Church Architecture

[M-Dent]

And that’s the beauty of Catholicism… it embraces all of those traditions and charisms under a single roof rather than forcing a split into a new Church. So in fact neither you, nor I, am correct. I have migrated to a spirituality that works for me, and you, towards one that works for you.

This does sound similar to our Holy Fathers advice. Though I edited out parts where he mentions some architectural types – since it wasn’t the gist of his point. The point is that art can aid us in prayer. It often helps me calm to be in the correct mindset.

(And I could sit in that Church in Montserrat for hours contemplating in prayer)

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In this period I have recalled several times the need for every Christian, in the midst of the many occupations that fill our days, to find time for God and for prayer. The Lord himself gives us many opportunities to remember him. Today I would like to reflect briefly on one of these channels that can lead to God and can also be of help in the encounter with him. It is the way of artistic expression, part of that “via pulchritudinis” — the “way of beauty”, of which I have spoken several times and whose deepest meaning must be recovered by men and women today.

It may have happened on some occasion that you paused before a sculpture, a picture, a few verses of a poem or a piece of music that you found deeply moving, that gave you a sense of joy, a clear perception, that is, that what you beheld was not only matter, a piece of marble or bronze, a painted canvas, a collection of letters or an accumulation of sounds, but something greater, something that “speaks”, that can touch the heart, communicate a message, uplift the mind.

A work of art is a product of the creative capacity of the human being who in questioning visible reality, seeks to discover its deep meaning and to communicate it through the language of forms, colour and sound. Art is able to manifest and make visible the human need to surpass the visible, it expresses the thirst and the quest for the infinite.

Indeed it resembles a door open on to the infinite, on to a beauty and a truth that go beyond the daily routine. And a work of art can open the eyes of the mind and of the heart, impelling us upward.

---

Dear friends, I ask you to rediscover the importance of this path also for prayer, for our living relationship with God. Towns and villages throughout the world contain treasures of art that express faith and beckon to us to return to our relationship with God. May the visits to places filled with art, then, not only be opportunities for cultural enrichment — that too — but may they become above all moments of grace, incentives to strengthen our bond and our dialogue with the Lord so that — in switching from simple external reality to the more profound reality it expresses — we may pause to contemplate the ray of beauty that strikes us to the quick, that almost “wounds” us, and that invites us to rise toward God.

I end with a prayer from a Psalm, Psalm 27[26]: “One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and contemplate his temple” (v. 4).

Let us hope that the Lord will help us to contemplate his beauty, both in nature and in works of art, so that we, moved by the light that shines from his face, may be a light for our neighbour. Many thanks

GENERAL AUDIENCE
Castel Gandolfo
Wednesday, 31 August 2011

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

I got through more than half the video but stopped. To be honest I found it a bit tedious. It’s one man’s opinion and attempt at setting objective standards, but he seems to get into a level of detail that is beyond what the average person in the pews will notice or care about.

And with respect, getting all those details “right” IMHO isn’t what makes a place seem holy. For me they are in fact a distraction. So again we get down to what I said at the start, this is a very subjective issue. And you can’t divorce the emotional response from the supposedly “objective” elements that Dr. McNamara mentions in his video.

As a student of Benedictine spirituality, I find overly-decorated churches, even older traditional ones, often a distraction that prevents me from entering into the right contemplative mindset. The fact that many monastic churches avoid those distractions makes me suppose that I might not be alone in feeling this way.

It’s hard to describe the feeling… but I would say that the best description is that the church imparts a sense of stillness, a place that calms, soothes, seems safe, and gives us a sense of God’s embrace. Many of the artistic depictions in the video are supposed to give us a sense of being in heaven; but in fact to me they are simply man’s depiction of what his imagination thinks heaven might look like. The fact is that we do not know. God is so much greater, and heaven more beautiful than the limits of our earthly depictions. These depictions send my gaze outwards, instead of focusing it inwards, and inwards is where true conversion exists and where, on this mortal coil, we can meet and sense God at work in us.

