Modern Churches vs. old Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter Goldy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Goldy

Guest
Fr. John Corapi once said, “Watch out for churches that look like the inside of an empty refrigerator.” He was saying this because a lot of the modern churches don’t have anything that helps us to elevate our minds and hearts to God. We may as well be worshipping in a Quaker hall. So my question is, why do modern churches look, smell, and feel so much different than our older churches? Older churches are normally long and narrow, have many more statues, stained glass windows, balconies provided for the organ and choir, tabernacle on the altar, etc. The modern churches are shaped like stadiums, have fewer statues, less stained glass windows, the tabernacle is nowhere to be found, etc. I understand that things like stained glass windows, marble-floored altars, and nice statues are pretty expensive these days. But is this the real reason why they look so much more Protestant these days? After all, they could all at least be in the same shape (long and narrow). They’re not lecture halls!! God bless our old churches. There’s something really special about walking into these places for mass each Sunday.
 
Pax tecum!

Fr. Joseph Fessio, the founder of Ignatius Press, wrote that when he sees the modern liturgists design a church with half the beauty of something Notre Dame, then they can talk about beauty in the liturgy. I agree.

I think the reason for these new designs is to not only make everything “with the times” (aka ugly as sin) and more “community oriented”. If we’re all around in a big happy circle, then it is more of a “community meal”. Plus, then we can all “see” everything better, especially with the stadium-like seating in some churches now. Sheesh, give me an old stone church with a rood screen, Communion rail, and a high altar anyday.

Compare these two churches:
h-t.org/photogallery/interior_night_wide-a1.JPG
h-t.org/images/church%20interior/sanctuary_for_Penticost-1a.jpg
and
holyrosarypdx.org/photogallery/image.php?twg_album=Easter+2006+%7E+The+Day+Mass&twg_show=IMG_0585.jpg
holyrosarypdx.org/photogallery/image.php?twg_album=Good+Friday+2006&twg_show=IMG_0352.jpg

also, look at the difference between the altar in the second churh and the table in the first:
holyrosarypdx.org/photogallery/image.php?twg_album=Easter+2006+%7E+The+Day+Mass&twg_show=IMG_0572.jpg
h-t.org/images/church%20interior/altar_w_flowers-a.JPG

In Christ,
Rand
 
Pax tecum!

Fr. Joseph Fessio, the founder of Ignatius Press, wrote that when he sees the modern liturgists design a church with half the beauty of something Notre Dame, then they can talk about beauty in the liturgy. I agree.

I think the reason for these new designs is to not only make everything “with the times” (aka ugly as sin) and more “community oriented”. If we’re all around in a big happy circle, then it is more of a “community meal”. Plus, then we can all “see” everything better, especially with the stadium-like seating in some churches now. Sheesh, give me an old stone church with a rood screen, Communion rail, and a high altar anyday.

Compare these two churches:
h-t.org/photogallery/interior_night_wide-a1.JPG
h-t.org/images/church%20interior/sanctuary_for_Penticost-1a.jpg
and
holyrosarypdx.org/photogallery/image.php?twg_album=Easter+2006+%7E+The+Day+Mass&twg_show=IMG_0585.jpg
holyrosarypdx.org/photogallery/image.php?twg_album=Good+Friday+2006&twg_show=IMG_0352.jpg

also, look at the difference between the altar in the second churh and the table in the first:
holyrosarypdx.org/photogallery/image.php?twg_album=Easter+2006+%7E+The+Day+Mass&twg_show=IMG_0572.jpg
h-t.org/images/church%20interior/altar_w_flowers-a.JPG

In Christ,
Rand
 
Pax tecum!

Fr. Joseph Fessio, the founder of Ignatius Press, wrote that when he sees the modern liturgists design a church with half the beauty of something Notre Dame, then they can talk about beauty in the liturgy. I agree.

