Modern Churches vs. old Churches

[Goldy]

Thanks to all of you for your replies. I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t the only one who had a problem with this. From a personal standpoint, my wife and I stopped going to the church I grew up in partly because it looks like a large, modern lecture hall. Even my wife, who is a new Catholic and doesn’t always agree with all Catholic theology (I’m working on that), said she doesn’t like it a whole lot. We’ve decided to go to another church nearby that was built about 100 years ago. It is long and narrow, has the balcony for the organ and choir, tons of beautiful statues, the Tabernacle is on the altar where it belongs, and the stained glass windows are breathtaking. It’s amazing how much more I enjoy going to Mass there. Sometimes I’ll just take our two children there on a Saturday afternoon and just walk around inside, taking in all the beautiful sights.

This question keeps popping up in my mind: I truly wonder what our churches would look like if ALL OF US really gave 10% of our income to the Church. Would it make a difference? Would some churches still need bingo to keep their heads above the water if everyone gave 10%? I wonder…

 

[scylla]

It’s the old Judas mentality,

“Why are we spending so much money to make it look nice, we could spend it on the poor”
Except it really is not a desire to spend money on the poor but a desire not to sacrifice to make the house of God beautiful.

If there is a true belief in the real presence then they would make every effort to make the Church as beautiful as possible to honor God.

If there is real belief in the real presence then the Church can look like a lecture hall, and this is the result in many places.

You can see how the atheistic belief of no real presence has resulted in a different approach to Catholicism. A disbelief in God results in a God who is expressed in seeing Him in ourselves and primarily that as that is where the belief is shifting. This results in a stressing of the Body of Christ as pretty much only the people and not in the Eucharist.

No Eucharist, means no beauty in the Church because we go there to see each other not to recieve God.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[palmas85]

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.

Quite true, they are intimately connected and intertwined. The entire concept of the new Liturgy was to not focus so much on Christ in the Tabernacle or as some abstract concept, but rather to see Christ in the community. Hence the popularity of the circular or semi-circular designs of many of the new Churches. It supposedly enabled that communal feeling of seeing and experiencing Christ in your neighbor instead of Christ on the altar. It is also the underlying reason that the tabernacle was moved in many Churches and such practices as Eucharistuc Adoration, Expositions, Benedictions and processions such as Corpus Christi were discouraged for so long. They all took away from the concept of Christ presnt in the community.

Thankfully, many of these practices are returning in force.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Quite true, they are intimately connected and intertwined. The entire concept of the new Liturgy was to not focus so much on Christ in the Tabernacle or as some abstract concept, but rather to see Christ in the community. Hence the popularity of the circular or semi-circular designs of many of the new Churches. It supposedly enabled that communal feeling of seeing and experiencing Christ in your neighbor instead of Christ on the altar. It is also the underlying reason that the tabernacle was moved in many Churches and such practices as Eucharistuc Adoration, Expositions, Benedictions and processions such as Corpus Christi were discouraged for so long. They all took away from the concept of Christ presnt in the community.

Thankfully, many of these practices are returning in force.

Pax tecum!

I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the NO, but let’s not have another thread turn into the TLM vs. NO discussion.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

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 couldn’t agree more!

 

[Digitonomy]

A thread bashing modern architecture will never want for posts. I happen to think that “modern” style churches can be done well, but it’s rare that they are. And while older churches are sometimes uninspired, they’re usually at least built with care.

However, there are at least a couple areas where I think modern churches do a better job:

1. ]Sightlines. I never get stuck behind a giant pillar in a new church; the only time I can’t see what is going on is if the person in front of me has an enormous hairdo.]Congregational singing. Catholics as a rule have never been enthusiastic singers. Parishoners further back in the church, and everyone at a sparsely-attended (e.g. weekday) mass, feel rather solitary in their singing. In the round or semicircular layout of modern churches, you can hear the rest of the congregation participating in the song.
   

   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.

   In the area where I grew up, the beautiful old gothic-style church is now struggling, while the bland stadium-style church built more recently is full at most masses.

