provide for the scale of measuring the relative beauty between churches.

It occurs to me that what you are proposing are standards for content, not for beauty.

Content does not equal beauty. A church can have all the necessary content, but be ugly. Similarly, a plain church in its proper setting can be very beautiful.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

One can intellectualise this issue all one wants: e.g. “What is a Catholic church reeeaally? Define your terms, sir!” etc. However, the practical result of modernism (the fixation with the new), on the ground, is spaceship churches.

They’re just-about-tolerable for well-formed Catholics but with them an opportunity has been missed to teach the ignorant, of which there are now many. The constant refrain on this forum is “we need more cathechesis” but the stripping out of things which might do that is stoutly defended!

Take a spaceship church PLUS a progressive priest at Mass and you can stand back mentally and ask “What’s Catholic about this scene?”. If the answer is “The consecration”, well that’s a sad state of affairs.
**
Signs and symbols are more readily absorbed than words.** Want to teach people Catholicism? Don’t yak at them: demonstrate it!

 

[jwinch2]

One can intellectualise this issue all one wants: e.g. “What is a Catholic church reeeaally? Define your terms, sir!” etc. However, the practical result of modernism (the fixation with the new), on the ground, is spaceship churches.

They’re just-about-tolerable for well-formed Catholics but with them an opportunity has been missed to teach the ignorant, of which there are now many. The constant refrain on this forum is “we need more cathechesis” but the stripping out of things which might do that is stoutly defended!

Take a spaceship church PLUS a progressive priest at Mass and you can stand back mentally and ask “What’s Catholic about this scene?”. If the answer is “The consecration”, well that’s a sad state of affairs.
**
Signs and symbols are more readily absorbed than words.** Want to teach people Catholicism? Don’t yak at them: demonstrate it!

I agree with virtually all of this. My concern is the suggestion that there is a standard of criteria which has been defined allowing us to evaluate Church buildings as acceptable or otherwise. This is a particular problem when we start talking about churches that were not designed with the laity in mind but instead for those who have consecrated their entire lives to Christ and thus, are being formed and catechized on a constant basis. Their needs differ significantly from the average parish going, Mass on Sunday, Catholic and I it is important to draw that distinction in my opinion.

Having said all of that, I much prefer older style church structures or at least, newer ones which seek to capture that same idea. The pictures I posted early in this thread of St. John Newman parish in Knoxville, TN are a good example of how I believe this can be done. If it were up to me to design a parish, the one I attend now which was built at the same time, would look very similar.

In addition, my preference would be to have a solemn sung Mass in the OF every Sunday and certainly on feast days or Holy Days of Obligation. Part of what first caught my attention regarding Benedictine Spirituality was a beautiful old basilica, but more importantly, the liturgy. But, I also need to recognize that this is not within the tradition of some religious institutes and bow to their decisions on that issue.

 

[YoungTradCath]

One can intellectualise this issue all one wants: e.g. “What is a Catholic church reeeaally? Define your terms, sir!” etc. However, the practical result of modernism (the fixation with the new), on the ground, is spaceship churches.

They’re just-about-tolerable for well-formed Catholics but with them an opportunity has been missed to teach the ignorant, of which there are now many. The constant refrain on this forum is “we need more cathechesis” but the stripping out of things which might do that is stoutly defended!

Take a spaceship church PLUS a progressive priest at Mass and you can stand back mentally and ask “What’s Catholic about this scene?”. If the answer is “The consecration”, well that’s a sad state of affairs.
**
Signs and symbols are more readily absorbed than words.** Want to teach people Catholicism? Don’t yak at them: demonstrate it!

This this this this this this this this this.

 

[OraLabora]

The truth of a claim is independent of the proponents. So I think what we need to be careful about is that we follow reason at all times.

Well, to be frank here, Protestantism is based on an illogical premise. One of the fundamental flaws of Protestantism is that it does not give any valid reason to believe Scripture itself. From this point on, there really is no reason to think whose interpretation of Scripture is valid or who should be trusted anyway.

So you are equating a faith that revolves around abandoning reason with someone who makes reasonable conclusions. That is not fair, is it?

Once again, the real problem here is that there is no way to evaluate whether Gothard is actually correct or incorrect. In a system where everything is up to personal inspiration, this is the by product.

In fact, one could argue that this is what happens when we follow what you are advocating i.e. subjectivity. Once we say that something is just their personal preference or taste, or must cater to ones personal needs, we start betraying the truth.

I do not know why there is such a stress on infallibility here. Infallibility is necessary when we speak of matters of faith. As long as the conclusions logically follow from what is already infallibly defined or from things outside of faith (like sciences, history, mathematics), it is as true as any infallible statement.

Rather, everyone must evaluate the logic behind their position. If ones position is not backed by reason, then they must abandon it. It doesn’t matter if that is what they NEED.

The biggest issue on this thread is that people want the church to be something according to their need. One person wants it to be a place to rest (maybe we should put beds in there). Another person wants it to be a bland so that its not distracting etc etc. You are all saying what you WANT.

Perhaps it is time to take a step back and ask what should IT BE. Because the definition of a church is NOT “what people want it to be for their spiritual life”.

If someone is denying the truth to hold on to their own belief that is not backed by reason, then that person is responsible for causing the break. Not the person who is proclaiming the truth, correct?

Since my response appears to have been deleted, without getting into the argument I would just like to make clear three things: none of the quotes attributed to me above were in fact written by me, they are from Cat’s post.

Secondly, I am not a convert from Protestantism, I am a cradle Catholic.

Lastly, I am a “he”, not a “she”.

Just to set the record straight.

 

[OraLabora]

My concern is the suggestion that there is a standard of criteria which has been defined allowing us to evaluate Church buildings as acceptable or otherwise. This is a particular problem when we start talking about churches that were not designed with the laity in mind but instead for those who have consecrated their entire lives to Christ and thus, are being formed and catechized on a constant basis. Their needs differ significantly from the average parish going, Mass on Sunday, Catholic and I it is important to draw that distinction in my opinion.

I agree completely and this is what I had been trying to say. You can’t judge a monastery’s church by the same standards as a parish church. Just as a simple example you won’t find a baptismal font in a monastery church. Monasteries don’t usually perform baptisms.

There is also the spirit of poverty that rules that a monastery church should be very sparsely decorated. Like in many areas there have been slow accretions over time and many monastery churches have strayed from this rule. I think the goal of Vatican II to have monasteries revert to their traditions has resulted in newer monastery churches returning to their order’s minimalist traditions. Of course the prohibitive cost of building a really fancy church these days is no doubt also a motivating factor, but considering that monasteries must for the most part finance themselves, they can be forgiven for trying to save costs without losing an eye for simple beauty.

Given my own need to shake off the yoke of excessive materialism, seeing beauty in simplicity has been very helpful for my own spiritual conversion.