Church architecture

[OraLabora]

The style of architecture for parish churches shouldn’t come down to personal preference. If the church is actually for, or connected to, a monastic community, then it is perfectly reasonable to be built in that style. But that hasn’t been imposed on the entire Roman rite. Churches should be built in continuity with the architecture and design of past ages – and although some superficial things have changed since the Romanesque or Gothic or Renaissance or Baroque periods, most of it has generally been retained in terms of fundamental aesthetic principles. And that’s not something that was intended to have become optional.

Never said it did. I don’t think though, that a monastic style can only be used when a parish church has a direct connection to a monastic community.

The connection can be historical, for example. In Saskatchewan for instance, St. Peter’s Abbey used to be a territorial abbey. It no longer is, as the parishes now belong to a diocese. However those parishes even though no longer directly connected to the monastery, do have a historical connection to it. So it would be perfectly legitimate for a parish to choose a monastic style to build a new church.

Ultimately it’s the local community that decides based on what they can afford, the history of the parish, its size, and God knows what other factors.

We can perhaps not like the chosen style, but that doesn’t make illegitimate or somehow wrong.

I do agree though, that a church should look like a church, feel like a church, and smell like a church (well I do love the smell of incense mingled with candle wax ).

But beyond that there’s a wide, wide variety that can fit the bill from this:

i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/Stsenara1.jpg

to this

i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/EgliseAbbatiale.jpg

or this

i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/Spain%20and%20France%202010/IMG_0876.jpg

Or even this temporary makeshift chapel while the abbey’s chapel was undergoing renovations:

i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/Spain%20and%20France%202010/IMG_0774.jpg

They all look and feel like churches but are very different. Unlike some mega-churches that feel more like an auditorium…

 

[thistle]

Church architecture and decoration is something of a “catechism”.

It doesn’t matter what the style, it’s trying to say something about our Faith. This is true for both “traditional” and modern styles.

In my opinion, even a decision to make permanent use of a building originally designed for a non-religious function is a statement about our Faith.

I don’t agree. Whether we attend Mass in a huge Gothic style building or a bamboo hut it makes no difference to our faith at all. Faith is not dependent on a building style.

 

[PJM]

=Capuchinfan1337;11477773]Hey I was having an discussion with my parents and they said that a Church’s architecture didn’t matter since (a) it’s used for worship not to look pretty and (b) the cost to build and maintain a traditional latin style style church is too much for so many parishes. I was wondering if this is true?

The “style” is less important than it being CLEARLY a House SUITABLE to and for God and
self-evident that it is God’s Church.

Our grave obligation to God who is Perfect, is to return to Him the BEST we are able to do.

This extends to the church-building; everything in it including vestments, the chalice, and other items uses in Mass. everything ought to make us aware and mindful that we ARE in God’s House; giving Devine Worship to God.

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t agree. Whether we attend Mass in a huge Gothic style building or a bamboo hut it makes no difference to our faith at all. Faith is not dependent on a building style.

There was a time when churches did catechize. When people were largely illiterate, frescoes and later stained-glass windows told the main biblical stories.

But otherwise, you’re quite right, our faith is dependent on believing Who is there in front of us on the altar. His presence is what truly matters.

 

[digitalpapist]

I don’t agree. Whether we attend Mass in a huge Gothic style building or a bamboo hut it makes no difference to our faith at all. Faith is not dependent on a building style.

Not dependent on it, certainly not. But the beauty of the architecture, of the art, of the vestments, etc, was all to express the Divine Beauty. Iconoclasm isn’t a Catholic notion.

 

[drforjc]

Not dependent on it, certainly not. But the beauty of the architecture, of the art, of the vestments, etc, was all to express the Divine Beauty. Iconoclasm isn’t a Catholic notion

Correct, and not only that, but the “not necessary for salvation” argument is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum… basically saying we should only concern ourselves with what is absolutely necessary for salvation.

The mind of the Church has never thought that way. She has alway supported the arts, including visual art, music, and architecture. Beauty raises the mind and heart to God, which is indeed conducive to salvation.

 

[TimothyH]

We have to remember that we are temples of the Holy Spirit. God dwells in us. That is not a metaphor. St. Therese of Avila used to go into raptures at the thought that God himself dwelt inside of her.

So the more important question is not about the architecture and decoration of our Churches, but how we propose to architect and decorate our own heart and body for God who dwells within us.

I sometimes meditate on Solomon’s Temple. I think about the two pillars (faith and works, Old Testament and New Testament, justice and mercy, etc). I think about the bronze sea where the priest purified themselves (confession). I think about the laver (daily examination of conscience). I think about daily offering of incense (prayer). I think about the Ark - Our Lady with two angels above her.

-Tim-

 

[drforjc]

We have to remember that we are temples of the Holy Spirit. God dwells in us. That is not a metaphor. St. Therese of Avila used to go into raptures at the thought that God himself dwelt inside of her.

