Demolishing "modern" churches?

[insalaco]

Perhaps wasteful to the extreme. So…who gets to finance and who gets sole authority on what is “acceptable”. Heck…out here we have enough trouble just to keep up repairs on what we have.

Hmmmmm…sorry Lord, I was going to feed the hungry and clothe the poor but I built a beautiful new cathedral instead…

Maybe a better idea would be for any new churches being built to be more traditional…of course I have a suspicion that someone will find something to grumble about.

Hmmmmmm … Lord. I know you said we should never put anything before You, even the poor … but I really want to, so yeah. Cuz, ya know, I’m 12.

Sarcasm aside — The American bishops have made it quite clear that feeding the poor is the government’s job, not theirs.

Besides … I dont think anyone is talking about building magnificent Gothic cathedrals for every church. I’m certainly not. We’re talking about building churches that reflect Catholic tradition so you feel like you walking into “the House of the Lord.” Even the most simple of buildings can be made to feel,look and, in fact, “be” sacred.

 

[drafdog]

Yeah, let’s tear down those gothic monstrosities. We need to get back to traditional romanesque architecture the way God intended.

Reb Levi

 

[ConstantineTG]

I dont think money is the problem. the problem was the temptation of making the CC go with the times. it surely there was no shortage of money when it came to pay settlements to victims. so, that is our punishment for trying to build houses for ourselves instead of building it for our Lord. I remember talking to a friend of mine, she is a protestant anti Catholic, but she told me something very interesting. she told me when she went to europe, she decided to enter into the CC, the old ones. to my surprise she told me that she really felt the presence of our Lord in that Church. the beauty, the whole climate in the Church, the mysticism within the Church, the Chant. to the contrary, she cannot say the same thing about the modern Church. there is a reason why our ancestrals built the Church in a certain way. they had a zeal for our Lord. today, the buildings represents what we believe, which is very little faith and no zeal for te things of our Lord.

You have to realize that different designs do cost differently. Also cost of materials, land, architects, engineers, etc. Also the culture of the people would affect the design. I’ve had a few parishes in the Philippines that went for the “retro” look of churches from the Spanish-era of the country. Which I love. Then again, labor is cheap in that country so it would be easy to do compared to here in North America.

Even my current parish that has a 100-year old church, the church looks like the other old protestant churches.

 

[ProVobis]

I dont think money is the problem. the problem was the temptation of making the CC go with the times.

I somewhat agree with this. But just like all the bland-looking stadiums that were built in the 70’s which since been replaced with more traditional looking ones, many hope the same happens to the churches built in that same period.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I just wanted to provide a little bit of encouragement on the topic

the first Mass was said at this new Parish building on December 24th 2008. I liked the building much better in person than in the photos. The photos in several places really don’t do it justice It is a newly built church but very traditional.

I especially like the tabernacle firmly placed behind the altar in all stone/marble.


sjnknox.org/content/view/213/1/

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Hmmmmmm … Lord. I know you said we should never put anything before You, even the poor … but I really want to, so yeah. Cuz, ya know, I’m 12. So—you’ve feeding the poor makes you like 12? And apparently you have a direct link to God to know that the architecture is displeasing to Him and we should spend all that money tearing down the churchs to build new ones? Even though I don’t believe anyone at HMC has suggested that? Wow…you must be really priviledged…

Sarcasm aside — The American bishops have made it quite clear that feeding the poor is the government’s job, not theirs. Really? Then I guess we should have the government run our Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners at our parish. Don’t hang out in the news area because there are those Catholics that say feeding the poor isn’t the governments job…

Besides … I dont think anyone is talking about building magnificent Gothic cathedrals for every church. I’m certainly not. We’re talking about building churches that reflect Catholic tradition so you feel like you walking into “the House of the Lord.” Even the most simple of buildings can be made to feel,look and, in fact, “be” sacred.

Again…with what money? We had a suggestion from Canada that the RC has money…sure…but do the local parishes? Our parish needs to expand but we don’t even have the money for that…let alone tear down our existing structure for a new one.