A couple of years ago, I had the good fortune of visiting the monastery at Montserrat, near Barcelona. The monastery is a national monument; they have a world-famous boy’s choir and it is a major tourist destination. Watching the monks perform the liturgy I felt profoundly sorry for them, it was like watching goldfish in an aquarium, they were on display. I wondered how that fit with Benedictine spirituality. I was with a group of oblates and we were invited into the monastic enclosure. There was a palpable sense of stillness and peace, and I wasn’t the only one that felt it. The decor was plain and simple. I understood then how the monks “survived”. They created the necessary stillness within their enclosure. For a monk, that sense of stillness of the place contributes to the stillness of the soul, a deep requirement for the vow of obedience, stability and inner conversion.

I find it hard to worship in a church that doesn’t capture that sense of stillness, of deep silence, and of minimal distraction. Most parish churches no matter how beautiful take it down a notch, and the more ornate the church the less at ease I am.

On that same trip I visited a monastery in France, that had its conventual chapel temporarily moved to the old chapter room while the abbey church was undergoing renovations.

Here, in Montserrat, I could not get settled down at Mass or the Offices:

Yet here at the temporary abbey chapel, I felt that stillness that characterizes an abbey church:

Another church, very ancient and simple (and no longer Catholic) that did give me that sense of stillness and separation from the worldly (and it’s a parish church too…)

Getting back to the Cistercian church in the OP, two people here have said they dislike it, one purportedly a student of Dr. McNamara’s viewpoint. An architect loved it. Presumably, for the monks, it works for them. It matches their spirituality and fits their liturgy.

So in a sense I guess I’m saying that I disagree with you; church architecture is subjective beyond having the basic form of a church (I’m not talking about a glorified hotel conference room-style church here) and for me the only thing required of a church, architecturally, is harmony and keeping the basic form and layout of a church (sanctuary, choir, nave, etc.); but when you get down to the level of detail that Dr. McNamara does… well it makes for interesting study, but is thoroughly subjective in its ability to instill a sense of the presence of God in someone… simply because it would appear it does in you, and that it has the complete opposite effect in me, because no doubt we are attached to different traditions within the same Church.

And that’s the beauty of Catholicism… it embraces all of those traditions and charisms under a single roof rather than forcing a split into a new Church. So in fact neither you, nor I, am correct. I have migrated to a spirituality that works for me, and you, towards one that works for you. This rather makes arguing the issue pointless. We can only state what moves us and why. It is therefore subjective.

What can I say. You seem to want the church to conform to what YOU want it to be. Unfortunately, that is not what Church is about. Also, unless your monk friend is making a judgement based on objective standards, then your monk friends opinion is not worth believing anyway.

A church has to satisfy church-ness. Not the “what Ora wants the Church to be”. Until you realize this, you will just be someone who arbitrarily decides what is to your liking.

Also worth keeping in mind is that Catholicism accepts all traditions as long as they are compatible with what it expresses. The WHAT it expresses is constant throughout every tradition. The same goes for a church. If a church does not express the Church-ness, it is not acceptable. So your analogy with traditions is flawed I am afraid.

At best, we can only say that the churches you like are not that beautiful because your taste is objectively not that great. You just haven’t learnt how to appreciate the beauty of certain things. There is no shame in that. One cannot appreciate the beauty of something unless they study it.

But what you want to do now is state that everyone else should simply agree that beauty is subjective because you don’t know how to appreciate what is actually good about something. Don’t you think that is unfair?

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

This does sound similar to our Holy Fathers advice. Though I edited out parts where he mentions some architectural types – since it wasn’t the gist of his point. The point is that art can aid us in prayer. It often helps me calm to be in the correct mindset.

(And I could sit in that Church in Montserrat for hours contemplating in prayer)

I am not entirely sure how this is connected. The Holy Father seems to be stressing the importance of prayer. Not the architecture of the Church. I can pray in my bedroom, but I can’t celebrate mass in it.

 

[OraLabora]

What can I say. You seem to want the church to conform to what YOU want it to be. Unfortunately, that is not what Church is about. Also, unless your monk friend is making a judgement based on objective standards, then your monk friends opinion is not worth believing anyway.