I think the reason for these new designs is to not only make everything “with the times” (aka ugly as sin) and more “community oriented”. If we’re all around in a big happy circle, then it is more of a “community meal”. Plus, then we can all “see” everything better, especially with the stadium-like seating in some churches now. Sheesh, give me an old stone church with a rood screen, Communion rail, and a high altar anyday.

Compare these two churches:
h-t.org/photogallery/interior_night_wide-a1.JPG
h-t.org/images/church%20interior/sanctuary_for_Penticost-1a.jpg
and
holyrosarypdx.org/photogallery/image.php?twg_album=Easter+2006+%7E+The+Day+Mass&twg_show=IMG_0585.jpg
holyrosarypdx.org/photogallery/image.php?twg_album=Good+Friday+2006&twg_show=IMG_0352.jpg

also, look at the difference between the altar in the second churh and the table in the first:
holyrosarypdx.org/photogallery/image.php?twg_album=Easter+2006+%7E+The+Day+Mass&twg_show=IMG_0572.jpg
h-t.org/images/church%20interior/altar_w_flowers-a.JPG

In Christ,
Rand
 
Statues, stained glass, marble altars, pipe organs, quality building materials, and so forth, have ALWAYS been expensive. The point was that we give our very best to God, and by doing so we all can share in the beauty of His house. The church building should be a little foretaste of heaven, as an Orthodox Christian might say. One rarely sees an Orthodox or Eastern Rite church that isn’t beautiful and catechetical, even among recent constructions. God always takes priority over anything else, and such buildings make this quite plain to the faithful and the uninformed visitor alike.

Today, churches are built with an eye for utility – what will make OUR experience better? Rather than considering the devotional life of the church as a temple of God, it is designed as a multi-purpose space for Mass, meetings, concerts, and the like. Items of transcendant beauty are considered unimportant and unnecessary (“during the war, the chaplain celebrated Mass on the hood of a Jeep and it was still the same Mass” … isn’t this what they always say?). It is obvious in the never-binding, now-superceded 1978document, “Environment and Art in Catholic Worship,” which caused billions of dollars’ worth of unnecessary “wreckovations,” that the focus of the unfortunate document is on the “assembly,” rather that on the worship of God.
 
This is one time I agree wholeheartedly with Fr. Corapi. Modern churches just don’t do a thing for me. I know that we shouldn’t make an idol out of architecture, but I need some atmosphere, probably on the dark side which makes the lit candles stand out. It might be because that’s the kind of church I was raised with. Unfortunately, it burned to the ground in the 1970’s and was replaced by a modern monstrosity. Nothing beats a Gothic-style church. It connects us with a community which reaches back into ancient times. It’s all part of the mystical experience.

One reason we have modern churches is because it would be impossibly expensive to build a new Gothic church, both in terms of the building itself, for which we don’t even really have the craftsmen anymore, and also in real estate. The latter is very expensive, and they always want to put the most church they can on the least amount of land. So that tends to exclude the long narrow churches of the past. Cost also excludes a lot of expensive statues, windows, etc. At a time they have to close parishes and sell the churches, it wouldn’t make sense.

Even in my own city, the diocese is having to sell a beautiful 18th century romanesque-style stone church because the parish is not viable anymore, and the building itself has been allowed to decay to the point that it would not be possible for the Church to restore it. It would be too expensive.

On the other hand, sometimes the Church itself is the villain. Another beautiful old 18th century stone church, the one where I was baptized in fact, is still active and in use, but they made a deliberate choice in the 1990’s to destroy the interior and replace it with an altar in the middle surrounded by circled pews. Now that I think is architectural sacrilege. I never go there.

I’ve always felt modern architecture with no medieval atmosphere is one of the reason Mass attendance has dropped off dramatically since the 1960’s. People need to atmosphere of a Catholic Church, not a meeting hall.
 