 

[Caesar]

My Diocese suffered greatly from this new church architecture. During the 1960s and 70s the Diocese appeared to be doing well, so great amounts of money were spent on a large amount of new church buildings, complete with new, more modern, architecture. Now, when regular attendance at Mass is plummeting, the amount in the collection baskets is almost nothing and we have less then a eighth of the number of priests actualy needed, the Diocese goes and sells off churches. Unfortunately, its all the older churches that are sold off because the new buildings are usualy larger and the Diocese cant pay the upkeep. It is interesting though that all the older Catholic churches (and Anglican churches for that matter) get bought by the United Church of Canada (a large liberal protestant sect here that would shock even the most radical liberals elsewhere).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s the old Judas mentality,

“Why are we spending so much money to make it look nice, we could spend it on the poor”
Except it really is not a desire to spend money on the poor but a desire not to sacrifice to make the house of God beautiful.

If there is a true belief in the real presence then they would make every effort to make the Church as beautiful as possible to honor God.

If there is real belief in the real presence then the Church can look like a lecture hall, and this is the result in many places.

You can see how the atheistic belief of no real presence has resulted in a different approach to Catholicism. A disbelief in God results in a God who is expressed in seeing Him in ourselves and primarily that as that is where the belief is shifting. This results in a stressing of the Body of Christ as pretty much only the people and not in the Eucharist.

No Eucharist, means no beauty in the Church because we go there to see each other not to recieve God.

In Christ
Scylla

I agree with this. We CAN do both and the Church has historically done both: taken care of the poor and given the best to God by way of music, furnishings, vestments, chalices, patens, stained glass, etc. There is no reason why we cannot continue this.

I also, however, think that it is important to note that what I think of as being beautiful and what YOU think of as being beautiful (or what priests or bishops or popes) are not always going to agree. I went to Mass this weekend in Virginia City, Nevada, in the church where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was first offered in this state, Our Lady of the Mountains (I cannot find an interior shot of the church, but if you look on this site, the church is featured prom. on the home page: virginiacity-nv.org/)).
The exterior looks like your typical old Catholic Church, very nice, etc. The interior is, IMHO, completely overdone. Garish colors, too many statues, etc., and again, IMHO. This was a church built by miners and when they hit it big, they added a bit more. Now to lots of people, the more statues the better, as though you have to have some kind of quota to be a “real” Catholic Church." Some would gild anything that wasn’t actually breathing. I think we’ve gone too far in the direction of simplicity (some churches seem more like Quaker meeting houses), but I hope that the swing back won’t go too far (again, “too far” being a subjective opinion). I think the examples of new churches on this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=123187)
are examples that we should strive to copy. I particularly like the Anglican Use parish (which, ironically, has a lot of gilding).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

My Diocese suffered greatly from this new church architecture. During the 1960s and 70s the Diocese appeared to be doing well, so great amounts of money were spent on a large amount of new church buildings, complete with new, more modern, architecture. Now, when regular attendance at Mass is plummeting, the amount in the collection baskets is almost nothing and we have less then a eighth of the number of priests actualy needed, the Diocese goes and sells off churches. Unfortunately, its all the older churches that are sold off because the new buildings are usualy larger and the Diocese cant pay the upkeep. It is interesting though that all the older Catholic churches (and Anglican churches for that matter) get bought by the United Church of Canada (a large liberal protestant sect here that would shock even the most radical liberals elsewhere).

One sad reality is that newer buildings are usually more energy and space efficient and less costly to run. One hopes we can find a happy medium.

 

[Caesar]

I agree with this. We CAN do both and the Church has historically done both: taken care of the poor and given the best to God by way of music, furnishings, vestments, chalices, patens, stained glass, etc. There is no reason why we cannot continue this.