A church has to satisfy church-ness. Not the “what Ora wants the Church to be”. Until you realize this, you will just be someone who arbitrarily decides what is to your liking.

Also worth keeping in mind is that Catholicism accepts all traditions as long as they are compatible with what it expresses. The WHAT it expresses is constant throughout every tradition. The same goes for a church. If a church does not express the Church-ness, it is not acceptable. So your analogy with traditions is flawed I am afraid.

At best, we can only say that the churches you like are not that beautiful because your taste is objectively not that great. You just haven’t learnt how to appreciate the beauty of certain things. There is no shame in that. One cannot appreciate the beauty of something unless they study it.

But what you want to do now is state that everyone else should simply agree that beauty is subjective because you don’t know how to appreciate what is actually good about something. Don’t you think that is unfair?

Try re-writing this without the ad hominem comments.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

Try re-writing this without the ad hominem comments.

But you said it yourself. You just cannot appreciate those nuances in Church architecture

Your entire premise is that you don’t understand why its critical so lets just allow anything that satisfies your subjective taste. Because if you do say there is nothing objective, then its just a matter of your taste.

So no, it doesn’t need rewriting. It was simply stating your position, no?

 

[jwinch2]

What can I say. You seem to want the church to conform to what YOU want it to be. Unfortunately, that is not what Church is about. Also, unless your monk friend is making a judgement based on objective standards, then your monk friends opinion is not worth believing anyway.

That whole statement consists of highly unfair and inaccurate characterizations. Your second sentence in particular is very rude and frankly, inappropriate.

A church has to satisfy church-ness. Not the “what Ora wants the Church to be”. Until you realize this, you will just be someone who arbitrarily decides what is to your liking.

Again, this is your opinion as there is no objective standard for the Church. Also, your statement is again unfair. He placed examples of Churches that are already in existence, some of them ancient, and stated a preference.

Also worth keeping in mind is that Catholicism accepts all traditions as long as they are compatible with what it expresses. The WHAT it expresses is constant throughout every tradition. The same goes for a church. If a church does not express the Church-ness, it is not acceptable. So your analogy with traditions is flawed I am afraid.

I much prefer traditional Church design myself and am find it easy enough to pray in Churches which are a bit busier. Be that as it may, you are assigning weight to one theologian’s opinion which is not there. Your entire premise about what is and is not acceptable seems to be based on the opinion of one theologian whom, however learned, the last time I checked was not protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Unless you are able to supply something by someone who actually has the ability to teach authoritatively in the Catholic Church, there seems to be NO objective standard which has been established for what a Church building should look like.

Even if there were, religious would more than likely be exempt from whatever standards were developed. They have always been free to live their lives and manage their affairs in the way that best matches their charism and spirituality. That isn’t likely to change, ever.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Instead we build cloisters that look like this:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/CloitreHanganu.jpg

or like this:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/Abbaye-Val-Notre-Dame.jpg

Yes. I saw a picture of architecture like that in the last seminary in Scotland. It’s closed now.

Minimalism might work for monastics but for the laity, it’s just mean.

When are Catholics going to wake up to how they have been hoodwinked? You have a pared-down liturgy in a bare Church with laity in street clothes in the sanctuary with the altar replaced by a table and some childish hymns …

And it’s an ‘improvement’!

 

[OraLabora]

But you said it yourself. You just cannot appreciate those nuances in Church architecture

Your entire premise is that you don’t understand why its critical so lets just allow anything that satisfies your subjective taste. Because if you do say there is nothing objective, then its just a matter of your taste.

So no, it doesn’t need rewriting. It was simply stating your position, no?

No you misstated my position entirely.

I am drawn to a particular branch of spirituality where stillness and simplicity are paramount.

The Church is a big tent and there’s room for all spiritualities. It doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate art or have poor taste as you suggested. Maybe I do but I don’t really care, and an ad hominem is not called for under any circumstances.

I don’t disagree that there is a set of core principles for church design, I even mentioned it in my post but you seemed to overlook that. What I did mention is that Dr. McNamara’s exposé was too focused on details and not enough on those basic essentials, and that I find too much detail distracting; too much of a good thing is not a good thing. I’m certainly not asking anyone to redesign their churches, nor paint over their art, nor am I suggesting that they are wrong to feel at home in a very ornate church. 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.

