Church Architecture

  • Thread starter Thread starter triumphguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jwinch2 said:
Indeed. These are pictures of the Church at St. Gregory’s Abbey in Oklahoma where I will likely end up offering my oblation should they feel I will be a good addition to the community. I took them with my camera phone so the quality is not what it could be. The next time I go back, I will take my real camera along and try to get some decent shots of the monastery, church, and the grounds.
Click to expand...
I like very much.
 
i_am_a_Catholic said:
Hello there,

I specifically registered to comment on this very thread 🙂

The church in the OP’s post (quoted above) is actually inferior. The thing to note is that there are old churches that are much inferior to the spirit of the Liturgy as well. But in general, tradition does tend to have better churches.

That being said, I know you are all wondering “What is a good church architecture vs. what is bad church architecture”

I would invite you to watch the following video by Dr. Denis Mcnamara

youtube.com/watch?v=oEqRlE8m3DI

He also has a new series on it here

youtube.com/watch?v=2PDWXMMgy9c

He speaks of the Theology behind the design of a church and would give anyone a good understanding on why many “modern” churches are a failure.
Click to expand...
I don’t have the time this morning watch the whole thing, but I have to ask does he consider the monastic tradition. Because from my experience the church in the OP does, particularly for the Cistercians who have an even simpler approach than the Benedictines. Setting up a church in a barn is not unheard of for them, if that’s what the poverty of the place requires.

You also have to consider a very important thing about a conventual chapel in a monastery. It is built to serve their own needs, not that of the laity who might show up for Mass.

In that respect then, that church serves their purpose. The only critique I would make of it is the lack of a physical separation between the choir and the nave, do demarcate the monks’ enclosure.

Would you care to share your criticism of it, in light of its monastic purpose?
 
OraLabora said:
I don’t have the time this morning watch the whole thing, but I have to ask does he consider the monastic tradition. Because from my experience the church in the OP does, particularly for the Cistercians who have an even simpler approach than the Benedictines. Setting up a church in a barn is not unheard of for them, if that’s what the poverty of the place requires.

You also have to consider a very important thing about a conventual chapel in a monastery. It is built to serve their own needs, not that of the laity who might show up for Mass.

In that respect then, that church serves their purpose. The only critique I would make of it is the lack of a physical separation between the choir and the nave, do demarcate the monks’ enclosure.

Would you care to share your criticism of it, in light of its monastic purpose?
Click to expand...
From what I understand, he considers the structure of the church in terms of the spirit of the Liturgy. So any church, in his conclusion, should follow a common structure or set of objective ideas in when they are built.

I would think it applies to any type of church as long as it has been built to celebrate the liturgy.
 
i_am_a_Catholic said:
From what I understand, he considers the structure of the church in terms of the spirit of the Liturgy. So any church, in his conclusion, should follow a common structure or set of objective ideas in when they are built.

I would think it applies to any type of church as long as it has been built to celebrate the liturgy.
Click to expand...
But monks have very particular requirements for the liturgy that can be quite different than what happens in a parish.

For instance the conventual chapel is also used to chant the Divine Office 7 times a day. In the OP’s picture, that’s why you see a lectern well behind the altar, at the head of the choir stalls, as that’s where the readings for the Liturgy of the Hours is done. It’s also very common to have the choir stalls behind the altar, to separate the monks from the world. When they are between the altar and the nave there should be a physical barrier to mark the enclosure.

Honestly I see no shortcomings in that church for the celebration of the liturgy in a Cistercian setting.

You’ll have to be more specific than that. What about that church does not correspond to celebrating the liturgy? You said that church doesn’t work, liturgically, then tell us why!

Or if you just don’t like the style, that’s fine that’s personal, but say so.
 
OraLabora said:
I like very much.
Click to expand...
Same here. I have certainly seen more beautiful places, even in terms of monastic church buildings, but it is nice nonetheless. One thing that caught me off guard when I was there is that there is no baptismal font. I was looking around for it and then it hit me “duh, this isn’t a normal parish dummy!”. I have to remind myself that the church and buildings there are not designed with the same intent as a typical church structure would be.
 
OraLabora said:
But monks have very particular requirements for the liturgy that can be quite different than what happens in a parish.

For instance the conventual chapel is also used to chant the Divine Office 7 times a day. In the OP’s picture, that’s why you see a lectern well behind the altar, at the head of the choir stalls, as that’s where the readings for the Liturgy of the Hours is done. It’s also very common to have the choir stalls behind the altar, to separate the monks from the world. When they are between the altar and the nave there should be a physical barrier to mark the enclosure.

Honestly I see no shortcomings in that church for the celebration of the liturgy in a Cistercian setting.

You’ll have to be more specific than that. What about that church does not correspond to celebrating the liturgy? You said that church doesn’t work, liturgically, then tell us why!