I also, however, think that it is important to note that what I think of as being beautiful and what YOU think of as being beautiful (or what priests or bishops or popes) are not always going to agree. I went to Mass this weekend in Virginia City, Nevada, in the church where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was first offered in this state, Our Lady of the Mountains (I cannot find an interior shot of the church, but if you look on this site, the church is featured prom. on the home page: virginiacity-nv.org/)).
The exterior looks like your typical old Catholic Church, very nice, etc. The interior is, IMHO, completely overdone. Garish colors, too many statues, etc., and again, IMHO. This was a church built by miners and when they hit it big, they added a bit more. Now to lots of people, the more statues the better, as though you have to have some kind of quota to be a “real” Catholic Church." Some would gild anything that wasn’t actually breathing. I think we’ve gone too far in the direction of simplicity (some churches seem more like Quaker meeting houses), but I hope that the swing back won’t go too far (again, “too far” being a subjective opinion). I think the examples of new churches on this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=123187)
are examples that we should strive to copy. I particularly like the Anglican Use parish (which, ironically, has a lot of gilding).

I do agree that some older churches have gone too far (and become what my mother would call “tacky”) and gilded and ornamented everything just for the hell of it (even though I love the amazing interior of the Cathedral in Ottawa, I just dont see the point of have the bell towers overlaid with silver ). Some of the most beautiful older churches I have seen are the most simplistic. I recall a quote from St. Josemaria,

You saw me celebrate the holy Mass on a plain altar— table and stone, without a reredos. Both Crucifix and candlesticks were large and solid, with wax-candles of graded height, sloping up towards the Cross. The frontal, of the liturgical colour of the day. A sweeping chasuble. The chalice, rich, simple in line, with a broad cup. No electric light, nor did we miss it.

And you found it difficult to leave the oratory: you felt at home there. — Do you see how we are led to God, brought closer to him, by the rigour of the liturgy?

Of course today my main problem is not with the churches that look like Quaker meeting halls, but the ones that are built to be the height of modern architecture- cold steel and glass and concrete.

Possibly even worse is what happened to many of the older churchs in the 70s and 80s when the style was to scrap anything even remotely Catholic so our church buildings can be multipurpose and wont alientate the protestants.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Thanks to all of you for your replies. I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t the only one who had a problem with this. From a personal standpoint, my wife and I stopped going to the church I grew up in partly because it looks like a large, modern lecture hall. Even my wife, who is a new Catholic and doesn’t always agree with all Catholic theology (I’m working on that), said she doesn’t like it a whole lot. We’ve decided to go to another church nearby that was built about 100 years ago. It is long and narrow, has the balcony for the organ and choir, tons of beautiful statues, the Tabernacle is on the altar where it belongs, and the stained glass windows are breathtaking. It’s amazing how much more I enjoy going to Mass there. Sometimes I’ll just take our two children there on a Saturday afternoon and just walk around inside, taking in all the beautiful sights.

This question keeps popping up in my mind: I truly wonder what our churches would look like if ALL OF US really gave 10% of our income to the Church. Would it make a difference? Would some churches still need bingo to keep their heads above the water if everyone gave 10%? I wonder…

This is a good question. I have to admit a lot of skepticism in regards to what our churches would look like if they had the money. That’s because I think the sterile churches were built that way on purpose, as if we can’t have anything that will distract from the congregation. I don’t think it’s been a case of, “gee, we really want great architecture and beautiful statues and stained glass and a wonderful altar but we just don’t have enough money.” It doesn’t seem as if there has been alot of struggle to make churches look Catholic whether the design is neo-classical, gothic, baroque, etc. And, as someone mentioned previously, places like the Los Angeles Cathedral cost even more because of the uneven lines involved in that piece of modern architecture.

You know the saying, “where there’s a will there’s a way.” Unfortunately, too often it can be the reverse, “where there’s not a will there’s no way.”

However, I do hope and pray the newer ordinations of more traditionally minded priests can ultimately reverse this trend. People hunger for beauty and if they can’t drink of that stream with much of the liturgy the way it is celebrated today in barren churches, they will often turn elsewhere to try to satisfy this craving.

 

[palmas85]

Pax tecum!

I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the NO, but let’s not have another thread turn into the TLM vs. NO discussion.