To some extent, how is this any different than someone seeking out the TLM because spiritually it moves them more than the OF. Both are entirely valid and contain the essential elements of a Mass, and both are “right” for preferring one over the other. I love Gregorian chant, but it’s not for everyone (including in particular the Franciscans) and who am I to call them on their musical tastes if they don’t?

Let’s look objectively then at the church in the OP, keeping in mind its monastic function:

1. It has a nave, a sanctuary, and a choir for the monks.
2. It has an altar, made of a noble material.
3. Somewhere (it’s out of the picture) there’s bound to bea tabernacle; in the Benedictine tradition it could be in a separate side adoration chapel.
4. I’m not sure but there appears to be confessionals.
5. It lets in a lot of natural light, which is important in a monastic church where the Divine Office is celebrated and where natural light enhances the verity of the hour being celebrated.

In brief, it has all of the objective elements needed for a monastic church. Whether you-or-I, care for it or not aesthetically, is immaterial. They built it to suit their community’s needs; all monks had a say in its design, it was built within their budget, and it serves their purposes.

For my money, it meets the objective criteria for a monastery church in the Cistercian tradition. It appears to be built with quality materials and to last, and it most certainly doesn’t look like a hotel conference room with a table. It is purposely fairly bare and devoid of ornamentation, in the Benedictine and particularly Cistercian tradition.

Evidently you feel that there are details missing to make it more “churchy”. From where I sit, as a Benedictine and having visited many Benedictine abbeys, it captures the essence of monasticism much better than the church at Montserrat or Monte Cassino. It is a spirituality that I am very drawn to, and which it is my right to approach.

To suggest that because of this I somehow have lacking taste, whether that’s true or not, is uncharitable, and is an ad hominem attack and it’s in fact against forum rules to make personal attacks.

I’ll leave it at that lest I myself be drawn into an uncharitable response.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes. I saw a picture of architecture like that in the last seminary in Scotland. It’s closed now.

Minimalism might work for monastics but for the laity, it’s just mean.

When are Catholics going to wake up to how they have been hoodwinked? You have a pared-down liturgy in a bare Church with laity in street clothes in the sanctuary with the altar replaced by a table and some childish hymns …

And it’s an ‘improvement’!

Laypeople most certainly can and do share in the charism of an abbey; even those who aren’t oblates.

I can assure you the liturgies in the abbeys I posted are far from pared down. The one I belong to still uses Gregorian chant daily for the Mass, Lauds and Vespers and French plainchant for the rest.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Laypeople most certainly can and do share in the charism of an abbey; even those who aren’t oblates.

I can assure you the liturgies in the abbeys I posted are far from pared down. The one I belong to still uses Gregorian chant daily for the Mass, Lauds and Vespers and French plainchant for the rest.

This is far from universal. A minimalist liturgy with the usual novelties in a bare Church in suburbia: That is the much more common.

I get the impression that people who defend the novelties on this forum do not attend suburban or rural diocesan churches; it’s cathedrals, monasteries or universities.

 

[jwinch2]

This is far from universal. A minimalist liturgy with the usual novelties in a bare Church in suburbia: That is the much more common.

I get the impression that people who defend the novelties on this forum do not attend suburban or rural diocesan churches; it’s cathedrals, monasteries or universities.

I attend a typical diocesan parish in a mid-sized town. It is newer, but modern styled, building with a pretty typical liturgy. Its not a Mass rife with abuse or anything, but it isn’t like being at a monastery either with all the “smells and bells”.

However, I think you are off when you suggest that he is defending novelty. He isn’t. He is defending the charism of one of the oldest religious orders in the Church and their right to make their own decisions regarding what does or does not suit their needs in terms of a church building. In addition, he is challenging the notion that the opinion of one theologian reflects binding doctrine and authoritative teaching. It doesn’t.