Wonder what the apostles did without a building? Hmmm…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Again…with what money? We had a suggestion from Canada that the RC has money…sure…but do the local parishes? Our parish needs to expand but we don’t even have the money for that…let alone tear down our existing structure for a new one.

Wonder what the apostles did without a building? Hmmm…

The thing about money too is that not just because the diocese has money doesn’t mean they’ll fund the parishes. The diocese spends for a lot of other things leaving most parishes to fend for themselves for development and upkeep. Case in point is my parish. There are serious issues with the building that it’ll cost $1.4M to repair it. It’ll cost half that to just tear down the church and build a new one, even with similar design. But because our church was declared a heritage building, we can’t tear it down. We are not even getting a penny from the government nor the diocese. We have to fund it ourselves. The diocese will lend us the money, but we still need to pay it back.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Im just sick and tired of catholic churches that look like protestant mega-churches

I hear what you are saying…and might even agree somewhat. That being said…as some who has spent some time in protestant mega-churches…even new ones…I have yet to be in a Catholic church that looks like that! Maybe I’m blessed that way. I think it depends on what part of the country you are in too.

But…as far as I can see…ugly architecture knows no religious boundaries…in fact there is also plenty of it in our houses and office buildings, etc. They just don’t make things as ornate as they used to…period.

 

[ProVobis]

Wonder what the apostles did without a building? Hmmm…

Just what the chaplains did in the middle of the war fields, I suppose.

Again…with what money? We had a suggestion from Canada that the RC has money…sure…but do the local parishes?

Why weren’t these questions asked before churches went out and trashed the high altars, communion rails, kneelers, confessionals, statues, and everything else imaginable? Where did the money come from in order to have done this? There was no directive from Rome to do this. Was it more important to destroy traditionalism than anything else?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Some of the churches from the “Vatican II Interpretive Period” are so cheesy in construction, they’ll not last anyway. However, even some of those are not all that hard to retrofit to something that is more inspirational. Google “Henry Menzies” (an architect in NYC who does retrofits) and you’ll see what I mean. It’s not impossible at all.

All churches are, to some extent, “period pieces”. That’s true of Romanesque, Norman, Gothic, neo-Gothic, etc. Some variations on the theme are also “place pieces”. English Gothic, for instance does not, to my admittedly untrained eye, look quite like French Gothic or German Gothic.
19th Century Neo-Gothic churches vary a great deal, possibly due to the ethnicity of the people who built them. An old German parish church doesn’t look like an old Irish parish church or an old Polish parish church or an old Italian parish church in this country.

I will admit to a prejudice against the “period pieces” that were built in the post-VII era. I sometimes think one or two should be preserved or perhaps sent to the Smithsonian as an example of what 1970s Catholic church architecture looked like. Well, they could send the faux folk song hymnals with them, and perhaps some shag carpet and burlap banners with crude lettering on them as well.

But I think that era really is drawing to a close. It had its day. And no doubt when the younger generation of priests takes over the parishes and chanceries, there will be a lot of retrofitting, along with total rebuilds here and there.

One needs to remember, too, that the neighborhoods “everybody” live in now, will not necessarily be the ones “everybody” lives in thirty years hence. Doubtless some of the “new” parish churches in the suburban areas where most Catholics now live, will be deconsecrated and abandoned just as some of the old “inner city” parishes have been. It may be observed that there is a fair amount of gentrification going on in some of the old central cities, and it may just be that a few decades from now, those old “inner city” churches will be the ones to which everyone goes. There is some of that going on as we type.

 

[poker10]

A lot of structures built in the 70s are U-G-L-Y. It’s not just churches. I think it was just the time period. Remember the clothes? Ugh…

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Why weren’t these questions asked before churches went out and trashed the high altars, communion rails, kneelers, confessionals, statues, and everything else imaginable? Where did the money come from in order to have done this? There was no directive from Rome to do this. Was it more important to destroy traditionalism than anything else?