Or if you just don’t like the style, that’s fine that’s personal, but say so.
Click to expand...
I think you have somehow made a distinction that the liturgy should mean something else for monks and something else for lay persons. That premise is not backed as far as I understand.

I suggest you watch the videos to actually understand what a Church is suppossed to be. This ontology requires it to be a certain way, independent of your status or taste.

The error of the modern thinkers is that they simply made the church a matter of taste. But it seems that there is an objective set of requirements that a church must satisfy.

Now many modern churches, including the one in OP’s post does satisfy some of these requirements. But when considered with traditional churches, they are much inferior. The traditional churches tend to capture most of the requirements.

But again, there is no pointing in arguing if you are not going to watch the video and see what is being said, right?
 
Cat said:
As with all art forms, what touches one person will leave another cold or jar them.

I personally love modern architecture and find it incredibly inspiring and uplifting. The lines, the sweep, the flow, the simplicity–it’s other-worldly to me and puts me in mind of heaven.

The simplicity and spareness of much modern architecture brings peace in the midst of cacaphony. **I have a very busy life, and I like it when an architectural style forces me to slow down and think about God rather than all my “stuff.”
**
I think that the older church architectural styles are beautiful, but often, they are so “busy,” filled with windows, statues, murals, etc. There isn’t a single place in the nave where a person can rest their eyes and see “nothing.” I feel like a kid in an amusement park–way over-stimulated!

**I find this distracting. ** I love empty spaces, empty walls, and sparse decor. To me, the prettiest decor is very simple–a dinner table centerpiece of one vase with a flower, or a shelf with just one knickknack, or a wall with just one photo or painting.

In churches, I prefer just one piece of sculpture. I do like real crucifixes, preferably with a Christ who has obviously suffered.
Click to expand...
This is one of the major errors highlighted in the video. What or how a church should be is not dependent on the taste of an individual. Beauty is not relative. The church, has to capture the “Church-ness”. To do so, it must satisfy certain requirements. If it doesn’t satisfy the requirements, it is ugly or less beautiful.

If you watch the video, you will realize why the “just plain” idea for a church is rather inferior compared to the traditional architecture. So I invite you to watch the first presentation dear sir.
 
Credo_in_Deum said:
Thank you for sharing the video with Dr. Denis McNamara; it was an awesome presentation. I will watch the others later since my battery is dying on my pc.
Click to expand...
No problem 🙂

I used to struggle for years on what it really means to say a certain architecture for a church is better than another. When I found this video, I was truly surprised and delighted. Finally, I could put down in words what I found wrong with something that bothered me for years. At the same time, I could put down in words why a certain church is beautiful and have it mean something objective.

So I felt it worth sharing because I am sure there are many like me. I am glad you found it interesting and useful 🙂
 
Actually, there are different forms of liturgy, some of which are particular to different Orders, and furthermore the laity are not called to celebrate the office in community several times a day. So the requirements for places of worship may be very different.

It’s an interesting video, but I’ve only got through 30 minutes so far. I would expect others to have similar time constraints.

And if you read the article in the first post you might see some points that are actually in line with the video.
 
triumphguy said:
Actually, there are different forms of liturgy, some of which are particular to different Orders, and furthermore the laity are not called to celebrate the office in community several times a day. So the requirements for places of worship may be very different.

It’s an interesting video, but I’ve only got through 30 minutes so far. I would expect others to have similar time constraints.

And if you read the article in the first post you might see some points that are actually in line with the video.
Click to expand...
The liturgy of the church, may take various forms, but the liturgy is the liturgy. The primary goal of a church is to celebrate the liturgy, which for most people, would mean mass and not just the office. While one could pray the office in their bedroom, I am sure you would disagree that one can not have the mass in ones bed room.

In either case, it should be clear to you why the church you had in your OP is not that beautiful (as a church). Thankfully, it is not ugly (as in contradicts outright what a church is suppossed to look like) but it isn’t really very beautiful either (as in it does not satisfy most of the things that could have been brought forward in the church to reflect the liturgy and spiritual realities).

As for time constraints, I think its safe to say the unless someone is not willing to do proper research and spend time studying a topic, they should probably refrain from making claims or comments about it as well.

I am sure you would agree that if I had no expertise on medical science and I were to argue about a medication a person is taking, or recommend certain medication as good, that would be unfair. So I think, if someone really wants to discuss church architecture, they do have to spend the time to learn about it. That does take time.
 
i_am_a_Catholic said:
No problem 🙂

I used to struggle for years on what it really means to say a certain architecture for a church is better than another. When I found this video, I was truly surprised and delighted. Finally, I could put down in words what I found wrong with something that bothered me for years. At the same time, I could put down in words why a certain church is beautiful and have it mean something objective.