While I would not suggest that the Church at Our Lady of Dallas Abbey is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen, it is certainly in keeping with the spirituality and charism of the Order of Cistercians, which is after all, who it was designed for. The Church does not function as a parish and while they welcome guests per the Holy Rule, the Abbey isn’t for them. We can certainly have an opinion as to whether is suits our taste or not, there is not a problem there. We are free to state that certain kind of church buildings make it easier or harder for us to pray and to fully participate in the Mass. I feel that way about certain churches myself. The problem comes in when people try to set up their personal taste to be the standard by which other things are judged, which is what seems to be going on here.

As noted by several, the statements made regarding the “acceptibility” of certain church structures do not reflect authoritative teaching within the Catholic Church. In addition, as noted by myself, any such position would likely not affect exempt religious anyway even if it did exist.

 

[TimothyH]

One measure of beauty for me is how a Church looks in natural light, when you turn the lights off in the middle of the day and the light of the sun is all there is.

Here, in Montserrat, I could not get settled down at Mass or the Offices:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/Spain and France 2010/IMG_0684.jpg

Yet here at the temporary abbey chapel, I felt that stillness that characterizes an abbey church:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/Spain and France 2010/IMG_0774.jpg

-Tim-

 

[OraLabora]

One measure of beauty for me is how a Church looks in natural light, when you turn the lights off in the middle of the day and the light of the sun is all there is.

-Tim-

I very much agree. I would point out that the “temporary” chapel in the second picture does that well. In addition the entire time I was there, it was overcast outside and yet it still had a luminous quality.

This community is interesting in that they celebrate the Divine Office using the original Benedictine schema but adapted to post-Vatican II. So Compline is psalms 4, 90 and 133 every night. They chant it in the dark, from memory. A very moving experience. Monastic churches that are successful capture natural light and allow the light to penetrate the church regardless of the time of day. The abbey I belong to does it perfectly and the windows are arranged in such a way that you can’t be distracted by looking at the scenery outside. The church faces east, and the quality of the light changes throughout the day, starting with just a splash of colour in the sky at Vigils at 5 am (or pitch black, depending on time of year), to the sun flooding the sanctuary at Lauds, then beaming down from the left or right depending on season at Mass (11 am), then coming through the rose window from behind with that warm afternoon quality at Vespers. All fits the verity of the Office being chanted very well.

There is far more to the spirituality of a place than its decor. I think that’s what I’m trying to express. To distill it entirely to either only the architecture, or only the liturgy, or only this or that, is to miss the catholicity of the place in general and the place’s particular charism, specifically.

This is far from universal. A minimalist liturgy with the usual novelties in a bare Church in suburbia: That is the much more common.

I get the impression that people who defend the novelties on this forum do not attend suburban or rural diocesan churches; it’s cathedrals, monasteries or universities.

Well I do attend suburban and rural diocesan churches with the Gregorian schola I sing with.

The church below isn’t particularly inspiring architecturally. Yet the pastor is very orthodox, follows the rubrics carefully and preaches excellent homilies, the church is filled even for a 4:30 Saturday Mass by many young families, and they regularly and enthusiastically host our Gregorian schola. It isn’t the only one like this, yet a very much more traditional building one in the same archdiocese is the opposite, the atmosphere is mush, barely 40 or 50 people attend Mass and they kicked us out because they hated Latin and Gregorian chant.

So my experience differs from yours. Which is to be expected, there are 1 billion+ Catholics worldwide and considerable local variety is to be expected. So I think it’s best to avoid generalizations.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

No you misstated my position entirely.

I am drawn to a particular branch of spirituality where stillness and simplicity are paramount.

The Church is a big tent and there’s room for all spiritualities. It doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate art or have poor taste as you suggested. Maybe I do but I don’t really care, and an ad hominem is not called for under any circumstances.

Please understand, it is not an adhominem to refer to your preference once you reduce the judgement to a relative measure.

If I say that “I think X is ok because it is my preference and that is all that matters”, then from that point onward, someone would have to address ME and my preference.

I don’t disagree that there is a set of core principles for church design, I even mentioned it in my post but you seemed to overlook that. What I did mention is that Dr. McNamara’s exposé was too focused on details and not enough on those basic essentials, and that I find too much detail distracting; too much of a good thing is not a good thing.

