Jubilee Church- Ugly? Basic? YES!

  • Thread starter Thread starter 031064
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
0

031064

Guest
I was told to restart this thread on another forum so here you go:
We were talking about the Jubilee Church in Rome found here: images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/jubilee/jubilee1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/jubilee/index.htm&h=285&w=430&sz=27&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=phZuJSKD4bkKCM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJubilee%2BChurch%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-ca:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7DACA%26sa%3DN

After looking at this tell me how it compare to this Orthodox church: kosovo.net/news/archive/2005/November_10/1.html

Havn’t the Orthodox just done a superior job of upholding architectural traditions? the Jubilee church looks more like a community centre than a church- it’s just not fitting.

Please give feedback. Thanks!
 
031064 said:
I
Havn’t the Orthodox just done a superior job of upholding architectural traditions? the Jubilee church looks more like a community centre than a church- it’s just not fitting.
Click to expand...
I’m not familiar with the architecture of Orthodox churches, but it looks fine.

The Jubilee Church didn’t leap off the page as being a church, but it is pleasing to the eye. Certainly I have seen far, far uglier Catholic churches.
 
I understand how you feel as I prefer the traditional style but otherwise I see nothing wrong with it.
 
Hello 031064,

Judging by the image in your signature, you must be a real fan of Orthodox culture/art. So be it - that’s your personal taste.

I like the modern church. It could probably do better with a cross on top of it, or something like that, but that seems like something that can readily be fixed. But I like it. The first thing that came mind, when I saw it, was the Sydney Opera House. It has that certain eye-catching appeal which I find interesting.

Don’t get me wrong; I love old buildings. I’ve been to the Vatican and it’s my favourite place in the world (not that I’ve travelled much).

As for that old fashioned Orthodox church - they’ll never be built again. Those old fashioned churches look very expensive to build nowadays. Besides, I don’t think any local government or council would approve of such big buildings anyway.

A few years ago, our community had to the opportunity to rebuild our church. We were looking forward to building something large - a real landmark that would last for generations. But the council wouldn’t approve the building application. 😦 We basically had to build it to their design to suit them. And there not even practicing christians. :eek: What could we do? 🤷

What about this church in Lebanon (I’ve been in this church too 🙂 )… It’s supposed to look like a Pheonecian Ship.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.forzanuova.org/primavera_libanese_clip_image008.jpg

Right next to it (not in picture) was the St Peter and Paul Orthodox Basilica… which is probably something you would like.
 
It’s not even so much just the basic design but the fact that absolutely nothing jumps out and says, “this is a catholic church!”. there are no statues inside, nothing communicating any faith-filled message- that’s what really gets me.
 
Oh ya, also, the Orthodox church photo I posted is actually a new church. I don’t think the Orthodox will stop building beautiful churches until Christ returns to tell them they should have abided by the Pope.
 
I like it, it’s a pretty and pure building, but a bit an oxymoron in the sense it appears both humble, and dramatic.

🙂
 
031064 said:
I was told to restart this thread on another forum so here you go:
We were talking about the Jubilee Church in Rome found here: images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/jubilee/jubilee1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/jubilee/index.htm&h=285&w=430&sz=27&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=phZuJSKD4bkKCM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJubilee%2BChurch%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-ca:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7DACA%26sa%3DN

After looking at this tell me how it compare to this Orthodox church: kosovo.net/news/archive/2005/November_10/1.html

Havn’t the Orthodox just done a superior job of upholding architectural traditions? the Jubilee church looks more like a community centre than a church- it’s just not fitting.

Please give feedback. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I think this might be the architectural style in use today in the building of churches. Our new cathedral here in the Oakland, CA Diocese uses natural light in much the same way. The name is actually, “the Cathedral of Christ the Light.” The dedication is set for September I believe. Check it out.

ctlcathedral.org/

At first I wasn’t too fond of the design, but it’s growing on me.
 
Yet again with the ‘cathedral of Christ the Light’ I just don’t see it being a church glorifyintg God- it glorifies the architect. Why is it circular- couldn’t they have had more space if it weren’t?
 
031064 said:
Yet again with the ‘cathedral of Christ the Light’ I just don’t see it being a church glorifyintg God- it glorifies the architect. Why is it circular- couldn’t they have had more space if it weren’t?
Click to expand...
Aren’t you then guilty of glorifying the architect who builds in that “traditional” manner?

When we speak of the Sisteen (sp) chapel, do we talk about how it glorifies God? Or is it about Michelangelo?

The architect does a wonderful job of using natural light. But the emphasis is on Christ the Light. I don’t think of the architect and how he designed it. I think of what it stands for.

Incidentally, when they built the first the huge stone churches in the first millennium, don’t you think there were those who considered them “not traditional” and “only glorify the architect”? I mean they were not traditional according to the people of the time, right? The apostles didn’t worship or preach in the Haggia Sophia or St. Peter’s.

