Church Architecture

  • Thread starter Thread starter triumphguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In 2012, having stained glass, statues and other symbols would help educate the ignorant in a way that complements reading and personal catechesis.

A bare Church is Ok for people who are already strong in their faith. But I still wouldn’t go to such, if I had an alternative. The more icons, the better!

Also: I think a lot of modern culture is eggheads trying to b.s. each other, like the story ‘The Emperors New Clothes’. People have certain expectations of what a Church should look like: the foyer of Heaven. The smart move is to meet and exceed these.
 
triumphguy said:
Just a gentle question: did anyone read the article? 🙂

I only used the photo as an example of where modern architecture works. I think there are a couple of Churches (Liverpool Cathedral, and Eglise d’Heremence) where it works also.

I’ve argued against some of you on traditional architecture citing modern churches that work, but in 80% of cases they do not.

The article finally puts into words WHY they don’t. I knew my arguments were weak, but I didn’t have the architectural perspective to understand why.
Click to expand...
I read the article when it was written, back in December. Can modern work? Absolutely. But it usually does not, and it is usually far easier and more reliable for a parish to build a more traditional structure.
 
The thing that bothers me the most about modern buildings and furnishings is a point made in the article, that there is zero feeling of connection to the past. An icon or staute of a Saint in these modern churches looks out of place. When I walk into an old historic Church I feel at home. When I walk into a modern, gaudy building I feel like I’m in a strange place.
 
triumphguy said:
From the article:
Click to expand...
Sacred spaces achieve much of its effect by emphasizing mystery.
Click to expand...
Indeed - there are some such modern spaces that are a mystery as to what the architect may have been thinking (let alone how the work was underwritten).

What ever happened to striving for “awe”, reflective of the Almighty?
 
From the photo, the abbey church in the OP seems to me to be quite decent, particularly in its adaptation of the traditionally spare Cistercian style. The only major blot I see is that altar. And no, it’s not because it’s free-standing. I actually prefer free-standing altars, (although I never have been, and never will be, the least bit interested in any versus populum use of same), but this totally misses the mark in my book. To my eye, it’s just-plain-hideous. I’d cringe :winter: even if it were used ad orientem (at least if it were so used without an antependium to cover that ugly pedestal).
 
I think this is a thread that isn’t going to go anywhere. You can’t argue taste, it’s too subjective and personal 😉

I myself like modern, minimalist architecture and I think that fits monastic churches well. That’s why I liked the Cistercian chapel in the first post. The abbey I’m associated with also has a modern (1994) church that fits in quite well with monastic simplicity. So to does the new Trappist Val Notre Dame monastery in St-Jean-de-Matha, northeast of Montreal (this where the former Oka Trappists have moved to when the community became too small to manage the very large monastery in Oka).
 
I googled it:architectural-review.com/buildings/religious/val-notre-dame-abbey-by-atelier-pierre-thibault-saint-jean-de-martha-quebec-canada/8609455.article

It looks very serene and peaceful.

/1/7/6/1244176_AR01_DSC_4088_HIGH_RES.jpg

/1/8/1/1244181_AR01_PTY_4801.jpg

/1/8/2/1244182_AR01_4069final.jpg

While being recognisably Benedictine.
… this is neither a hermetic bastion of piety, nor some happy-clappy retreat, but a nuanced and mature affirmation of the spiritual. And though it has an evident contemporary resonance, it also speaks of timelessness, embodied by humanity’s immemorial relationship with both the powers of nature and the divine.
Click to expand...
It works!
 
OraLabora said:
I think this is a thread that isn’t going to go anywhere.
Click to expand...
Give it a chance - its a good topic
OraLabora said:
You can’t argue taste, it’s too subjective and personal 😉
Click to expand...
Indeed, but it is interesting to read exactly what does appeal to certain people and why. I do know quite a few very conservative Catholics who nonetheless prefer a minimalist style, so the answers might be surprising at times.
OraLabora said:
I myself like modern, minimalist architecture and I think that fits monastic churches well. That’s why I liked the Cistercian chapel in the first post.
Click to expand...
Despite my tendency toward the more “classic”, I also liked this Cistercian chapel. It was a well done, modern application of an ancient style. That said, I’d enjoy visiting and worshipping there occasionally, just not every Sunday.