But this is actually evidence that you are not versed in appreciating beauty of architecture.

What you say is nothing different from an average reader saying that its too much to worry about all the intricacies of writing a good novel.

I’m certainly not asking anyone to redesign their churches, nor paint over their art, nor am I suggesting that they are wrong to feel at home in a very ornate church. 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.

You actually do not have a RIGHT to seek any spirituality you like and call yourself Catholic. If you are a Catholic, you have to seek a spirituality that conveys and brings you closer to the truths about the spiritual life. One cannot for an example embrace a new age spirituality.

Same with a church. A Church is not there to cater to another person’s taste. The Church is a Church. Either you learn to appreciate it or you simply have to construct another building and call it something else.

To some extent, how is this any different than someone seeking out the TLM because spiritually it moves them more than the OF. Both are entirely valid and contain the essential elements of a Mass, and both are “right” for preferring one over the other. I love Gregorian chant, but it’s not for everyone (including in particular the Franciscans) and who am I to call them on their musical tastes if they don’t?

TLM and OF, both convey the same truths. What Dr. Mcnamara is pointing out in his talk are the truths of Church architecture. Now you can express these truths in different ways but you cannot NOT express these truths. If one does not express the truths, then it is inferior.

Let’s look objectively then at the church in the OP, keeping in mind its monastic function:

1. It has a nave, a sanctuary, and a choir for the monks.
2. It has an altar, made of a noble material.
3. Somewhere (it’s out of the picture) there’s bound to bea tabernacle; in the Benedictine tradition it could be in a separate side adoration chapel.
4. I’m not sure but there appears to be confessionals.
5. It lets in a lot of natural light, which is important in a monastic church where the Divine Office is celebrated and where natural light enhances the verity of the hour being celebrated.

All this means is that that there are some elements of expressions of truth present in that Church. But, it in no way conveys a foreshadowing of heaven or other spiritual realities. So this is why I said that we can say the church is acceptable in that it does not present something that it shouldn’t. But it is less beautiful in that it does not present everything it should about a Church.

In brief, it has all of the objective elements needed for a monastic church. Whether you-or-I, care for it or not aesthetically, is immaterial. They built it to suit their community’s needs; all monks had a say in its design, it was built within their budget, and it serves their purposes.

For my money, it meets the objective criteria for a monastery church in the Cistercian tradition. It appears to be built with quality materials and to last, and it most certainly doesn’t look like a hotel conference room with a table. It is purposely fairly bare and devoid of ornamentation, in the Benedictine and particularly Cistercian tradition.

All churches must express the underlying spiritual truths of the faith. Though the spirituality is different, the truths remain the same. So either they are expressed in a church or they are not.

Evidently you feel that there are details missing to make it more “churchy”. From where I sit, as a Benedictine and having visited many Benedictine abbeys, it captures the essence of monasticism much better than the church at Montserrat or Monte Cassino. It is a spirituality that I am very drawn to, and which it is my right to approach.

To suggest that because of this I somehow have lacking taste, whether that’s true or not, is uncharitable, and is an ad hominem attack and it’s in fact against forum rules to make personal attacks.

I’ll leave it at that lest I myself be drawn into an uncharitable response.

I think you are taking it too harshly. If someone doesn’t realize the importance of a painting or a piece of literature, it is very possible that the person just isn’t versed on what constitutes a good painting or literature. There is no shame in that.

After all, you were the one that said you didn’t understand the importance of all these little details. So you admit to not being well in tuned with the material yourself but do not like to be called out on it?

 

[OraLabora]

Please understand, it is not an adhominem to refer to your preference once you reduce the judgement to a relative measure.

If I say that “I think X is ok because it is my preference and that is all that matters”, then from that point onward, someone would have to address ME and my preference.

That’s not what I said. You’ll note that I very closely attached my views to Monastic spirituality and in no way have denigrated the views of those who prefer otherwise.

But this is actually evidence that you are not versed in appreciating beauty of architecture.

What you say is nothing different from an average reader saying that its too much to worry about all the intricacies of writing a good novel.

I don’t pretend to be an expert in architecture. But to say I can’t appreciate the beauty of architecture is just plain rude and is sanctimonious.

