How would your 'dream church' look like?

  • Thread starter Thread starter patrick457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If its a latin church

A large rood screen with neo gothic side altars (Mary and Joseph altars of course) on the front of it, but a free standing altar for the main altar behind the rood screen. Not a lot of lighting, stained glass windows with scenes of the New Testement on the left. On the right scenes from the Old Testement. In the sanctuary behind the rood screen, Stained glass windows of Saints and Angels with the four evangelists of course directly behind the altar. A large crucifix on the wall high enough above the rood screen so as to be clearly seen by the congregation with the Mary, Mary, and John at the foot. Below the Crucifix , Statues of St. Peter and Paul on the wall. The ceiling above should have Christ as judge looking down upon the altar. The free standing altar should have intricate carvings of angels. The tabernacle on the altar would be somewhat gothic looking with a small crucifx on top of it. There would be no pews in the nave of the church, except on the walls for the elderly or sick to sit if needed. There would be kneelers for kneeling though. The Rood screen would have a rail at the door for people to kneel and receive communion. The choir would have a loft behind the church from which to sing , but there would also be choir stalls behind the rood screen for the clerics and servers to sit and sing chants from. There would be a tall neo gothic style pulpit for the sermon and acoustics would be designed so that speakers and microphones would not be required at all. Floors would be either marble or wood, I can’t decide. Probably a dark colored marble for the areas outside the rood screen, but a lighter one for the inside.

The exterior would be of the gothic style.
 
I would build a small white wooden chapel in a huge field of wild flowers. It would have a bell tower with a magnificant clanging bell, a REAL bell, that would call everyone to worship together. There would be a real organ, maybe the old pump organ and someone who could play it beautifully. The priest would welcome one and all and after mass, the congregation would shake hands and linger in friendly conversation. The children would play games on the lawn and pick the perfect bouquet to adorn the statue of Mary.

I think I remember this little church, in the small town where I spent the first six years of my life. Thanks for the memories.

Love and peace,
Mom of 5
 
Mom_of_5 said:
I would build a small white wooden chapel in a huge field of wild flowers. It would have a bell tower with a magnificant clanging bell, a REAL bell, that would call everyone to worship together. There would be a real organ, maybe the old pump organ and someone who could play it beautifully. The priest would welcome one and all and after mass, the congregation would shake hands and linger in friendly conversation. The children would play games on the lawn and pick the perfect bouquet to adorn the statue of Mary.

I think I remember this little church, in the small town where I spent the first six years of my life. Thanks for the memories.

Love and peace,
Mom of 5
Click to expand...
No potluck lunch in the church basement after Mass or outside in the summer? C’mon Mom!!! Where’s that cold fried chicken, potato salad and baked beans with bacon on top?
 
patrick457 said:
NOTE: Please keep discussions as civil as possible; if possible please do not ever open a can of worms. I do not intend to start a debate thread here.

Many of us know (and go in) churches which rather resembles a newly-built storage house or an auditorium instead of a church, with minimal or no imagery for some time now, which (in the minds of many) are products of a rather bad artistic period. As for you, dear reader, how would you like a church building to look like? If you have a ‘dream church’, how would you imagine it?

As for me, this is how my ‘dream church’, so to speak (or at least the Sanctuary portion) would look (Sorry if this is a picture; I’m not really a good describer using words myself so I settled for a visual description):

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/3124/altarerm5.png

The Apse, detail
The Altar, detail
Click to expand...
Very nice artwork. I’d love to see it in real life someday! 😃 It reminds me of our Cathedral in Toledo, OH. rosarycathedral.org/vtour10.asp

As for me, I love gothic architecture, but I can appreciate other styles (not “modernistic” ones, though). I personally love my own church, but it’s very bare compared to what it was a hundred years ago. 😦 stmarysandusky.org/ The virtual tour on our parish website hasn’t been updated in a few years… we’ve recently undergone a renovation of the sanctuary that looks much nicer.
 
Depends I guess. I would love to attend the Kölner Dom. It holds the Relics of the Three Magi.