In Christ,
Rand

My brother you are free to disagree. But in fairness, if you check out the reasoning behind these things, as I have, you will see that what I have said is true. In fact, it is well documented. You might disagree, but it is true.

 

[Elzee]

I’ve got to add a real pet peeve of mine - what I call ‘Protestant pews’. Almost every new church I’ve seen has done away with pews that have the end-caps on them (not sure what the technical term is), and instead the ends of the pew are open. I’ve heard that this makes getting in and out of them easier, but we seemed to manage fine for hundreds of years. A minor thing, I know, but I miss this additional piece of beauty in our churches. Many of these end-caps had crosses or other symbols engraved on them and to me were a distringuishing feature of our Catholic Church architecture.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ve got to add a real pet peeve of mine - what I call ‘Protestant pews’. Almost every new church I’ve seen has done away with pews that have the end-caps on them (not sure what the technical term is), and instead the ends of the pew are open. I’ve heard that this makes getting in and out of them easier, but we seemed to manage fine for hundreds of years. A minor thing, I know, but I miss this additional piece of beauty in our churches. Many of these end-caps had crosses or other symbols engraved on them and to me were a distringuishing feature of our Catholic Church architecture.

That’s not Protestantism so much as modern. Growing up, the pews of the churches I attended had “end caps.”

 

[Jaxon]

Protestantism and modernism are intimately linked. One spawned the other and the father of lies spawned both.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Protestantism and modernism are intimately linked. One spawned the other and the father of lies spawned both.

I didn’t say “modernism.” I said “modern.” I could have as easily said “contemporary.” “Modernism” is a heresy strictly defined by the Church. Neither of “modern” nor “contemporary” is inherently wrong or bad (modern pews, for example, though I agree with Elzee, I much prefer the carved end caps).

Further, there are a great deal of misconceptions on these forums as to what Protestants (in their multitudes) believe or adhere to (I know, I grew up a Protestant). If we’re going to convince them that their misconceptions about the Catholic Church are incorrect, then it is only fair that we give up our misconceptions about them (having the fullness of truth should never lead to arrogance, but the cultivation of the sure knowledge that all we have, we have by Grace). Most protestants that I know are conservative, morally minded people who have been a great aid, in this country in particular, to fighting for conservative, moral ideas and principles.

 

[Jaxon]

I’m sure most protestants you know are fine people. Doesn’t alter the fact that their religion was founded by Satan. The deceiver. A liar and murderer from the beginning.

Unless you are claiming that God had something to do with the division in the Mystical Body which has continued for 500+ years now.

Modernism is very much reflected in modern architecture. Both religious and secular.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m sure most protestants you know are fine people. Doesn’t alter the fact that their religion was founded by Satan. The deceiver. A liar and murderer from the beginning.

Unless you are claiming that God had something to do with the division in the Mystical Body which has continued for 500+ years now.

Modernism is very much reflected in modern architecture. Both religious and secular.

Back up, this isn’t about Protestantism. I simply said that no end caps in churches was not Protestant, it was “modern.” Substitute “contemporary,” if it settles your panic.

As for paragraph #2 of your post, you’re six posts into your membership and you’ve decided to embrace bellicosity and belligerence? Grow up.

 

[Jaxon]

My apologies. Written comments don’t translate the same as teh spoken word, which i’m often reminded of.

I was, however, just asking a question.

And it’s all tied together, in my opinion. “Contemporary” is a red flag as far as i’m concerned.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

My apologies. Written comments don’t translate the same as teh spoken word, which i’m often reminded of.

I was, however, just asking a question.

And it’s all tied together, in my opinion. “Contemporary” is a red flag as far as i’m concerned.

Look, I’m no fan of contemporary. But “modernism” gets tossed around a great deal on these forums without a real understanding of what it is. It’s a heresy that the Church has defined very specifically, not a piece of furniture. And everything has been “modern” or “contemporary” at some point, ie, there was a first Byzantine building, a first Romanesque, a first Gothic, etc. Modern doesn’t mean unorthodox, though “modernism” certainly does.