You actually do not have a RIGHT to seek any spirituality you like and call yourself Catholic. If you are a Catholic, you have to seek a spirituality that conveys and brings you closer to the truths about the spiritual life. One cannot for an example embrace a new age spirituality.

Where did I say it was OK to seek spirituality outside the Church??? Please… I am speaking about Benedictine spirituality which is 1500 years old, and its slightly more recent Cistercian variants. Fifteen hundred years! And in good standing with the Church. I encourage anyone to seek out a spiritual charism within the Church that suits them. NOWHERE did I encourage anyone to look outside the Church at things like New Age spirituality. I said the Church is a big tent that accommodates many charisms and spiritualities. And it is the right of any person to seek out a closer affiliation with one of those spiritualities.

Same with a church. A Church is not there to cater to another person’s taste. The Church is a Church. Either you learn to appreciate it or you simply have to construct another building and call it something else.

My discussion has almost entirely centered on monastic churches which you may recall, you chose to freely criticize without once, not once, indicating an objective criteria by which you dismissed it. A monastic church is designed to meet the community’s needs within their available resources, and not to serve your ideas about what church architecture should be. Rather than trying to impose my views on monastic architecture on others, I have stated why I am drawn to monastic spirituality and why I appreciate their fundamental church design. And you know what even if my community had an awful church, I would still be part of it. Because it is the community and its spirituality that attracts me. The fact that they designed a church that is coherent with their spirituality is a bonus. A church I might add, that the laity fills to capacity every Sunday; plain or ornate architecture or not, something drives them there. And it was that way even before the church was built and the chapel was in a temporary location in the crypt. In their case it is the community, that draws people into the story of salvation.

You still have not provided a single objective criteria by which you criticized the church in the OP, but instead have descended into rudeness and haughtiness against those who do appreciate it for what it is.

TLM and OF, both convey the same truths. What Dr. Mcnamara is pointing out in his talk are the truths of Church architecture. Now you can express these truths in different ways but you cannot NOT express these truths. If one does not express the truths, then it is inferior.

In your opinion!. As was pointed out Dr. NcNamara is stating an opinion that is not protected by the Holy Spirit from error. It is clearly a personal interpretation. I had the details of our very plain but (IMHO beautiful) abbey church pointed out by a monk who is very well versed in architecture, and in fact this abbey housed Dom Paul Bellot from France who trained an architect within the same abbey. I think they might be able to hold their own in any debate on monastic architecture. Moreover the notion of “truth” in Church architecture is laughable. Mass has been celebrated on the hood of a jeep. Rather there are traditions (small “t”) in Church architecture, and architecture that has always varied with needs, time, available resources, and culture.

All this means is that that there are some elements of expressions of truth present in that Church. But, it in no way conveys a foreshadowing of heaven or other spiritual realities. So this is why I said that we can say the church is acceptable in that it does not present something that it shouldn’t. But it is less beautiful in that it does not present everything it should about a Church.

All churches must express the underlying spiritual truths of the faith. Though the spirituality is different, the truths remain the same. So either they are expressed in a church or they are not.

In your opinion!

I think you are taking it too harshly. If someone doesn’t realize the importance of a painting or a piece of literature, it is very possible that the person just isn’t versed on what constitutes a good painting or literature. There is no shame in that.

After all, you were the one that said you didn’t understand the importance of all these little details. So you admit to not being well in tuned with the material yourself but do not like to be called out on it?

Did I say I didn’t understand them? I don’t think so. I said I thought they were a distraction, and that the average person in the pew probably didn’t appreciate them. I can’t claim to be an expert but do understand the notion of a church conveying a story and leading us to a destination, in particular in times when literacy was rare and owning books even rarer; for example the frescoes at Subiaco were quite simply breathtaking. I suggest however that there are many ways to convey this story, and that the monastic way is not necessarily the way that you propose. In particular monastics are erudite and well educated in the the story of salvation. Their church is built to fulfill their own needs, not that of an architecture professor, nor is it intended to convey “truths” to the laity; monks practice lectio divina, and they spend a considerable amount of their time in study and seek those truths in their own way in their studies, their lectio and their liturgy; in fact for Benedictines the principle art form for conveying those truths is, in fact, the liturgy (and I include the Divine Office in that), not artwork. Although their liturgy is an art form.