In some dioceses, it is the chancery Building Department that blocks the construction of traditional-style churches, and/or prevents the redecoration of existing modern churches in a more ornate manner. Sometimes, they hire architects with no Catholic experience while ignoring qualified, experienced architects who could do a better job. It is not necessarily a question of budgetary limitations.

One would think such chanceries were out to impose McDonald’s-like uniformity instead of genuine expression of Catholic art.

Compromises are possible: Perhaps the best-known example of a successful negotiation with a diocesan Building Department is St. Agnes Chuch in Manhattan. After the original church was destroyed by a fire, the parish fought to have a classical structure built to replace it. While it isn’t a perfect implementation of a typical early 20th century design, it is certainly acceptable.
 
This Rock, December 2006 (from our friend, Karl):

*“I wonder whether it might not be good to call a moratorium on renovations for a decade or two, until pastors who were ordained in the 1970s have had a chancen to retire. The younger guys, on the whole, seem to have a much better sense of “sacred space”.”

*I couldn’t agree more. 👍
 
Don’t fret, the newer church buildings will fill with sacred art in time, just as the older church buildings did. When my parish was rehabbed, it gained about eight shrine spaces it didn’t have before; but at dedication time in 2002 only two of them could be filled. Since then, a third one has been filled, and one statue has been installed in the garden. My best prediction is by 2030 or so, all the shrine spaces will be properly imaged and icon-ed

karen marie
 
kmknapp said:
Don’t fret, the newer church buildings will fill with sacred art in time, just as the older church buildings did. When my parish was rehabbed, it gained about eight shrine spaces it didn’t have before; but at dedication time in 2002 only two of them could be filled. Since then, a third one has been filled, and one statue has been installed in the garden. My best prediction is by 2030 or so, all the shrine spaces will be properly imaged and icon-ed

karen marie
Click to expand...
I agree. I’ve never understood why outsiders insist on criticizing new parishes for the lack of statues and other art. Give them time. In the short run most parishes would be forced to purchase a tacky plaster of paris painted statue. Given twenty-thirty years the parish will probably be able to commission some truly beautiful artwork.

Yes, I know some artwork is available from older parishes which have been closed but not all such artwork is suitable for a given new church.
 
Read Ugly as Sin by Michael Rose. He gives a detailed and very well-researched analysis of why church architecture has changed . . . and it ain’t because of expenses! Rather, it’s heretical protestant and even humanistic theology and philosophy that is resulting in churches that look more like public libraries than Temples of the Most High God. Interestingly enough, many extremely ugly modern churches were more expensive to build than traditional churches. Case-in-point: Mahoney’s EDIT “Cathedral” in L.A.
 
In some dioceses, it is the chancery Building Department that blocks the construction of traditional-style churches, and/or prevents the redecoration of existing modern churches in a more ornate manner. Sometimes, they hire architects with no Catholic experience while ignoring qualified, experienced architects who could do a better job. It is not necessarily a question of budgetary limitations.

One would think such chanceries were out to impose McDonald’s-like uniformity instead of genuine expression of Catholic art.

Compromises are possible: Perhaps the best-known example of a successful negotiation with a diocesan Building Department is St. Agnes Chuch in Manhattan. After the original church was destroyed by a fire, the parish fought to have a classical structure built to replace it. While it isn’t a perfect implementation of a typical early 20th century design, it is certainly acceptable.
 
I think the wreckovation of our churches and the building of sterile, ugly modern ones has to do with the same mentality that believed we needed to make the New Mass into a community meal and get rid of nearly everything that would offend Protestants. I think the liturgy and church architecture are connected. If you strip down the liturgy, it’s not surprising that church architecture is going to be stripped down as well.
 
I think thought needs to be given, in the US anyway, of the contrasting situations under which older and newer style churches were constructed. Case in point: My parents were married in a substantial but not huge parish church in a very small working class town in upstate New York. It is ordinarily attractive on the outside, but quite stunning inside. These churches were made by great artisans who were devoutly Catholic and the community took it as a matter of pride that no expense or effort would be spared.in the architecture and adornment. Now in terms of music, they had no taste at all (nary a decent organ in sight), but let’s not stray from the topic.