On the other hand, I was rather unimpressed with the interior of Notre Dame (the Parisian one), often thought of as emblematic of the gothic style.

To me, a really good church structure inspires awe and reminds us of the glory of God. It should help us transcend the worldly as much as possible, whatever the style and however that might be accomplished (within reason).

I suppose my Eastern Christian roots spoil me, as our Temples are generally considered a “feast of the senses”, but there are examples of Byzantine churches, while fully adorned, that fail to inspire one visually and spiritually.

One of my favorite churches is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It reflects a combination of classic styles that well represent the mosaic of Catholic tradition - Latin and Eastern - in the Catholic Church in America.

http://img.aquinasandmore.com/national-shrine-immaculate-conception.jpg
 
ByzCathCantor said:
One of my favorite churches is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It reflects a combination of classic styles that well represent the mosaic of Catholic tradition - Latin and Eastern - in the Catholic Church in America.
Click to expand...
I haven’t been there in over 35 years, but while I loved the Crypt (especially that gorgeous alabaster altar), I never did care for the upper church. Nor, for that matter, was I all that thrilled with the exterior (my Oriental bonafides notwithstanding). Both the upper church and the exterior are a bit eclectic, obviously, and to my taste it’s all rather gaudy (which is a nice way of saying “loud”), especially the mosaic work on the outside of the dome.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Give it a chance - its a good topic

Indeed, but it is interesting to read exactly what does appeal to certain people and why. I do know quite a few very conservative Catholics who nonetheless prefer a minimalist style, so the answers might be surprising at times.

Despite my tendency toward the more “classic”, I also liked this Cistercian chapel. It was a well done, modern application of an ancient style. That said, I’d enjoy visiting and worshipping there occasionally, just not every Sunday.

On the other hand, I was rather unimpressed with the interior of Notre Dame (the Parisian one), often thought of as emblematic of the gothic style.

To me, a really good church structure inspires awe and reminds us of the glory of God. It should help us transcend the worldly as much as possible, whatever the style and however that might be accomplished (within reason).

I suppose my Eastern Christian roots spoil me, as our Temples are generally considered a “feast of the senses”, but there are examples of Byzantine churches, while fully adorned, that fail to inspire one visually and spiritually.

One of my favorite churches is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It reflects a combination of classic styles that well represent the mosaic of Catholic tradition - Latin and Eastern - in the Catholic Church in America.

http://img.aquinasandmore.com/national-shrine-immaculate-conception.jpg
Click to expand...
Agreed! 👍
 
triumphguy said:
Looks like it has an Easter Egg on the roof…

Ohh… penny drops:o
Click to expand...
LOL - that was by design (pun intended) - Byzantine style dome. Surprised you didn’t mention the Stars of David in the mosaic covering the dome.

BTW - that was not just asthetics. The dome is also supported according to the classic norms of Byzantine architecture. That is, there are no beams (steel or other material) supporting the structure. Its fairly impressive to consider, especially if you’ve seen it from the inside.

 
malphono said:
I haven’t been there in over 35 years, but while I loved the Crypt (especially that gorgeous alabaster altar), I never did care for the upper church. Nor, for that matter, was I all that thrilled with the exterior (my Oriental bonafides notwithstanding). Both the upper church and the exterior are a bit eclectic, obviously, and to my taste it’s all rather gaudy (which is a nice way of saying “loud”), especially the mosaic work on the outside of the dome.
Click to expand...
It is very intentionally eclectic. Funny you mention the upper church, as I too much preferred that which was below, including elements of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Chapel 😉 (not necessarily the sanctuary and iconostasis, but the peripheral altars and shrines).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top