That is what frustrates me so much about you in this discussion, you seem to see that only YOUR way (or rather Dr. McNamara’s way) makes a church somehow “beautiful” instead of just acceptable, and can’t appreciate that a fully orthodox (and very old) order in the Church, and their individual and highly autonomous abbeys, would have its own way of seeing things that creates beauty in its own right.

Frankly I think if you’re going to continue with such rudeness, further discussion of this with you is pointless.

 

[jwinch2]

You actually do not have a RIGHT to seek any spirituality you like and call yourself Catholic. If you are a Catholic, you have to seek a spirituality that conveys and brings you closer to the truths about the spiritual life. One cannot for an example embrace a new age spirituality.

This has gone far enough.

He specifically stated “within the Church”. At no time has he encouraged anyone to seek spirituality outside of the Catholic Church and it is rude and improper for you to suggest otherwise.

Same with a church. A Church is not there to cater to another person’s taste. The Church is a Church. Either you learn to appreciate it or you simply have to construct another building and call it something else.

You are not the sole arbiter of what does or does not constitute appropriate architecture within the Catholic tradition, and neither is Dr. McNamara. So please, either stop using your personal preference as a standard to judge what is or is not acceptable, or provide evidence of authoritative teaching within the Catholic Church of objective standards by which church architecture can be evaluated. Make sure you provide evidence which demonstrates that exempt religious communities with a 1500 year tradition are held to that standard as well.

If you cannot provide this authoritative teaching, at least be honest enough to admit that no such objective standard exists.

 

[Cat]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

 

[triumphguy]

@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

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

I don’t pretend to be an expert in architecture. But to say I can’t appreciate the beauty of architecture is just plain rude and is sanctimonious.

But you said it yourself. You just don’t understand the importance of the details. If you got Shakespeare and say that you cannot understand the details of all the literary elements in his piece, that just means that you are unable to appreciate literature.

I don’t understand why you are upset.

Where did I say it was OK to seek spirituality outside the Church???

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.

My discussion has almost entirely centered on monastic churches which you may recall, you chose to freely criticize without once, not once, indicating an objective criteria by which you dismissed it.

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.

In your opinion!. As was pointed out Dr. NcNamara is stating an opinion that is not protected by the Holy Spirit from error. It is clearly a personal interpretation.

If you are trying to say “this is your personal interpretation which is not guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore unworthy of your consideration” then you have serious issues on your epistemology.

Science is not guided by the holy spirit but we give assent to it. Mathematics is not guided by the holy spirit but we give assent to it. Do you know why? Because it is REASONABLE.

What you are proposing is that everyone just believe only the infallible statements of the church and everything else be left to personal taste. That has never been the position of the church.

Did I say I didn’t understand them? I don’t think so.

You said clearly that you did not understand the need for them.

That is what frustrates me so much about you in this discussion, you seem to see that only YOUR way (or rather Dr. McNamara’s way) makes a church somehow “beautiful” instead of just acceptable, and can’t appreciate that a fully orthodox (and very old) order in the Church, and their individual and highly autonomous abbeys, would have its own way of seeing things that creates beauty in its own right.

The ontology of something does not change between person to person. So to say that its Dr. Macnamara’s way or my way is a meaningless statement. There is a definition of what it means to be a church. Everyone must satisfy these conditions. They can choose to do it anyway they like i.e. Eastern, Western, Modern, Ancient architecture. BUT, the architecture must be used to build a church. Not what one needs, or what one prefers.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

@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.

This is the outside:

The philosophical way of interpreting beauty is based on how well it conveys the truth about itself.

So what exactly do you mean when you “x,y,z is not beautiful”?. It seems to me like you want your opinion to be considered by all when all you are stating is subjective assessments. What is the reasoning behind that?

If someone follows the criterion by Dr. Macnamara, then the what they build is automatically beautiful. Why? Because it conveys the truth about what a church IS.