Main Facade


Nave


Relics of The Three Magi
 
i dont know if its just the picture, but the relics picture is realllllllllly bright

and that nave looks incredibly long, again maybe its just the photography
 
It’s not I’ve been there in real life. Its enormous. Actually the tallest church in the world. The Relics are very big as well. It’s in Köln (Cologne), Germany. I think it’s one of the only buildings that survived WWII in the city.
 
Spiller said:
Wow, you’re really softening-up your position now. You began with "I’ll just say this-whatever OLA looks like on the inside, it is a monstrosity on the outside. That, at least, is it’s big downside" which is fairly offensive balderdash.
Click to expand...
I still think that. I was commenting on your other response, which was regarding my estimation of church’s worthiness. Regardless, can we please keep this debate from becoming mindless squabbling? Ultimatly, we’re just talking about style, which is not the BIGGEST problem with Catholicism today.

It IS possible for people to disagree with you and not simply be making things up/regularly attend TLM/SSPX parishes.
 
Spiller said:
First, I really like St. Pat’s. In its setting it’s a wonderful venue. While I hardly think it’s one of the most beautiful buildings in the world< do like it very much.

That said the reason I used St. Pat’s as an example is because it seems to be many traditionalists’ gold-standard – at least in the USA. A knock-off of St. Pat’s would have looked absurdly out of place at 555 W. Temple Street in Downtown LA.

It would also have been terribly foreign to our own Catholic history in this part of the world – the 21 California Missions. While OLAC is no California Mission clone, it does carry some design elements from the beloved California Missions. A St. Pat’s clone would not have and it would have looked very odd in the current cathedral’s place.
Click to expand...
That’s good- it was unclear from what you said. It really seemed like you were saying St Patrick’s was an ugly/unworthy/lame building. Thanks for clearing that up, I can stop slamming my head in the door :o
 
muffinmojo said:
That’s good- it was unclear from what you said. It really seemed like you were saying St Patrick’s was an ugly/unworthy/lame building. Thanks for clearing that up, I can stop slamming my head in the door :o
Click to expand...
St. Pat’s is no more or no less “ugly/unworthy/lame building” than is OLAC.
 
muffinmojo said:
I still think that. I was commenting on your other response, which was regarding my estimation of church’s worthiness. Regardless, can we please keep this debate from becoming mindless squabbling? Ultimatly, we’re just talking about style, which is not the BIGGEST problem with Catholicism today.

It IS possible for people to disagree with you and not simply be making things up/regularly attend TLM/SSPX parishes.
Click to expand...
I’ll be the first to admit that this conversation was not simply a “traditionalist’s” blue flame of how horrid and evil OLAC is. It came close with the “awful” and “monstrosity” comments but it wasn’t the typical mindless attack I have come to expect.

I still haven’t heard a valid reason to dislike the design of the OLAC but at least one person was big enough to admit they disliked it because it somehow offended their personal taste…
 
holdencaulfield said:
It’s not I’ve been there in real life. Its enormous. Actually the tallest church in the world. The Relics are very big as well. It’s in Köln (Cologne), Germany. I think it’s one of the only buildings that survived WWII in the city.
Click to expand...
According to Guinness World Records, the church with the tallest spire in the world is that of Ulm Münster, the Protestant Cathedral of Ulm, Germany. The building is early Gothic and was begun in 1377. The tower was not completed until 1890, and is 528 feet (161 meters) high.

It obviously started out as Catholic, however… 😉
 
SenorSalsa said:
i dont know if its just the picture, but the relics picture is realllllllllly bright

and that nave looks incredibly long, again maybe its just the photography
Click to expand...
Churches were extremely thin and long – they did not have the means to build wide-spanning roofs in most cases…
 
My church of dreams would be Holy Family in Columbus (of the one’s I’ve attended, not cathedrals). I enjoy the EF mass, and it’s the best place to go in the area. Absolutely beautiful.

seminarianzach.blogspot.com/2007/03/church-highlight-holy-family-columbus.html

St. Paul’s in London, if converted, would be spectacular as well.