Just because a church is not built the traditional sense as we have come to know it, doesn’t mean it’s bad or doesn’t glorify God.
 
As I previously stated, I beleive that the Church should at least have a few indicators it’s a church. The jubilee church has no statues, lights, or anything very Catholic. Look inside an orthodox chruch- they have strands of oil lamps and censers, beautiful icons, etc. We should glorify God with the best of the best- nothing in and around these churches suggests we’re doing that. Also, considering that most people do not study theology, the building itself and the things in it should be a lesson in Christian theology- neither of these are.
 
I just looked at the interior pictures of the Cathedral and I see nothing particularly catholic- no statues etc. I did, however, like the icons of Christ which looks like it was done by a lazer onto crystal- that’s good. I guess maybe they wouldn’t put pictures of the stautes in the theoretical design pictures.
 
031064 said:
I just looked at the interior pictures of the Cathedral and I see nothing particularly catholic- no statues etc. I did, however, like the icons of Christ which looks like it was done by a lazer onto crystal- that’s good. I guess maybe they wouldn’t put pictures of the stautes in the theoretical design pictures.
Click to expand...
The Cathedral is not yet complete, though. Its dedication is set for September. I’m sure by then there will be more added to it.

Something I just noticed while looking at the pictures of the Jubilee church. It does have a crucifix, but where is the Tabernacle. It should be right up there in a place of honor near the altar, but I didn’t see it. Maybe it’s disguised. To me, that is the one thing I look for to know whether I’m actually in a Catholic Church.
 
What really gets me is that the pope, or at least a papal commitee, commisioned this church! It should be one of the most beautiful, honored, and reverent places just by that virtue. It is not so much the building that I find ugly- its actually a neat design, I just hate that there is NOTHING telling me ‘this is Catholic’. the inside of the church is so protestant and so unfitting to a roman church- it is true that calvin and knox would be proud.
 
There’s no sign of it being a church outside; perhaps there is some board or something telling people it is a Catholic church, but apart from that, it looks like your generic corporate structure that would be as unrecognizable as any other corporate structure around. Inside, it is just as generic–could be mistaken for a Protestant church. No tabernacle, as someone noticed. The altar looks generic as well.
 
The first picture looks to me like sails on a ship. The orthodox one looks like a giant cookie jar with buttons for decorations. Possibly my artistic sensibilities are appalling. I don’t really care; the only thing that matters is what’s happening on the altar during the Eucharistic ceremony
 
031064 said:
What really gets me is that the pope, or at least a papal commitee, commisioned this church! It should be one of the most beautiful, honored, and reverent places just by that virtue. It is not so much the building that I find ugly- its actually a neat design, I just hate that there is NOTHING telling me ‘this is Catholic’. the inside of the church is so protestant and so unfitting to a roman church- it is true that calvin and knox would be proud.
Click to expand...
May be that was intentional; May be it’s a way to reach out to Protestant communities to say “hey, we’re modern and contemporary too”. Sometimes little things can go a long way.

The old fashioned churches are still there for your enjoyment. There’s plenty of room for both.
 

The problem with that church in Rome is that it lacks almost all means of symbolic expression - one of the great strengths of Orthodox churches & of the 1962 Mass is that both are very rich in symbolism.​

The failure of the diocese of Rome to find an architect who is a Catholic or some other sort of Christian for so important a commission also has its symbolism. 😦

The Church has a long tradition of ecclesiastical architecture, & this kind of building tries to be different by ignoring it; it’s an arrogant building, because it detaches itself from from the past rather than being in organic continuity with it, as though it had nothing to learn from the past. The newness is not the problem - the inability to bring the past into the present is. I blame Le Corbusier and his saying that a house is a machine for living in. “The House that is built for the LORD” is not a machine. Jacob was right, not Le Corbusier: “Terribilis locus iste” - “This place is awe-full” (Gen. 28). That church, like Le Corbusier’s idea, is merely awful.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

The problem with that church in Rome is that it lacks almost all means of symbolic expression - one of the great strengths of Orthodox churches & of the 1962 Mass is that both are very rich in symbolism.​

The failure of the diocese of Rome to find an architect who is a Catholic or some other sort of Christian for so important a commission also has its symbolism. 😦

The Church has a long tradition of ecclesiastical architecture, & this kind of building tries to be different by ignoring it; it’s an arrogant building, because it detaches itself from from the past rather than being in organic continuity with it, as though it had nothing to learn from the past. The newness is not the problem - the inability to bring the past into the present is. I blame Le Corbusier and his saying that a house is a machine for living in. “The House that is built for the LORD” is not a machine. Jacob was right, not Le Corbusier: “Terribilis locus iste” - “This place is awe-full” (Gen. 28). That church, like Le Corbusier’s idea, is merely awful.
Click to expand...
Beautifully said! The purpose of a church building for the greater part of 2 millenia was to bring the people closer to the Divine One. This church doesn’t cut it.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top