So the more important question is not about the architecture and decoration of our Churches, but how we propose to architect and decorate our own heart and body for God who dwells within us.

-Tim-

I don’t think anyone would dispute that… but the thread is about architecture itself. Clearly the Church, East and West, has considered this and concluded that when possible, beauty should be an element of Christian church buildings. As Ora et Labora pointed out, sheer ornamentation is not always required-- there can be beauty in simplicity, and St. Teresa’s foundations had austere chapels-- but, in general, when possible, the Church has deemed that the benefit to the faithful of having churches that lift souls to heaven is worth the expense.

 

[johnnykins]

I don’t agree. Whether we attend Mass in a huge Gothic style building or a bamboo hut it makes no difference to our faith at all. Faith is not dependent on a building style.

In a certain sense you are completely right. But in another you are not.

In a completely reductionist analysis of our faith, even the sacraments are but accoutrements - granted divinely instituted for our benefit - but in the final analysis our faith is not dependent on them. Yet, God certainly instituted them and we should avail ourselves of them.

Likewise, beauty, art, majesty, etc., - all things captured in great architecture (and often even mediocre architecture) - all draw us to God, enhance worship, and constitute the cooperation of man in God’s divine plan for salvation by providing inspiration in the setting of the sacraments in a place of communal worship. Throughout history the Church has promoted such things in her edifices. Styles come and go. As alluded to above, Gothic architecture was initially hated. The very name “gothic” was used to denote the ugliness that that many found in Gothic architecture.

In any event, don’t discount all the good that comes from great architecture or art. God alone is fundamental to our faith. That doesn’t mean we are supposed to not use our talents and abilities to praise Him in all we do - including building great churches to His glory.

 

[Sunbreak]

I think the architecture does matter. It should at least look like a church inside. Now, the part about not being able to afford the old architecture is probably true. People aren’t willing to sacrifice to build and maintain the great old gothic structures that are expensive to build and maintain. For example, there is a beautiful old church in Detroit that was built in part due to the fact that people took out additional mortgages on their homes to make it happen. No one would do that today.
Getting back to the form of the architecture is important though - settings always have an effect on people. If I go into a classroom with desks and seats and blackboard, I know what is expected in this place. If you watch a play, it makes a difference if the setting is contemporary or Elizabethan. People could go camping in their backyard if they wanted to, but they go to a park or wilderness for the scenery - the setting makes a difference. It’s the same with churches - if you go to a place that looks like a convention hall inside, the people act like they’re at a convention. If you go to a place that directs you to spiritual things - the cross, stained glass scenes of religious events, etc. you know this is a place where your focus should be on God and not the outside world.

 

[27lw]

I read a wonderful book on Church architecture. It’s called “No Place for God: the denial of transcendence in modern church architecture” by Moyra Doorly.
The main points of what makes a good Catholic church building:

1. Feeling of permanence (built of stone, brick, etc.).
2. Iconography (telling the Gospel through art).
3. High ceilings - - focus on the vertical.

That is just a sampling, I can’t remember all of her points. But those are the main 3 that seem so lacking in many modern church buildings.

Also - - OraLabora, I notice that in all of your nice photos, all those buildings had hard surface flooring. Not horrid sound-absorbing carpet. : )

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t think anyone would dispute that… but the thread is about architecture itself. Clearly the Church, East and West, has considered this and concluded that when possible, beauty should be an element of Christian church buildings. As Ora et Labora pointed out, sheer ornamentation is not always required-- there can be beauty in simplicity, and St. Teresa’s foundations had austere chapels-- but, in general, when possible, the Church has deemed that the benefit to the faithful of having churches that lift souls to heaven is worth the expense.

Someone else mentioned “the bare essentials” and that is a legitimate Catholic spirituality with an expression in architecture. Is is literally the bare essentials - a tabernacle, an altar, a place to sing the liturgy to God.

The bare monastic Church teaches me about Christ in the desert all night in communion with the Father. The simple monastic Church teaches us about simplicity of life, detachment from things that are not needed for our sanctification, even detachment from our own emotions.

The monastery near me has a large curtain at the back of the sanctuary behind which is the tabernacle. The tabernacle is simple, gold colored and highly reflective. It stand out when the curtain is open and is the focus of the entire Church. Very little else distracts you from the presence of God in the tabernacle.

It allows one to focus entirely on Jesus.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

Incidentally, if you have a pipe organ and other acoustic instruments, they have to have a good heating/cooling system to survive. A pipe organ or an acoustic piano can’t be left in a freezing nave, or in a hot, humid nave, for all the seven days that it’s not being used.

However, to get a “well-designed” church building means paying for a really good architect, and that costs a whole heapin’ lotta cash! I personally think it would be money wisely-spent though. Get the design correct from the very beginning, and you’ll save money down through the years.