So I felt it worth sharing because I am sure there are many like me. I am glad you found it interesting and useful 🙂
Click to expand...
I too have the same problem which is why I was happy to watch Dr. McNamars presentation since he charitably shows us how the architecture and design of a Church must reflect the spiritual realities we believe in and that this is our sacred duty not only to the Liturgy but to our neighbor as well. Churches are suppose to edify not just the faithful but also the world and to tell those outside the fold that something truly heavenly is present in the Church. I love how he gave evidence from Scripture and history to explain why Churches were setup the way they were and why we really need to focus on reviving this in modern times. He clearly shows how Churches were and are suppose to be Catechisms of the Catholic Church.
 
i_am_a_Catholic said:
The liturgy of the church, may take various forms, but the liturgy is the liturgy.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that one prototypical church architecture would be appropriate for all Catholic Churches, irrespective of tradition or liturgical rite?

There are norms that impact both architecture and necessary liturgical accompaniments for a Divine Liturgy in Byzantine Rite churches, for example, that are not ordinarily found in a Latin Rite church. The most obvious example perhaps is the lack of an icon screen (iconostasis) which physically separates the sanctuary from the nave. The doors of the icon screen are opened and closed at various point of the Divine Liturgy, with significance. Although a DL can be (and surely has been) celebrated in a Latin Catholic church with some moderate augmentations, the full expression is not present even if icons are placed before altar in their normal respective positions.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Are you suggesting that one prototypical church architecture would be appropriate for all Catholic Churches, irrespective of tradition or liturgical rite?

There are norms that impact both architecture and necessary liturgical accompaniments for a Divine Liturgy in Byzantine Rite churches, for example, that are not ordinarily found in a Latin Rite church. The most obvious example perhaps is the lack of an icon screen (iconostasis) which physically separates the sanctuary from the nave. The doors of the icon screen are opened and closed at various point of the Divine Liturgy, with significance. Although a DL can be (and surely has been) celebrated in a Latin Catholic church with some moderate augmentations, the full expression is not present even if icons are placed before altar in their normal respective positions.
Click to expand...
Again, if you are not even going to watch the video on what it means for a church to be a church, there is really no point in even discussing things.

The video addresses the issue of different rites. When it comes to rite, the goal is still the same and the underlying spiritual truths are the same. So regardless of your rite, whether roman, byzantine, or whichever you belong to, there is a way a church should look.

So please, I can only ask that you watch the video lecture/presentation to understand what I am saying in detail. It would be beneficial for us both if you did that and then raised objections.
 
i_am_a_Catholic said:
So please, I can only ask that you watch the video lecture/presentation to understand what I am saying in detail. It would be beneficial for us both if you did that and then raised objections.
Click to expand...
You presume (i) that I have not watched the video and (ii) that I have raised objections.

Rather, I simply asked you to clarify your own stated position (that liturgy is liturgy, irrespective of form), citing an example of architecture impacting worship in the context of a ritual church.
 
SgtSchultz said:
Now those are what I call proper churches!

Amen to that! I really enjoy heading downtown to the old 19th century cathedral. (That’s not to say I don’t appreciate the priests, people, or parish life at my local parish church…)

Indeed.

At least they have that.
Click to expand...
They have something far more important: a young active parish led by a kind and orthodox priest.
 
i_am_a_Catholic said:
This is one of the major errors highlighted in the video. What or how a church should be is not dependent on the taste of an individual. Beauty is not relative. The church, has to capture the “Church-ness”. To do so, it must satisfy certain requirements. If it doesn’t satisfy the requirements, it is ugly or less beautiful.

If you watch the video, you will realize why the “just plain” idea for a church is rather inferior compared to the traditional architecture. So I invite you to watch the first presentation dear sir.
Click to expand...
I’m not a sir.

I will try to view the video later, but I’m at work right now.

If you will be so kind as to read my post, you will see that I am not stating that a church should look a certain way to please my personal tastes. My post merely stated my own individual, personal feelings.

If Holy Mother Church decrees that all Catholic churches must be designed along certain architectural specs, then that is the way it shall be and I certainly shall not object.

But Holy Mother Church cannot possibly command everyone to feel the same way about art forms or about anything. If it were possible for Holy Mother Church to control feelings, then Holy Mother Church could command everyone in the world to feel loving, peaceful, and charitable towards all mankind. The Church can suggest that people try to bring their feelings into line with Church ideals, but the Church cannot control human emotions.

Finally, I am curious to know if you believe that all the Catholic churches with modern architecture are abominations and should be torn down and rebuilt? I hope not. Apparently Holy Mother Church has not asked that this be done, either.
 
YoungTradCath said:
(A different video, short) Dr. McNamara explains why Classical forms are so useful for church architecture. His argument is based on the notion that Classical architecture is not a style, but a way of showing what we already have, nature, glorified and perfected.
Click to expand...
A decent encapsulization of the implied Byzantine rationale for norms for temples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top