I would assume it takes less money to destroy then build. Although I personally haven’t seen that destruction. From what I’ve seen…they just don’t put them in…although the kneeler one has me puzzeled…I’ve not been in a Catholic church that doesn’t have kneelers… I also haven’t been in one that doesn’t have a confessional. I know in some other instances they are still there…just not used (communion rails).

But some churches have a 50 style that is not what you would call ornate but have some statues, stained glass, kneelers, some statues, the tabernacle is on the back altar. But it’s not the prettiest thing I’ve seen…kind of plain jane…

As for their motives…I can’t say…wasn’t there:shrug: Personally haven’t heard that type of agenda…well except here from the Traditional forumn.

 

[Timothysis]

Not only do I believe they are offensive to God

So, now God is offended by something so subjective as taste in architecture?

 

[ProVobis]

But some churches have a 50 style that is not what you would call ornate but have some statues, stained glass, kneelers, some statues, the tabernacle is on the back altar. But it’s not the prettiest thing I’ve seen…kind of plain jane…

Now that you mention it, I do remember at least one church built in the 50’s that had a masonic architecture, if you don’t my calling it that. It made the “turning around” of the altar very easy, as if someone had actually planned it that way.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I just wanted to provide a little bit of encouragement on the topic

the first Mass was said at this new Parish building on December 24th 2008. I liked the building much better in person than in the photos. The photos in several places really don’t do it justice It is a newly built church but very traditional.

I especially like the tabernacle firmly placed behind the altar in all stone/marble.


sjnknox.org/content/view/213/1/

oh! that is beautifull. luck you.

 

[wisdomseeker]

So, now God is offended by something so subjective as taste in architecture?

I dont know, you tell me. read the OT about the House for God, then you decide.

 

[mytruepower2]

This has been a problem throughout most of modern art and architecture. We’ve been prizing inclusiveness over substance; efficiency over impressiveness. In fact, Bishop Sheen once said of the U.N. building, that “it looks like a cracker box.”

We notice this problem most in churches because churches were always designed to look as impressive as possible, with the available resources. It’s not that God needs impressive-looking cathedrals in order to come to us in the sacraments. Like worship, we benefit from it much more than God does. Through the impressiveness of the architecture, music, decorations, etc, which we use to honor God, we make it easier to feel impressed by God himself, and to recognize his real presence in the Eucharist during Holy Mass. Every church, is, of course, a house of God, but many give the illusion that they’re houses of men instead, leading people to dwell on the community of believers, instead of the divine, and this is a real problem.

Do I think we should demolish more recently-built churches? No. I think that the downsizings within the church are probably going to do that. Unfortunately, parishes are closing left and right because so many people have stopped reading the bible, participating in the sacraments and believing in God. In the end, I agree with the holy father on this subject. He says that he thinks the church will, in the very near future, be reduced to smaller groups of believers, who carry on a fierce devotion, and let God into the world.

I agree with this because I see it in my own life, with many of the people I know. I have a much closer connection to the stronger catholics in my parish (the ones who believe the church’s teachings, and read the bible on their own time) than to anyone else.

 

[dconklin]

Im just sick and tired of catholic churches that look like protestant mega-churches

What are Catholic mega-churches supposed to look like? Just this weekend we kicked off a capital campaign to build a new church. It will have seating for 1,100 (this may not be big enough once completed) and it has to fit on our existing property. The parish to our south opened a new 1,500 seat church. Their’s is a cruciform design, but still has modern elements in it’s design.

 

[LoyalViews]

I believe the Roman Catholic Church has a not-insignificant amount of money. How were all these despicable travesties of architecture, fit only for “Frank Lloyd Wrong”, financed in the first place? It was either by charismatic (in the traditional sense) theologians, fiery bishops, and righteous priests, or by progressive protestant/liberal Catholic businessmen with a lot of money to throw around. We just need to find their polar opposites to create real churches.

Holy is God in eternity.

But it is the Parish which would need to find the money itself? Am I wrong (and very well could be).