One of the problems with a lot of the modern church buildings is the wretched acoustics. We’re in a clamshell, and from what I understand, tens of thousands of dollars have been spent over the decades trying to get the acoustics fixed so that the majority of people sitting out in the “shell” of the clamshell can actually HEAR what is happening up front! It hasn’t worked. It’s my personal opinion that the parish should just give up and tell everyone to listen to the Mass through earbuds or headphones.

I agree with you about the wretched acoustics. Our Vatican II fathers were probably thinking this type of environment when recommending the pipe organ as the standard.

youtube.com/watch?v=tnhyS7hgpZU

One can employ an acoustical engineer to design good acoustics but he’s probably limited if they insist on carpeting, low ceilings, and stuff like that. The quality of acoustics is affected by many objects present as well, including unfortunately an overflow of crowds. Simple physics. Every object possesses an inherent frequency. Think of a tuning fork or think of a room before you move in any furniture. You will hear reverberations (echoes) maybe even to the point you can hear a pin drop. Similarly in an empty church. Cathedrals and the high ceilings can counter this so that you could still hear the beautiful harmonics that come out of a pipe organ. However, modern buildings seldom are built around organs. It’s usually the other way around as an afterthought, if that much.

 

[drforjc]

Someone else mentioned “the bare essentials” and that is a legitimate Catholic spirituality with an expression in architecture. Is is literally the bare essentials - a tabernacle, an altar, a place to sing the liturgy to God.

The bare monastic Church teaches me about Christ in the desert all night in communion with the Father. The simple monastic Church teaches us about simplicity of life, detachment from things that are not needed for our sanctification, even detachment from our own emotions.

The monastery near me has a large curtain at the back of the sanctuary behind which is the tabernacle. The tabernacle is simple, gold colored and highly reflective. It stand out when the curtain is open and is the focus of the entire Church. Very little else distracts you from the presence of God in the tabernacle.

It allows one to focus entirely on Jesus.

-Tim-

Yet that is a rather “specialized” spirituality, I would say. I noted above that simplicity can be beautiful as well as more elaborate ornamentation.

That still doesn’t support the notion that architecture “doesn’t matter.”

 

[TimothyH]

Yet that is a rather “specialized” spirituality, I would say. I noted above that simplicity can be beautiful as well as more elaborate ornamentation.

That still doesn’t support the notion that architecture “doesn’t matter.”

Actually it isn’t a specialized spirituality.

It goes all the way back to Jesus who practiced detachment, making himself poor and carrying nothing, preferring unity with the Father. Jesus preached detachment when he told people not to worry about what they are to eat and drink in the Sermon on the Mount.

The Desert Father’s practiced austerity and detachment from created things when they walked off into the desert in the second century to be alone with God. This became monasticism - in the west it is Benedictine. Benedictine spirituality is exactly that. The mendicants - Franciscans, Dominicans, etc are detached from created things, living the beatitude of blessedness in poverty.

The beatitudes are not a specialized spirituality. Purity, poverty, peace, contrition for sins, the desire to be holy - these are universal.

I don’t think anyone in their right mind can say that architecture doesn’t matter. Architecture is catechesis, and the austere monastic Church teaches us about the beatitudes.

There are those who say however, that austerity in architecture is an abomination, counter to the will of God, that the “correct” church is Gothic and ornate. 1600 years of Benedictine tradition disagrees.

For me, personally, it is refreshing to walk into a Church and not see it cluttered, with windows so worshipers can see the sunrise during Mass.

-Tim-

 

[OraLabora]

Also - - OraLabora, I notice that in all of your nice photos, all those buildings had hard surface flooring. Not horrid sound-absorbing carpet. : )

Indeed! As a lover of Gregorian chant and chorister in a Gregorian schola, acoustics are very important to me. even in my own little oratory where I chant the Divine Office every day:

i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/OratoryMidDayPrayer.jpg

The wood-and-glass partition, and granite floor, ensure that I don’t have to force my voice to chant clearly.

 

[Capuchinfan1337]

What Vatican II said atleast about the role of the organ in the Church and liturgy.

“In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.”

Sacrosanctum Concilium 120

 

[27lw]

OraLabora:
Love your little oratory! Thanks for posting the photo!

 

[OraLabora]

What Vatican II said atleast about the role of the organ in the Church and liturgy.

“In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.”

Sacrosanctum Concilium 120

You mean one of these:

i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/SBL-2_zps45023989.jpg

OraLabora:
Love your little oratory! Thanks for posting the photo!

Thanks!

 

[Corki]

I don’t agree. Whether we attend Mass in a huge Gothic style building or a bamboo hut it makes no difference to our faith at all. Faith is not dependent on a building style.

It may not make any difference to** your** faith but it certainly does to mine. If I can use my senses more fully to turn my mind and heart to God, that is a definite difference in the quality of my faith life in a positive way.