As for the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels in LA, I find the outside of the structure (seen personally) to be absolutely horrid. It is far too angular and the angles have no unifying or coherent form. Maybe I do not see the flow the building should have, but it just doesn’t work for me. The outside looks like a failed high-school origami project. I cannot judge on the inside, as I’ve never been in. Not a fan of His Eminence, Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Las Angeles.

And this is not a swipe at Wright. I very much liked the Greek Orthodox cathedral in Denver he did (though, to think of it, not so much the outside). The inside is breathtaking; it is a very effective use of space, and has a feeling of stepping into Heaven itself. It is immense at the cost of being smaller than you think. For pictures, go here:

assumptioncathedral.org/index.cfm?page=tour&scope=Cathedral%20Tour%20of%20Iconography&tourTitle=CATHEDRAL%20TOUR%20OF%20ICONOGRAPHY
 
aristotle said:
As for the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels in LA, I find the outside of the structure (seen personally) to be absolutely horrid. It is far too angular and the angles have no unifying or coherent form. Maybe I do not see the flow the building should have, but it just doesn’t work for me. The outside looks like a failed high-school origami project. I cannot judge on the inside, as I’ve never been in. Not a fan of His Eminence, Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Las Angeles.
Click to expand...
“Absolutely horrid”, huh? Why? Becuase it’s “too angular” with “no unifying or coherent form?” That’s what makes the building “absolutely horrid”, huh? I really don’t believe anyone who has actually visited the cathedral in person would call it “absolutely horrid.” Were you aware for example that it was purposefully designed with no right angles?

Why didn’t you go in? 😉

I think you tipped your hand as to the real reason for your dislike of the structure – Cardinal Mahony as its founder…
 
I think the Latin Churches should bring back the Rood Screen:

http://www.kettlebaston.suffolk.gov.uk/y2khome/church/churchpic24/Church_rood_screen_v2_AG.jpg

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/806/428071.JPG



(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-2/653261/roodscreen.jpg

I think that Eastern and Western Churches were more alike in the earlier days than we realize. I read that when the Muslims sacked Rome, they stole the Iconostasis from St. Peter’s Basilica (Old St. Pete’s, before Bramante.)
 
Spiller said:
I think you tipped your hand as to the real reason for your dislike of the structure – Cardinal Mahony as its founder…
Click to expand...
Hey, it’s not my taste. That’s the reason I don’t like it. Again, not a slight to Wright (as the portion of my post you chose not to quote bares forth). I find it absolutely ugly.

Mahony I see as a heretic, and even if he were preaching from the pulpit of St. Paul’s in London he’d still be a heretic.

Why all the anger? I just said I don’t like something and think it doesn’t look too good. Mahony’s not going to lose sleep over my opinion. Neither’s Wright (for more than one reason).
 
aristotle said:
Hey, it’s not my taste. That’s the reason I don’t like it. Again, not a slight to Wright (as the portion of my post you chose not to quote bares forth). I find it absolutely ugly.

Mahony I see as a heretic, and even if he were preaching from the pulpit of St. Paul’s in London he’d still be a heretic.

Why all the anger? I just said I don’t like something and think it doesn’t look too good. Mahony’s not going to lose sleep over my opinion. Neither’s Wright (for more than one reason).
Click to expand...
Hmmm…

You began with “absolutely horrid.” Now it’s “absolutely ugly.” All this based on your personal architectural taste? Forgive me if I fail to accept your explanation. It sounds like you are more influenced by who the founder of the cathedral is than anything else.

How come you didn’t go inside? You can’t really see that much from Temple Street and even less from Grand Avenue. Are you judging the cathedral based on a quick drive by on US 101?

I have no idea why you feel the need to judge and denigrate Cardinal Mahony. That’s not very Catholic Christian of you and it does paint a fairly unseemly picture of your own self. To call a cardinal of the Church a heretic goes far beyond the pale. I have no anger towards you – perhaps a bit of disgust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top