Modern style churches, though I have seen examples of them that I think not unattractive, have generally been imposed on indifferent parishes with no sense of ownership and certainly no sense that it is their church. The problem is, by 1968 the times had so changed that there was no other choice. My home parish (not the same one) had to (because of a condemning) build a new church that year, making it one of the first of the new style, and it is fairly successful. Over the years it has needed tweeking, but it has many fine and enduring features. On the one hand it would have been impossible to just build a bigger better church in the same style as 1875, and on the other it would have been impossible to produce anything that would have pleased a modern working class congregation at the same time it satisfied some sort of aesthetic criterion.

Oh, BTW, the music is still awful.
 
Well, not all newer churches are that devoid of beauty. This past summer, we were in St. Louis and managed to get to the new cathedral there (the final mosaic pieces finished in 1988).

Trust me, when I say anyone who has opportunity to be in St. Louis really ought to make time to visit the new cathedral there. For a dollar, you can also go into the museum downstairs and see some fascinating exhibits of how they went from artist conception to what’s on the walls.

The web photos seen here really do not do it justice.
 
Melissa said:
Well, not all newer churches are that devoid of beauty. This past summer, we were in St. Louis and managed to get to the new cathedral there (the final mosaic pieces finished in 1988).

Trust me, when I say anyone who has opportunity to be in St. Louis really ought to make time to visit the new cathedral there. For a dollar, you can also go into the museum downstairs and see some fascinating exhibits of how they went from artist conception to what’s on the walls.

The web photos seen here really do not do it justice.
Click to expand...
Wow. Really amazing church. Thanks for posting. I admit, as I was looking at it, I was thinking, “There’s no way this church was built in modern times.” And while the mosaics were completed in 1988 as you mentioned (started in 1912), apparently the church started being built in 1907 and was basically completed by 1927.

There have been certain adjustments throughout the years, of course, and at least the Archdiocese didn’t wreckovate it! God bless them for that.

In addition to your link, here’s a Wikipedia link for it as well:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_Basilica_of_St._Louis
 
Oh, yes–a lot of places might’ve dumped off the whole mosaic idea before it was done and started plastering over for plain walls or something …

So maybe that’s something–the vision to see long-range and carry it through to completion, and think ‘for the ages’ rather than just ‘for now’.
 
The church closest to us was built in 1988. It still looks like the inside of a college lecture hall just with cushier seats and kneelers. It is still devoid of art or statues or really anything that says “This is a building built to honor God.” I know - the people inside are the ones that honor God, but it would be nice to have something besides the starkness. Even the stations of the cross are devoid of artistry. Our priest who is currently there is the one that headed up the project and he is definitely a priest of the 70’s.
 
Being a Catholic is more than the Faith itself. It’s also the anicent tradition, the visuals, the smells, etc. All of these are important. The architectural tradition ties us directly back to ancient Rome, and some of the visual traditions back even further to practices that even predate Christianity itself by thousands of years. A Faith which strays too far from these will find it hard to retain its members over time, because there’s not much left to differentiate it from the other Christian denominations, many of which may be appealing to people in other ways. I personally have no interest whatsoever in walking into a plain meeting hall. If I want plain, I can just stay at home and do my praying there, or I could just go to my wife’s United Church. Not that I’m much of a traditionalist in terms of going back to Latin or anything like that, but the atmosphere of a traditional Catholic church is very important to me.

That being said, we must also recognize that even our beautiful old churches weren’t furnished with all their icons overnight. In many cases, it took decades for the parish to be able to buy everything, such as the stained glass windows, the statues, etc. So maybe some of the modern churches will improve over time, although I suspect not. Nobody wants to spend money nowadays. People just want to accumulate portfolios, pension investments, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top